Friday, September 29, 2006

"Sexual Indoctrination Bills" Fall Short of Approval

Pro-family groups in California and across the United States are celebrating Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Thursday veto of two pro-homosexual bills. The bills were two of three pieces of legislation regarded by pro-family leaders as "sexual indoctrination bills," which would have, among other things, mandated pro-homosexual policy and curriculum changes in the state's schools. Read the full story HERE. Read full contents of bills HERE.
The governor also vetoed a bill that would of legalized same-sex "marriages" in California. Read the full story HERE.
As I reported earlier on this blog, it was uncertain how Governor Schwarzenegger was going to react to the school bills and I was almost certain gay "marriage" was going to be legal in California. But low and behold THE PEOPLE SPOKE and the legislature LISTENED. Interesting how democracy works when state officials listen to the people they REPRESENT.
Now, we just have got to get Beacon Hill in Massachusetts to LISTEN to the people, all 170,000 of those who signed the traditional marriage petition last fall. Our campaign is making some awesome headway in the fight to protect traditional marriage and I will keep you all updated about the constitutional convention on November 9th.
Rumors have circulated that House Speaker Sal DiMasi is planning to postpone or disrupt the Constitutional Convention once again, most notably with efforts to deny a quorum by encouraging legislators to be absent and shirk their constitutional duties. I am so glad the MA legislature is voted in BY THE PEOPLE but does not REPRESENT the people.
Get in touch with your State Representative and State Senator and tell them that they must attend the Constitutional Convention on November 9th. Tell them that they must vote and that you will be watching what they do and don't do!
Click HERE to get in touch with your rep. and senator.
LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!

10 Comments:

Blogger Franco said...

Good work, very nice blog. Seems you enjoy working with/ on the internet. And
if something like that even pays off well, it would be even better, woulnd't it?

I chose you because you convinced meby all the effort you put into it. That
really convinced me.
For further information please look up my site www-franco.blogspot.com Please get more information
on....see the video!jplip

8:30 PM, September 29, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

Don't you just hate it when people post on your site, and try to get you involved in their money making scheme.

Later Scia

By the way want to join Amway...LOL

11:11 PM, September 29, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Yah, I am not sure what is up with Franco's sight. I don't plan on messing around with something which I do not understand (obviously the language for starters).

Unfortunately I did work for Amway...waste of FRIGGEN time!!! ;)

8:42 PM, September 30, 2006  
Anonymous John said...

i'm glad to read that arnold did the right thing. i
have no faith that the massachusetts legislature will
follow suit. once again the house and senate will be
the lapdogs for pro-gay lobby. makes me sick.

9:16 PM, September 30, 2006  
Anonymous Mike said...

You might want to update your site. The governator signed things into law on Saturday that conflict with what is said here.

6:14 AM, October 02, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

I just wanted to get opinions on something:

If Massachusetts votes to allow SSM, do you think other states should be able to deny those unions?

6:35 AM, October 02, 2006  
Anonymous Mike said...

Ken, don't quote me but I think Mass already has gay marriage in full.

4:19 PM, October 02, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

It does, but it is going up for a public vote.

8:32 PM, October 02, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Mike,

You said:

"You might want to update your site. The governator signed things into law on Saturday that conflict with what is said here."

Can you elaborate?

Thanks for visiting.

Scia

5:27 PM, October 07, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"I just wanted to get opinions on something:

If Massachusetts votes to allow SSM, do you think other states should be able to deny those unions?"

By what means are they going to "deny those unions"? Will it be via the unelected officials of the state's courts or will it be via the constitutional process of a vote from the people?

5:30 PM, October 07, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com