Thursday, June 22, 2006

National Education Association Set to Endorse Homosexual Marriage in Public Schools

The National Education Association is set to endorse homosexual marriage at their convention coming up in Orlando June 29 through July 6.

The new NEA proposal essentially says schools should support and actively promote homosexual marriage and other forms of marriage (two men and one woman, three women, two women and three men, etc.) in their local schools.
The new proposal, expected to pass overwhelmingly, is found under the B-8 Diversity paragraph:
The Association... believes in the importance of observances, programs and curricula that accurately portray and recognize the roles, contributions, cultures, and history of these diverse groups and individuals.
The Association believes that legal rights and responsibilities with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption, legal immigration, domestic partnerships, and civil unions and/or marriage belong to all these diverse groups and individuals.
Translated, that means the NEA will promote homosexual marriage in every avenue they have available, including textbooks, to all children at all age levels and without the permission or knowledge of parents. Their plans will include every public school in America.

Take Action

  • First, please forward this to all parents with children in public schools. They need to be aware of the plans the NEA has to indoctrinate their children with their pro-homosexual, homosexual marriage agenda.
  • Please forward this to public school teachers you know so they can be aware of the NEA's plans. In fact, their membership dues will be used to help implement the new NEA plan.
  • AFA encourages teachers who do not approve of their dues going to the NEA to find an alternative teacher's group to help them retain their benefits. Teachers might want to give the CEAI home page a look or find another alternative in their state.

"Final Action" on Marriage Amendment is Every Legislator's Constitutional Duty

Media reports-including statements by House Majority Leader John Rogers-imply that "killing" the Protection of Marriage Amendment (Constitutional Convention Calendar Item #20) through "procedural maneuvers" is constitutional. In fact, it is not.

The Massachusetts Constitution makes it clear and several Supreme Judicial Court decisions affirm that "final action" is required on qualified initiative petition such as the Protection of Marriage Amendment. Only a full, fair, up or down vote qualifies as "final action" for an amendment. Be sure your legislators uphold their duty to vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment.
This message must get through to them, so they know what is required by their oath of office.
Tell your Legislators: You have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. That oath includes your duty to take final action on the Protection of Marriage Amendment.
Section two of Article 48 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth provides that qualified initiative petitions "shall" be presented to a joint session [constitutional convention]. That same Article calls for "final legislative action" on such qualified petitions.
As long ago as 1935 and as recently as 2002, the, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has affirmed this provision.
In 1935, the SJC stated that the initiative of Article 48 is imperative, and declared that the joint session "must take final action." The Court stated, "The mandate is that the joint session shall continue from time to time until final action is taken." Opinion of the Justices to the Senate and the House of Representatives, 291 Mass 578, 586 (1935).
In 2002, the SJC confirmed that a joint session "must act on the proposed amendments" by the end of the current term. The Court declared that the joint session 7/17/02 adjournment vote was not final action. Opinion of the Justices to the Acting Governor, SJC-08916 (December 20, 2002).

Monday, June 19, 2006

Daily Show - Jon Stewart vs. Bill Bennett Jon Stewart has seemed to have forgotten that many homosexuals have indeed married members of the opposite sex, and no homosexual has ever charged any state or federal government with barring him or her from marrying because of their own sexual preference. It has never happened until now. The state is blind to such matters of personal orientations.

There are some very basic legal parameters as to who any of us can marry, and they apply equally to ALL of us. This satisfies the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Traditionally, when any of us seeks a marriage license, we
1. can’t already be married 2. must be an adult and must marry an adult 3. can’t marry a close family member 4. MUST marry someone of the opposite sex
Now if two people meeting all these criteria go to city hall to get a marriage license, and the clerk asks whether either are homosexual and denies them a marriage license based on an affirmative answer, that would be discriminatory. Current law does not keep homosexual individuals from marrying. It just keeps them – as well as heterosexuals – from redefining marriage by marrying a person of the same sex. Our current marriage laws treat everyone equally.
This debate is not about equality or access to marriage; it’s about redefining marriage, making it something it has never been before in any human society.
If others can marry someone of the opposite sex what will stop others from not trying to legalize (1) marrying many people at once - (2) marrying a person who is not an ‘adult’ or (3) marrying a close family member?
What will stop others from NOT doing this? Can anyone give me a legitimate answer? The destruction of marriage and family is beginning from the bottom up, literally in terms of the above list.
Do not give me answers of how tribes or other ethnicities have done this in the past, blah, blah, blah. That is all irrelevant to what I am asking.

Monday, June 12, 2006

Message from Vote On

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Radio Campaign Urges Citizens to Contact Legislators and Secure their Right to Vote on Marriage Airing on news/talk stations statewide
The campaign to allow voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts - announces the launch of a radio advertising campaign that began June 12 on news and talk stations statewide.
The spots inform citizens that some Beacon Hill lawmakers want to kill the Protection of Marriage Amendment, and therefore the people's right to vote on the definition of marriage, when for a legislative vote on July 12.
"We know that 75% of Massachusetts voters believe they, not the courts, should decide on marriage," said Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute and spokesman for "But some lawmakers think they know better than the vast majority of the voters they represent, and are threatening to block a vote using parliamentary procedures which amount to nothing more than dirty politics."
Over 170,000 citizens across the state signed petitions last fall for the right to vote on marriage-the largest number of petition signatures collected in state history. The Protection of Marriage Amendment is now before Beacon Hill where 50 votes are needed this year and next year. If successful, the Amendment will go before the voters in 2008.
The radio campaign calls on the citizens of Massachusetts contact their legislators to support the Protection of Marriage Amendment during the July 12 Constitutional Convention.
Here is a sample of the ads:
Radio Spot A - CLICK HERE
Radio Spot B & C - CLICK HERE
In addition to the radio campaign, a newspaper campaign is planned for launch later this month.

Round Two...Ding

I have been having some interesting conversations regarding the benefits that same-sex marriage will have on human society with those at Know Thy

My most recent conversation regarding the question of why Tom Lang, Director of Know Thy Neighbor (KTN), posted the names of those who signed the traditional marriage amendment last Fall was answered with not one word coming from Tom.
His inability to answer the question led me to the conclusion that KTN is a website thats sole purpose is non-other than to intimidate and harass those who wish to engage in democracy and affiliate themselves with a cause. This of course is a violation of one's civil rights here in Massachusetts and elsewhere.
More to come with what "progress" KTN is making across the U.S. in regards to intimidating Florida residents who are now collecting signatures to put the question of traditional marriage before the voters in 2008.
Now, to the thread of my second question of how same-sex marriage can exsist in our human society.
There was some confusion with a statement that I mentioned on KTN and in which caused confusion with a John and a Christopher:
Christopher and John,
I will make myself clearer with my statement of:
“Not one society on this planet has existed based on a homosexual culture.”
Even if you have an evolutionary, naturalistic worldview, marriage has been the universal and most efficient creator of a healthy next generation, which is why it is the norm in all human civilizations. It works best for producing and raising the next (healthy) generation of humanity.
Successful evolution would seem to demand that we shouldn’t stray from heterosexual bonding. Again, no person who claims to be homosexual came into this world as a result of homosexual coupling. Since a homosexual couple cannot pass on their genes together, homosexuality disqualifies itself as a mechanism for facilitating evolutionary human progress.
So yes Christopher, you had it right with your first inclination of:
“If you mean that a homosexual culture would not be able to last long because of reproduction, then you might possibly be right.”
I am not focusing on the ACCEPTANCE factor of homosexuality in any culture. I am focusing on that there is not one human society, advanced or primitive, civilized or uncivilized, where homosexual marriage has existed as a normative part of family.
Yes, we see great diversity in the ways different cultures do family as you are pointing out. This, I agree with. From the family that lives in a brownstone in Manhattan to those that live in the jungles of New Guinea. But for all the diversity we see, it isn’t as diverse as you might think. The main differences among families around the world are (1) number of partners in the marriage and (2) division of labor between male and female. (Edward Westermarck, The History of Human Marriage).
If you spun a globe and randomly stabbed your finger down on any inhabited landmass and went there to observe its family model at any time in history, you would find that they do marriage as a heterosexual union between man and women. You would never find one that didn’t. There may be other differences, but the nature of marriage bringing male and female together is constant and universal.
I am not arguing with you if homosexuality is right or wrong. Homosexuals can do whatever they want to do, but when you start redefining the institution of marriage that has existed even before any government or religion has ever existed for the purposes as explained above than people are going to defend what works. Society does not want to try to reinvent the wheel for a small subgroup of people who are screaming for employment benefits and equal rights.
Go elsewhere for these things, do not try and become equal with an institution that does not progress or work with the homosexual behavior.

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Where is my answer, and why the hostility?

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting I tried to get a response from Tom Lang, Director of Know Thy Neighbor, I stumbled upon his friends on the site who "answered" my question for him...well in a hostile way that is. To read the first part of the interview with Tom Lang click here, otherwise read on:

The first response was given by Lula:

"If I were Tom I wouldn't respond to your post either. But, here goes my two cents.

There is no point in continuing a dialogue with someone who is expressly present to intimidate and to harass, as you have been, and who has made it perfectly clear there will be no change of opinion where he/she is concerned. You and your pious posse are here for one reason and one reason only: to put gays in their place.

KTN(Know Thy is a self-defense site, as I see it...

A place where those who have contempt for gays and lesbians, those who would happily, callously marginalize gays and lesbians, can discover one thing: that gays and lesbians will no longer accept the silent closet and societal abuse and disregard. There WILL be a price to pay for your attempts to demean and devalue the lives and loves of others unlike your perfect, sinless selves...and that price will be this: your bigotry and desire to keep others down will be as out of the closet as our "aint goin back in" lives.


No hate group here.

Just a fierce determination to never allow people like you to make our lives, our spirits, our very existence inferior to yours EVER AGAIN.

As for your feeling you have been treated with hostility, well, my dear, you tell people they are inferior at the very core of their being, and yes, honey, you're going to be on the receiving end of hostility.

Get your head out of your...sand."

And my response:

Lula,you said:
"There is no point in continuing a dialogue with someone who is expressly present to intimidate and to harass, as you have been, and who has made it perfectly clear there will be no change of opinion where he/she is concerned."
Mark and I are simply trying to know why KTN posted the names of the marriage amendment signers if not to intimidate potential signers as would a hate group do.
I am not sure how engaging in a debate about asking a question about the purpose of KTN is harassment.
What makes you think that I will not change my mind about the purpose of KTN, I have not even heard an answer yet.
You said:
"KTN is a self-defense site, as I see it..."
Again, I am asking a question, 'self-defend' your position because otherwise there is no purpose behind KTN.
You said:
"No hate group here."
But yet in the second to last paragraph you say "...and yes, honey, you're going to be on the receiving end of hostility."
This does not balance out, can you explain yourself without taking such an emotional stance?

Click here to read the rest, I have given up on receiving an answer.

"Safe" Crystal Meth?

This is one of the cohersively indoctrinative ways that the Gay Pride Parade tried to impose their agenda onto society this weekend. For more disturbing pictures like these please visit Here.

I am not sure how this benefits society in any way. Can someone step up to the plate and provide me with irrefutable facts to back an argument up that what the gay pride event is doing is beneficial to our culture?

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Just hours ago, the Senate rejected the Marriage Protection Amendment by a vote of 49-48--falling 11 votes short of the required 60 needed to send the matter for an up-or-down tally.

Despite the loss, Senate Majority Leader Bill Fristremained hopeful, and vowed to keep trying.
Senator David Vitter (R-LA) was also hopeful saying,"We are building votes. That's often what is required over several years to get there."
We must not stop shouting!! This will take time, don't give up. Keep the pressure on your legislatures about this issue.
Massachusetts will make history come July 12th at the Constitutional Convention when our marriage amendment comes up for a vote.
Let's leave it up to Massachusetts to set a precedent for the rest of the country.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Why we need a constitutional amendment - by Chuck Colson

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Today Mark Earley and I will be at the White House, meeting with PresidentBush and leaders of the pro-family movement. The president will then speakto the nation in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment. Thank God we have a president who supports this. I have discussed it with him severaltimes, and I can tell you that he understands fully the social, cultural,and legal reasons why amending the Constitution is the only way to protect marriage.
Unfortunately, a lot of politicians don't get it. They argue that we do notneed a marriage amendment. If we want to keep marriage between one man andone woman-which they say they do-then all we have to do is pass state referenda. Nineteen states have already done so. So amending the U.S.Constitution is unnecessary.
Well, these politicians apparently do not understand the inexorable logic ofa series of cases that make it virtually certain that when state statutes barring gay "marriage" reach the Supreme Court, they will be struck down.Other politicians understand all too well, and when they claim that we donot need a marriage amendment, they are being disingenuous.
Let me explain the precedents that make it inevitable that the Court willuphold gay "marriage." In the 1992 case Casey v. Planned Parenthood, JusticeKennedy affirmed the right of abortion with a sweeping definition of liberty as the right of a person to determine for himself the meaning of life.
Many feared this definition could embrace anything. Soon enough, it did.
In 1995 the Court struck down a democratically enacted state referendum in Colorado denying special civil rights based on sexual orientation. Kennedywrote the opinion, Romer v. Evans, saying the vote of the peopledemonstrated "animus," that is, bigotry, against homosexuals.
Then in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas lawbanning sodomy. Again Justice Kennedy, who could have used a very simpleFourteenth Amendment guarantee argument, resorted instead to his holding in Casey and in Romer v. Evans. By legislating against homosexual behavior, thestate was guilty of bigotry or prejudice.
Justice Scalia delivered a blistering dissent. "Today's opinion," he said,"dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted thedistinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions . . . " Hewent on to charge that the case meant the end to the possibility of all legislation concerning morality.
Now, what all of this means is that the Supreme Court, following its ownprecedents, will declare any law restricting the right of homosexuals tomarry unconstitutional. The die is cast. An appeal is already coming up from a Nebraska case in which a judge threw out a statute banning gay "marriage"as unconstitutional. Within two years this will be at the Supreme Court, andthe axe will fall.
Just as with Roe v. Wade, the Court will take away the states' rights to legislate.
The time to act is now. Don't let politicians deceive you and tell you thisis a state issue. The Supreme Court has already closed the door on that. TheMarriage Protection Amendment is coming up for a vote tomorrow or the next day. Call your senators right now. Tell them this is the time to vote toprotect the most important institution in American life.
Chuck Colson is founder and chairman of BreakPoint Online, a Townhall.compartner.

Monday, June 05, 2006

Question: How does same-sex marriage harm our understanding of humanity?

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

I had a debate about this question as I was discussing same-sex marriage with my co-workers last Friday afternoon. Although the discussion was mainly about the slippery slope of introducing same-sex marriages into society in general, the question of how it can harm humanity was brought up. Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier can best answer this question. They both co-authored the book Marriage On Trial: The Case Against Same-sex Marriage and Parenting.
Answer: (Same-sex marriages can harm our understanding of humanity) in some very profound and harmful ways.
Wife and husband become mere words we use to describe people in a relationship. They lose any vital meaning. In fact, marriage license clerks in Massachusetts have been instructed to start referring to people getting married as “Party A” and “Party B”. Thus the deep meaning of husband and wife are evacuated. With “Party A, you may now kiss Party B,” our sons and daughters will miss the fact that men and women are uniquely completed and fulfilled when they love and commit to the “otherness” of male and female in marriage.
Mother and father become merely androgynous people engaged in the act of caring for kids. Mother and father become mere sentimental words used to address parents-not something special that men and women, as parents, are. Any apparent differences become merely superficial and of no practical consequence. In fact, saying children need mothers and fathers could become hate speech because it indicts same-sex families.
The terms male and female are emptied of significance. We exchange our appreciation of humanity, understood as the treasures of being male and female, for a “Mr. Potato Head” theory of humanity (same shell, interchangeable parts!). The same-sex marriage proposition cannot tolerate any necessary, fundamental differences between the genders. If there were necessary differences, male and female would need each other and every same-sex family would be humanly incomplete. Gender in a society that accepts same-sex marriage can only refer to meaningless, impersonal, interchangeable parts. A socially equal-and not just tolerated-same-sex marriage does damage at a very fundamental level. In fact, granting moral equality to even one same-sex marriage diminishes all of us at the very core of our humanity.
The significance of gender is demolished by the essence of same-sex marriage. Once it is made morally equal to natural marriage it will diminish the femininity of every woman. There will be minimal differences of men and women left over, and they are purely physiological. A woman’s surrogate womb becomes the only part of femininity that is needed to create a male same-sex family. A woman is reduced to a womb and its practical function, and this is a horrible message to send to women and girls. Reducing gender to physiology is, well, dehumanizing.
Similarly, one lesbian same-sex marriage-once it is seen as morally equal to natural marriage-will diminish the masculinity of every man, for the only thing important about manhood will be sperm. This is a bad message to send to men and boys. They are reduced to being impersonal parts,things, not persons. Both views are deeply antihuman because they are deeply anti-male and –female.
This turn in our understanding of gender will create far more-rather than less-confusion with us as individuals and dissension among us in our relationships with others; it will not allow us to be true to our respective genders-who we really are! Same-sex marriage deconstructs our humanity as expressed in our masculinity and femininity. Masculinity and femininity become morally, personally and interpersonally meaningless.
Introducing same-sex marriages into our society is social suicide dressed up as a civil right. How will society benefit from such a radical redefinition of the institute of marriage? It will lead to “love” as being the ONLY reason to marry someone. Will that in turn make it legal to “marry” your mother or father or your sister or brother?
Why do we need to open the door to other kinds of relationships in order to please the homosexual community? Homosexuals are depending on the heterosexual community to protect them because heterosexuals feel that the gay community is being attacked and are therefore the “minority”. Why should we declassify a subgroup of people in order to make them a part of a minority group? When will this minority group become the majority and therefore redefine what a family is as is best explained by a comment by Michelangelo Signorile, an outright gay activist:
(Same-sex marriage offers)… “a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture…” Michelangelo Signorile, “I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO,” OUT, May 1996, pp. 30, 32.

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Get your Free Guestbook from