Saturday, July 29, 2006

Pro-Homosexual Push Commonplace in Schools Coast to Coast

Homosexual Activists Transforming Public Schools Into Propaganda Factories

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto!" was Dorothy's famous line in The Wizard of Oz. It has become a classic, meant to convey the bewilderment of a person who suddenly realizes he's in a strange world and wonders how he got there.

For many parents in Massachusetts, California, and elsewhere in the U.S., the truth is beginning to dawn on them: They aren't living in Kansas anymore. Public education is being used to brainwash thousands of children -- even as young as kindergarten -- into believing that homosexuality is simply a normal and healthy variation of human sexuality.
To be sure, when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, Massachusetts and California have been East Coast-West Coast thoroughbreds that seem to be racing each other for the honor of wackiest state in the country.
Massachusetts got off to an early lead, where activists have had nearly carte blanche since the early 1990s. Thus, at John Glenn Middle School in Bedford, for example, pink triangles adorn classroom doors, and a rainbow flag flies over the school during "gay pride" festivities. In Newton, parents discovered that first-grade teacher David Gaita had "come out" to his students and told them he was homosexual and loved men "the way your mom and dad love each other." And in Brookline, MA lesbian eighth-grade teacher Deb Allen told National Public Radio that she explicitly teaches her students about lesbian sex, including the use of sex toys.
Meanwhile, in California, activists have been busily trying to turn that state's public school system into a re-education camp that would make Fidel Castro proud. According to the Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a California-based pro-family group, the state may soon pass and implement three separate bills -- SB 1437, AB 606 and AB 1506 -- which would have a staggering impact on what public schools teach children.
CCF said that the combination of the three measures would force all California public schools to promote homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to schoolchildren as young as kindergarten; require textbooks to promote these lifestyles; prohibit schools from sponsoring traditional school activities, such as school proms that vote for a boy-girl couple as prom "king" and "queen," or sports teams that "discriminate" against transgendered kids; and prohibit public schools from teaching that there is a natural family -- that is, a father, a mother and their children.
Court-Ordered Indoctrination
However, children don't have to live in California or Massachusetts to encounter the indoctrination process. In April, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual pressure group, sponsored its 10th annual "Day of Silence," a nationwide school-based protest. Nearly 4,500 schools participated, according to GLSEN. In order to promote the homosexual lifestyle, more than 450,000 kids refused to speak a single word during the school day, often with the approval of school administrators and teachers.
In Wisconsin a group called Students for Unity used the Day of Silence to distribute a questionnaire at Port Washington High School. According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, hundreds of students answered questions like, "If you have never slept with someone of your same gender, then how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?" and "Could it be that your heterosexuality is just a phase?"
Two teachers approved of the distribution of the questionnaire in their classes and followed up with discussions, said LifeSiteNews, even though parents were not informed about it beforehand.
Meanwhile, at Boyd County High School in Kentucky, students in Ann Qualls' English class were required to watch the first 15-20 minutes of Brokeback Mountain, a recent film about two homosexual sheepherders. While none of the movie's explicit sex scene was shown, the entire class was spent on the film -- again without the knowledge or approval of parents.
Boyd County is well known by pro-family groups for another reason: All students and faculty in Boyd County schools are under a court order to attend diversity sessions that normalize homosexuality.
The court order stems from an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit filed against the school district three years ago, after the high school refused to allow the formation of a student homosexual-rights group on campus. Boyd County lost the suit, and in 2004 agreed to a settlement that included mandatory diversity sessions for faculty and students.
Training for students included a video stating that if one student speaks out against homosexuality to a gay student -- that is considered harassment. The offending student would be punished.
Some parents were angered by the agreement, and sued the school, demanding that their children be allowed to opt out of the training. In February, however, U.S. District Judge David Bunning ruled that all students and faculty must undergo the mandatory sensitivity training in order to make the schools safe for homosexual kids.
"Students have no religious or free-speech rights to opt-out of school training aimed at stopping anti-gay harassment in Boyd County schools," Bunning said. The judge added that anti-harassment training that deals with "actual or perceived sexual orientation" was "rationally related to a legitimate educational goal, namely to maintain a safe environment."
Making Schools Safer?
Homosexual activists have insisted for years that things like diversity training and gay pride events are necessary to prevent the harassment of kids who identify themselves as homosexual. This "safer schools" mantra carries emotional weight because most adults would probably agree that all students should feel safe in school.
In order to promote safety, however, activists often demand that schools indoctrinate students so that they accept homosexuality as normal. Following Bunning's ruling in February, for example, Sharon McGowan of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project swept aside suggestions that Boyd County could make schools safe without the mandatory diversity training sessions.
"Just telling students not to pick on others because of their sexual orientation or gender identity doesn't force them to change their beliefs, and the judge agreed with us about that," McGowan said. (emphasis added)
It is this type of agenda -- forcing students to change their beliefs about homosexuality -- that makes parents squeamish about groups like GLSEN.
But even if students don't end up altering their views about sexuality, the potential for confusion among children is startling. In New Jersey, for example, a school board decided that Eagleswood Township Elementary in West Creek could continue to use 71-year-old Lily McBeth as a substitute teacher -- even though he had undergone a sex change.
Parents who were both for and against rehiring McBeth spoke during an emotionally charged school board meeting in February, but in the end the board said his sex change did not affect his ability to teach children.
One worried parent, however, said: "Show me the research that says this will not affect my children. I will not allow my children to be placed in a petri dish and hope that it turns out fine."

Unlike Dorothy, though, parents in New Jersey and elsewhere don't have magic slippers to safely whisk their children back to Kansas. And, as it turns out, Kansas isn't so normal anymore, either.

News from the American Family Association Journal

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Let Democracy Work

The state of Washington upheld a ban on gay "marriage" today in a 5-4 decision. The full article appears in today's Washington Times.

I think Justice James Johnson hit the 'bottom line' on the head when he said:
The Legislature had "a compelling governmental interest in preserving the institution of marriage, as well as the healthy families and children it promotes. This conclusion may not be changed by mere passage of time or currents of public favor and surely not changed by courts."
The issue of the definition of marriage is up to the people that make up our society in which our government represents and whom makes laws that are for the people and by the people.
Our federal and state constitutions are alive and should not be dictated by the black robes of our courts or by a small sub-group of people.

Saturday, July 22, 2006

What is a Marriage?

I have been having a conversation between myself and "John" on my site here. Below is some of that dialog regarding the human condition of homosexual behavior and what marriage means.

John, you said:
"If you look throughout history you can find homosexuality in every country throughout time. It does not need to be proven as genetic to be a part of the human condition."
Definition of the human condition:
The human condition encompasses the totality of the experience of being human and living human lives. As mortal entities, there are a series of biologically determined events which are common to most human lives, and some which are inevitable for all. The ongoing way in which humans react to or cope with these events is the human condition. However, understanding the precise nature and scope of what is meant by the human condition is itself a philosophical problem.
If you want to live you’re chosen lifestyle in a philosophical bubble that is up to you. I, on the other hand, am going to live a lifestyle that works because it is what is MEANT to be not what I can philosophically argue for.
John, you said:
"That's the thing though. You are not a part of my marriage, its private between Ray and I."
If marriage were truly a private affair, which it is not, then same-sex marriages would have little impact on anyone's family. But marriage is just as much about the community as it is about the individuals, perhaps even more so. That's why marriages are public ceremonies, whether in churches or before civil authorities, and are regulated by laws. Marriage is a societal agreement.
No marriage is an island. Every marriage touches the community as a universally human community norm - a rule embraced by society for who we conduct ourselves sexually and domestically, and what we provide for children to meet their developmental needs. And every society must have a norm for what it expects and what it will NOT allow. Marriage is that social norm for the family. As humans, we are all connected and our decisions and actions - both public and private - DO affect other people, even if it is indirect and not always evident. There are no truly private marriages.

Friday, July 14, 2006

Nebraska's 'Too Broad' Marriage Amendment Ruled Constitutional

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingTraditional Marriage advocates won another major fight this week as a federal court of appeals in Nebraska overturned a previous ruling that a referendum to the constitution banning same-sex "marriages" was unconstitutional.

Seventy percent of Nebraska voters approved the constitutional amendment in 2000. That amendment reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."
Tennessee also joined the ranks today when that state's Supreme Court ruled that voters in the Volunteer State would be allowed to vote on a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, says his Orlando-based legal group is pleased with the ruling in Nebraska. Mr. Staver said the ruling by Nebraska's court of appeals stops "the latest attempt by the homosexual agenda to radically redefine" the culture.
I think Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the Center for Law & Policy, said it best when he said:
"[T]he early success of homosexuals using the courts to force their radical agenda on an unwilling nation appears to be turning on them. Government by the people is always preferable to government by the judiciary."
Good week for proponents of traditional marriage as New York, Georgia, and now Nebraska and Tennessee saw justice as the people's vote stood and democracy prevailed. As for Massachusetts, well the people are getting fed up with their legislatures inability to represent them and many, in my opinion, are either going to have to listen to their constituents and let them vote on marriage or find another job after the November elections.

How They Voted

This is how Massachusetts State Legislatures voted on the issue of delaying the Constitutional Convention until November 9th, 2006 at 1pm.

Call and thank those who did not support a recess to the convention and express your disappointment to those officials who did.
Visit Mass.Gov to see who your state representative and senator are and visit their respective websites under the "State Government" link.
Use the following script when calling:
“My name is _____ and I live at [home address]. I am calling to urge [Rep. _____ OR Sen. _____] to support the marriage amendment on November 9th. The citizens of Massachusetts deserve the right to make this important decision."
If the official voted NO:
"I also want to THANK [Rep. ___ or Sen. ___] for voting against recessing the convention on July 12th. I was pleased to see that vote cast in favor of the democratic process. Thank you."
If the official voted YES:
"I also want to express my disappointment that [Rep. ___ OR Sen. ___] voted to recess the convention and duck this issue until after the November elections. This is a subversion of democracy, and the people won't stand for it. Do NOT do this again at the constitutional convention in November. Thank you."

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Time and Dirty Tricks is All They Have

Massachusetts Lawmakers once again did not listen to their district constituents and bowed down to gay rights pressure and voted to delay the Constitutional Convention until November 9th, 2006 at 1pm.

As I was standing in line today to enter the House Gallery doors into the convention, I had a great feeling of pride. When I heard from the Gallery's Sergeant at Arms that the convention would most likely be recessed until November, I felt the dirty tricks being played out.
I sat through four hours of debate on some interesting constitutional amendments, including the trashing of the health care referendum that was sent to "study", A.K.A Rest In Peace to the initiative.
To those legislatures who fought so hard for the marriage amendment to be voted upon today, especially Representative MARIE J. PARENTE and PHILIP TRAVIS I thank you and your districts thank you. Rep. Parente went up to the speaking podium in the middle of the convention and asked that her fellow colleagues vote on the amendments of the day, TODAY, and not perform any dirty tricks in which were eventually played out. To you Rep. Parente, I solute you for your willingness to speak out for the people.
As for the other legislatures who voted in support to not delay the convention, thank-you! I will be posting how each and every state official voted on the delay vote when I receive the information.
Two legislative officials whom I was shocked to see "cheerleading" the delay process was Representative BRIAN S. DEMPSEY along with Senator STEVEN A. BADDOUR both whose districts are in the Essex County area. These two officials need to be called and e-mailed because they need to understand that the marriage amendment at hand does NOT involve civil unions and the people of the Commonwealth did everything legal when they conducted the petition drive last Fall and deserve a RIGHT to vote on the issue.
November 9th, two days after Election Day, is around the corner but the golf courses are even closer for some legislatures whose time is up in office and need to here from you now concerning your distaste in their actions today.
Vote out those who will not LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!

Monday, July 10, 2006

Supreme Judicial Court Rules Ballot Initiative is Constitutional

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled early this morning that the citizen initiated petition to define marriage as that being solely between a man and a women is constitutional and does not seek to reverse a ruling by the SJC that legalized same-sex "marriages".
This ruling was one that many legislatures were waiting upon to help them decide how they are going to sway their vote this upcoming Wednesday at the Constitutional Convention when the Protection of Marriage Amendment goes up for an up or down vote. The Legislature needs to approve the amendment by 50 votes this year and then again during the 2007-2008 Constitutional Convention in order for the question to be placed upon the ballot in the year 2008.
I think Ray Flynn, former mayor of Boston said it best:
"The people's right to vote has always been a cherished principle of our democracy"
The bottom line issue here is the radical homosexual community that is for the continued legalization of same-sex "marriages" is afraid of the people's vote. They are afraid because they know that they have an uphill battle when 40% of the country currently has defeated same-sex "marriages" at the ballot box so far.
On the other hand it is ironic that the same judicial system that legalized same-sex "marriages" back in 2004 has now called the amendment to preserve traditional marriage constitutional. It will be interesting to see how this plays out on Wednesday with our state officials.
By the by, did you really think the radical homosexual community really had a case saying that the petition initiative was trying to reverse the 2004 SJC ruling? The only thing I get out of them sticking to their guns with this case is that they had a lot of supporters in favor of their position to continue the legalization of gay "marriage" so they kept at it and it had nothing to do with them winning this case against Reilly. How this support will affect the vote will be interesting. I will keep you all up to date as soon as I step out of the House Gallery on Wednesday afternoon.

Friday, July 07, 2006

Two More "W's" in the Win Column for Traditional Marriage

Two key battles to preserve traditional marriage are over in New York and Georgia with proponets of traditional marriage giving off a sigh of relief.

New York, which was among many states fighting for a decision in the high courts about the constitutionality of traditional marriage, became another state in this country to uphold and keep a law in the books that defines marriage as the sole union between one man and one women.
Georgia, where 75% of the voters in the state voted against same-sex "marriages" in 2004, to then have the high courts in the state call the vote unconstitutional, is also at ease today. Georgia's State Supreme Court ruled that the vote by the people was not uncontitutional and reinstated the voter's decision.
I have asked a question on a previous post of mine and think it would be a good time to have others join in on the debate either here or on the previous post. Here is my question:
What solution is out there that would please both sides on the issue of marriage/rights? What do we as a society need to do to A) Keep the definition of marriage as it has been, as that of a union between one man and one woman and B) Give homosexual relationships more privileges/rights and respect as a committed couple should have no matter what sexual orientation they are made of?

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

State Rep. Festa and a slap on the wrist for a night out with Fido

This is an e-mail conversation between a concerned constituent for traditional marriage and State Representative Michael Festa (D-Ma):

Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: Marriage Amendment
Dear Paul,
Thank you for contacting me regarding your support for the Massachusetts Protection of Marriage Amendment to the state Constitution and sharing with me the names of many who share your position.
Please know that I will not vote for a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage in a manner that effectively takes away the rights of same-sex couples that are now protected by the Massachusetts Constitution. I cannot vote for any Constitutional amendment that does that, as a matter of conscience and because I believe that it sets a terrible precedent.
Whenever we have amended the Constitution (federal or state), it has been to grant greater rights and protections for people (eg. women's suffrage, civil rights for minorities), not take them away.
Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this issue. While I respect your view on this matter, I hope you understand that I cannot agree with it in regards to a Constitutional amendment.
Mike Festa
State House,
Room 172
617-722-2846 fax
Hold on here. Isn't Rep. Festa the same rep. who introduced and sponsered a bill, Senate Bill 938, that would decriminalize sex acts with animals? Why, yes it is! Click here to get the full story of Rep. Festa and others who support and advocate sex with your next door neighbors pooch for just a small price.
With this info are you surprised Rep. Festa would not support the NORMAL way to engage in sexual acts, in this case, traditional marriage?
"It has been to grant greater rights and protections for people (eg. women's suffrage, civil rights for minorities), not take them away."
I don't remember having a right to vote on a tradition that has been set in place for 6,000 years, do you? Oh, those is black robes now control our cultural fate. Stupid me, I forgot.
(With my thumb and forefinger squeezing the bridge of my nose, my eyes closed, and me shaking my head)
What a joke some of our legislative officials are.
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting "I luv you long time for only five thousand dolla!"
Only kidding. Just having some fun!!

Monday, July 03, 2006

Gay Marriage Debate on Pundit Review Radio

Click on the Pundit Review icon above and listen to a heated debate between Kris Mineau of Vote on and Marc Solomon of Mass Equality on the controversial topic of the Massachusetts Protection of Marriage Amendment.

I am caller number "8" under the false name of "Mike" beginning at 29:33 on the time clock of the radio bar. Click the play > icon to listen to me and other callers.
You need to click on the words "Gay Marriage Debate on Pundit Review Radio" many times until you see the Hipcast radio bar at the bottom of the post.

Don't Children Just Need Loving Parents?

"I don't care what you think. I am happy, I am loved. It is not wrong"

This situation can be best explained by Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier in their book Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting.
We were engaged in a public debate on the wisdom of the same-sex family in a packed meeting room on a university campus. We were making the case that it is never compassionate to intentionally form families in which children will deliberately be denied either their mothers or their father. A couple, two women, stood up at the start of the question-and answer part of the program and asked, "How in the world can you say that we cannot be loving parents? We have two sons at home, and they get all the love children in any heterosexual home receive. Perhaps even more!" The crowd roared in approval. How could we say these parents weren't loving?
Well, we said nothing of the sort. We had no reason to doubt that these two nice women love the children they are raising and that these children benefit from their love. Neither do we doubt that most parents in same-sex homes love the children they are raising.
But didn't our society say something very similar at the dawn of the failed divorce revolution? It didn't matter if mom and dad still lived together, because their children would still have two parents who love them dearly, even if from a distance. In fact, our children still hear that regularly in a little ditty sung by the kids on Barney & Friends about their parents living far from them but still loving them every day.
These parents may love their children every day, from a distance, but what we have learned from our nation's long divorce experiment is that children need their mom and dad to love them every day right there in the home. We told the two women in the debate that evening that, oddly enough, a parent's ability to love is not the most important thing for children's well-being. For scholars have come to see that the mitigating love of the parents could not erase the harmful impact that divorce wrought in the lives of children because these children didn't have their mothers and fathers involved in the daily routine of life. And the fact that the biological parent is replaced by a loving stepparent does little to make the problems better. In many important ways, it makes them worse, and a convincing wealth of social science, medical and psychological data reveals this. Likewise, how can we assume the love of two women or two men will be able to erase the harm to children by being raised apart from their mother and father? We can't.

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Get your Free Guestbook from