Sunday, February 19, 2006


David Parker objected to a book given to his young 5 year-old son at school that included portrayals of same-sex families. Mr. Parker is in the front lines when it comes to making sure his son, and other children, are being educated and not indoctrinated in the school house. Mr. Parker of Lexington, MA was arrested on April 27th of last year over concerns over a classroom book called "Who's in a Family". The Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington said the book was to educate students about alternative family lifestyles including ones that are headed by same-sex partners. The Lexington school district said the book was to promote diversity and Mr. Parker is saying it is promoting indoctrination.

Mr. Parker is in the center of this fight within the Lexington school system as well as a controversial bill being proposed in the Massachusetts Legislature. The Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Education Framework, or bill H1641, will make health education a graduation requirement that will teach a wide range of "health" issues including defining different types of sexual orientations as well as describing different types of families such as same-sex households.
I am not sure why there needs to be a state mandated law that says that in order to graduate from high school, students, including K-5, need to learn about homosexuality and possibly transgenderism. How the fact that homosexuals die much earlier than heterosexuals and have significantly higher rates of suicide, rectal cancer, liver cancer, HIV, and other infectious diseases than heterosexuals is educational is beyond me. Sex education is entirely different. These classes teach students how to prevent STD's, not advocate them. Students sit through health education classes to learn that they came from their biological mommy and daddies and not from a same-sex couple.
So I ask another question: What is the purpose of teaching children about homosexuality and transgenderism? I do believe the gay community needs more rights in order to live a more fulfilling life with their partners. On the other hand, it is wrong to teach children how they can lead a life that is considered unnatural by society. There is not one human society, advanced or primitive, civilized or uncivilized, where homosexual relationships, including same-sex "marriages", has existed as a normative part of family life. What is it about marriage that interests same-sex partners besides the sharing of benefits at a place of employment? Is this truly an issue of equality or do we as a society need to meet the gay community in the middle when it comes to rights? Would this community accept more rights and then agree to stop trying to eliminate traditional marriage as we know it? What do we need to do to make both sides comfortable?

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Diversity or D-A-N-G-E-R-O-U-S?

I came across this interesting article from Citizen Magazine and wished to share it with you. After reading the article the first question that came to my mind, as would obviously come to others, was what is the percent of transsexuals who actually are 100% not interested in the opposite biological sex when doing their duty in the opposite sexs' bathroom? Why are companies allowing this to happen considering the great possibility of a rape to occur? This needs to stop. Enough already with the radical gay agenda. Now it is starting to get very dangerous.

Traditional Marriage Petition Signing Intimidation?

If you signed the petition to protect traditional marriage this past Fall and have been intimidated in any way please go to Vote on Marriages website and file a complaint with the Attorney General's Office. You, as a voter are protected under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA). Your right to vote or associate yourself with a cause is protected under law. Do not be intimidated by the radical homosexual movement. Stand up for your rights and put to rest these unwanted and childish scare tactics.

Friday, February 17, 2006

A Short History

In 2001, concerned citizens of Massachusetts collected 130,000 signatures backing a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Yet then-Senate President Tom Birmingham closed the 2002 constitutional convention without allowing a vote to put the amendment on the statewide ballot. This was the first instance where the people of the Commonwealth were not able to voice their vote on such a vital cultural issue.
In November of 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court, by a vote of 4-3, with Justice Margaret Marshall, author of the ruling mandating same-sex marriage, as the tie breaking vote, ruled in Goodridge v. Dep't of Public Health that same-sex couples can obtain marriage licenses, starting in May of 2004. This marked the second time the people of the Commonwealth were denied a chance to voice their vote on their cultural values.
Rep. Phil Travis (D-Rehoboth) filed the Marriage Affirmation & Protection Amendment late in 2003. During the 2004 constitutional convention, the Legislature hijacked Rep. Travis's amendment, adding a requirement creating same-sex civil unions equal to marriage. This version, the Travaglini-Lees Amendment, was given initial approval by a vote of 105-92, with many legislators supporting it as a last ditch effort to delay the implementation of the SJC ruling. As expected state legislators overwhelmingly voted down the proposed Travaglini-Lees amendment by a vote of 157-39 at the Constitutional Convention on Sept. 14. Though originally proposed as a compromise measure, the Travaglini-Lees amendment failed to satisfy either gay-rights or traditional marriage supporters.
Despite legal appeals, the Goodridge ruling was not delayed, and the state started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on May 17, 2004.
After extensive planning and careful research, was created and a new amendment was announced in June of 2005. On December 7th, 2005 announced the completion of the most successful ballot initiative campaign in Massachusetts history with the collection of 170,000 signatures. After Secretary Galvin certified 123,000 plus signatures, the new amendment must now receive 50 votes in two successive legislatures beginning this May before being placed on the ballot in the fall of 2008.

The people of the Commonwealth were twice denied a right to vote on traditional marriage. Once by then-Senate President Birmingham in 2001 and by Justice Marshall in 2003. I begin this debate by asking a question of what is so wrong with having voters voicing their vote on this issue? What are proponets of same-sex marriage so scared of?

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Get your Free Guestbook from