The French rejected same-sex marriage because they found the rights of the child trumped the rights of the adult. Please read their official report. THANK YOU FRANCE!
Report on the Family and the Rights of Children
French National Assembly, Paris, January 25, 2006
"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society
and the State". (United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, article 16.) Faced with the desire by
individuals to choose their own family structure models, increasing family breakup and new scientific
possibilities, the report attempts to protect the basic unit of the family while taking into account these
societal changes.
The commission believes that laws should set norms in order to "allow individuals to build their lives
around stable, sure and understandable criteria." Laws should not simply validate changing mores.
"The best interests of the child must prevail over adult freedoms... even including the lifestyle
choices of parents". The legislator is not obligated to adopt the most permissive foreign legislation."
read more here
Monday, October 27, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
8 is NOT hate
Gay and lesbian activists are trying to hijack the word "marriage," and are using the hate game to do it. They call us bigots (a very hateful word.) They say voicing our opinion is hate speech (trying to disgrace the opposition into silence seems more than hateful, it is shamefully undemocratic).
Facts not emotions are behind Prop 8. If gay and lesbian activists are willing to fight so hard for a word (they already have all the rights), they will not stop. The proponents of tolerance will not tolerate our churches, our schools, or even our speech. Freedom not hate is what is at stake.
I already post this blog under a fake name so those who say they love and accept all won't egg my house or worse. Prop 8 is to protect the shrinking majority from government abuse (in the form of lawsuits) from those who don't "hate" (they just loath anyone who doesn't fully embrace all things homosexual.)
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Is there really no agenda to promote same-sex marriage in our schools?
The California Teacher’s Association has donated $1.25 million to the No on 8 campaign. When I emailed the President of CTA,
David Sanchez, how this helps teachers, he replied, "There shouldn't be two separate laws for Americans. We stand proud for standing up for what we believe is the right thing to do."
Mr. Sanchez doesn't understand that there are not two different laws. There are two different unions. Only one marriage can create children and must be responsible for that risk.
Also he never told me how his $1.25 million is going to directly help teachers. If the CTA has so much money to spare, maybe cash-strapped teachers should be spared paying dues.
All public school teachers are forced to pay money to the CTA, yet the CTA can give money to an organization that many teachers are morally opposed to. Teachers really do deserve more!
David Sanchez, how this helps teachers, he replied, "There shouldn't be two separate laws for Americans. We stand proud for standing up for what we believe is the right thing to do."
Mr. Sanchez doesn't understand that there are not two different laws. There are two different unions. Only one marriage can create children and must be responsible for that risk.
Also he never told me how his $1.25 million is going to directly help teachers. If the CTA has so much money to spare, maybe cash-strapped teachers should be spared paying dues.
All public school teachers are forced to pay money to the CTA, yet the CTA can give money to an organization that many teachers are morally opposed to. Teachers really do deserve more!
Sunday, October 12, 2008
School field trip to same-sex wedding is just the beginning
This is why we are fighting for Prop 8. To protect our children from taking field trips to same-sex marriages. The first graders were told it was about love -- please. Marriage is about children, which this couple cannot have unless they go visit a sperm bank. Will that be the next field trip?
Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day
Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Special risks deserve a special title -- "Marriage"
America has made great strides in eliminating inequality. And as a melting pot of diversity we pride ourselves in trying to accept all people regardless of sex, race or religion. But we don’t melt ourselves into one gender, one color, one mold. We allow distinctions to be made without taking equality from those distinctions. We call a human being a man or a woman with out saying that either is less human. A person can be Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist and is still equal to an Atheist or Mormon. The different name connotes exactly that, differences, without making one more or less equal. And because same sex partnerships are different than traditional marriages, they should be called something different. Not to take away equality but to distinguish between two different types of unions.
Every time a heterosexual couple has sexual relations, there is usually a chance that a child could be born. Obviously with birth control, age and other factors this chance can be greatly reduced, even eliminated. But for many there is still some risk of creating a child, even with the best of plans to prevent it. That risk, is why society created marriage – to protect expected and unexpected children.
There should be a distinction between the type of union that takes intense time, effort and outside intervention to have a child and the type of union that takes continuous planning not to have a child. One union is much riskier when it comes to creating children. Homosexual and heterosexual love may be equal, but the possibility of an unexpected child is not equal.
Another factor that is not equal is the thousand-year-old definition of marriage. All literature that makes reference to marriages, wives and husbands since the begging of written language has very similar definitions. By calling the very new idea of homosexual unions “marriage” dilutes the word “marriage” and completely destroys the words “husband” and “wife,” which will become archaic and meaningless. We will have to explain to our great grandchildren when they read literature that “wife,” used to mean a woman that was married to a man.
I like the word “wife.” It means I am a woman, I am married to a man, I am taking a risk with my body if I accidentally get pregnant whether I have the child or not. That’s one of the reasons women get married to men, because the risks of having sex with a man are so great, that they want to be married.
When Martin Luther King fought for the rights of all Americans, he didn’t try to take away rights from some and give them to others. He tried to make America fair for all. If homosexual couples are allowed to call their unions marriage, they are taking the words “marriage” and “wife” from me. It’s kind of like calling all soft drinks Cokes. If I’m a Pepsi, I don’t want to be called a Coke. Though the differences are slight. There are differences.
Homosexuals can register as partners. They could even come up with a new word if they don’t like the word partnership. And maybe because Lesbian couples are different from Gay men couples they might want to come up with two terms. But please, we can protect the rights of all and still protect the definition of marriage. One man, one women, maybe some children if all goes right or not. That’s the risk we have called marriage for eons.
Every time a heterosexual couple has sexual relations, there is usually a chance that a child could be born. Obviously with birth control, age and other factors this chance can be greatly reduced, even eliminated. But for many there is still some risk of creating a child, even with the best of plans to prevent it. That risk, is why society created marriage – to protect expected and unexpected children.
There should be a distinction between the type of union that takes intense time, effort and outside intervention to have a child and the type of union that takes continuous planning not to have a child. One union is much riskier when it comes to creating children. Homosexual and heterosexual love may be equal, but the possibility of an unexpected child is not equal.
Another factor that is not equal is the thousand-year-old definition of marriage. All literature that makes reference to marriages, wives and husbands since the begging of written language has very similar definitions. By calling the very new idea of homosexual unions “marriage” dilutes the word “marriage” and completely destroys the words “husband” and “wife,” which will become archaic and meaningless. We will have to explain to our great grandchildren when they read literature that “wife,” used to mean a woman that was married to a man.
I like the word “wife.” It means I am a woman, I am married to a man, I am taking a risk with my body if I accidentally get pregnant whether I have the child or not. That’s one of the reasons women get married to men, because the risks of having sex with a man are so great, that they want to be married.
When Martin Luther King fought for the rights of all Americans, he didn’t try to take away rights from some and give them to others. He tried to make America fair for all. If homosexual couples are allowed to call their unions marriage, they are taking the words “marriage” and “wife” from me. It’s kind of like calling all soft drinks Cokes. If I’m a Pepsi, I don’t want to be called a Coke. Though the differences are slight. There are differences.
Homosexuals can register as partners. They could even come up with a new word if they don’t like the word partnership. And maybe because Lesbian couples are different from Gay men couples they might want to come up with two terms. But please, we can protect the rights of all and still protect the definition of marriage. One man, one women, maybe some children if all goes right or not. That’s the risk we have called marriage for eons.
13 talking points to vote "YES"
Thirteen Talking Points: Why Vote FOR Proposition 8 to Prohibit Same-Sex Marriage
By A. Scott Loveless, J.D., Ph.D, who currently serves as a faculty member and Acting Managing Director of the Word Family Policy Center at the J. Reuben Clark Law school, BYU.
1. Men and women are different, and the union of a man and a woman is different that the union of two men or two women. Throughout history marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman for powerful reasons relating to the complementary differences between men and women. The differences combine to create a unique and essential social relationship. Marriage channels human sexuality into responsible, and socially valuable functions, namely adult complementary sexual union that results in the procreation, nurturing, and training of the next generation. It gives couples and society a future. The combination of the opposite sexes creates a distinctive integrative union and social relationship. No two men together or two women together can do this. Just as the combination of the different chemical elements Na (sodium) + Cl (chlorine) together make salt, but Na + Na or Cl + Cl do not.
2. Tolerance opposes same-sex marriage. The law categorizes and treats relationships in three ways: some are barred and prohibited; others are tolerated and permitted; and some others are preferred and privileged. Historically, same-sex relationships were prohibited, but in recent decades they have become tolerated and permitted in the United States and many other countries. But tolerance is quite different from preference. Conjugal marriage always has been the most preferred and privileged social relationship because it is the foundation of society. The claim for same-sex “marriage” abandons tolerance and seeks special preference; it actually removes the preferential treatment of conjugal marriage, rather than elevating same-sex couples. Where same-sex marriage is legalized, tolerance is restricted. Freedom of religion is undermined, and freedom of speech is curtailed. Children in public schools are taught not true tolerance but the moral relativism of equivalency, i.e. that different forms of human sexuality are no more than matters of personal preference. Disagreement with this “principle” is not tolerated.
3. Equality does not require treating different relationships the same. Same-sex marriage advocates purport to desire “equal treatment” with heterosexual couples, but it is inequality to give full marital status to relationships that are so markedly different in lifestyle and social impact. Same-sex marriage really means the near-term elimination of actual marriage. As a matter of nature it cannot fulfill the same functions as traditional marriage, and the effect is to pull traditional marriage down to the lowest common denominator and soon render it meaningless. Our society cannot accept this outcome.
4. Marriage is a pre-existing social institution, not a mere legal creation or social construct. Marriage between male and female is a uniquely ubiquitous social institution, found in all civilized human societies. Finding marriage already in existence, the law has recognized the importance of marriage by regulating and thereby protecting it. The law does not create marriage any more than it creates parents, land or water, but the law regulates those resources -- marriage, parenting, land, and water -- in the public interest.
5. The legal definition of marriage signals important social functions. The way the law defines and treats marriage sends powerful social signals to all members of society about marriage roles and what is expected of married persons. By diluting the meaning of marriage, reducing it to a mere romantic relationship between any two persons, it dilutes the meaning of marriage itself and ignores and denigrates the integral responsibilities of marriage and marital parenthood. Conjugal marriage reinforces the taking of responsibility for the natural outcome of the sexual act: children; same-sex marriage weakens that tie.
6. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms families and makes more vulnerable those who invest their lives, and sacrifice their careers, for their marriages and families. In states and nations where same-sex marriage has been legalized, the public commitment to families and conjugal marriage and families is significantly weakened. Adoption has been impaired. Mothers are marginalized, and social support for them weakens. Sexualization of society increases. Public support for marital parenting wanes. Marital childbearing and childrearing drop, and public education becomes more propagandistic. Churches and religion are harassed.
7. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms children by depriving them of a mother or father, and removing the clear legal signal that marriage connects parents to children and parental responsibility. All children need and deserve to be raised by a mother and a father; they are deprived of that by same-sex marriage. Two moms are not the same things as a mom and a dad. Legalization of same-sex marriage is false advertizing to children; it teaches them that same-sex coupling and parenting is fully equivalent to dual gender marriage and parenting. It deprives some children of a parental connection with half of their biological heritage and family. Parental authority is diminished.
8. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms society by the transformative power of inclusion and by weakening the basic infrastructure of society. Conjugal marriage historically has “scripted” responsible living and civic virtue. Gay and lesbian lifestyles do not. By redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples, the social meaning of marriage is transformed by the power of inclusion; the culture of infidelity, promiscuity and polyamory that characterizes gay and lesbian sexual relations will redefine what marriage means in a way that will undermine that social institution and bring suffering to many families. Society should not engage in “consumer fraud” by sending the message that there is no difference between conjugal marriage and same-sex unions.
9. Marriage is defined to serve the public interest, not private special interests. Marriage is a public institution, not a mere private arrangement. The law allows many private relations organized and defined as the private parties wish, but the institution of marriage between a man and a woman exists and is protected by law to promote fundamental social needs, including the necessary link between husbands and wives and between parents and children for critical social needs, not just to bind boyfriends and girlfriends and other romantic interests.
10. The radical redefinition of marriage is a matter for the people, not the courts, to decide. In a democracy, the power to decide fundamental questions about basic social institutions is reserved to the people. It is not a judicial function. By a vote of 4-3, four California justices simply imposed their personally political preference under the pretext of interpreting the state constitution. That is why even strong supporters of same-sex marriage, such as the Washington Post, criticized the California Supreme Court decision for mandating same-sex marriage by judicial decree. It seriously violated separation of powers and undermined the integrity and independence of the judicial branch.
11. Many constitutional amendments have been adopted to protect threatened basic institutions and rights. That is how America got the “Bill of Rights.” That is why our nation passed the Civil War amendments – to correct a terrible decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why voters in 27 American states recently have adopted constitutional amendments to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That is why thirty-seven (37) nations around the world also have adopted constitutional provisions protecting marriage as the union of a man and a woman. When cherished rights and relationships are threatened, people pass constitutional amendments to protect them. That is why Proposition 8 has been proposed.
12. Proposition 8 is about marriage, it is not about homosexuality. The issue is whether the basic social institution of marriage should be radically redefined. The issue is not about homosexual relations, which have long existed without needing (or wanting) to be called “marriages.” It is not about homosexuality, or the nature-vs-nurture debate about the cause of homosexuality. (It is not whether homosexuality is biologically hard-wire-determined, or predisposed, or environmentally caused, or experientially influenced, or a matter of choice. It is not about homosexuality; it is simply about the institution of marriage. Today, tragically, many marriages fail, but legalizing same-sex marriage will not solve that problem. Rather, by reducing the meaning of marriage, and applying the “marriage” label to gay and lesbian relations, which have an even higher rate of instability than heterosexual couples, it will only worsen the problem.
13. It doesn’t end with redefining marriage. Legalization of same-sex marriage is the beginning, not the end, of the social revolution gay and lesbian activists promote. Consider what has happened in Massachusetts since same-sex marriage was “normalized” by a one-vote majority of the Superior Court there: 1- Catholic Charities, which included among its charitable activities the placement of children for adoption for a century, was told following the Goodridge decision that their refusal to allow adoptions by same-sex married couples was discriminatory and prohibited. When their request for a religious exemption was denied, that organization felt compelled to get out of the adoption business, rather than compromise their religious principles; 2- Sex education classes in the Massachusetts public schools now are required, based on Goodridge and attendant reforms, to include “neutral” instruction on homosexual acts as part of the curriculum, so as to give equal treatment and avoid discrimination. So much for “normalization” and for the right of parents to direct the education of their children on these vital matters.
By A. Scott Loveless, J.D., Ph.D, who currently serves as a faculty member and Acting Managing Director of the Word Family Policy Center at the J. Reuben Clark Law school, BYU.
1. Men and women are different, and the union of a man and a woman is different that the union of two men or two women. Throughout history marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman for powerful reasons relating to the complementary differences between men and women. The differences combine to create a unique and essential social relationship. Marriage channels human sexuality into responsible, and socially valuable functions, namely adult complementary sexual union that results in the procreation, nurturing, and training of the next generation. It gives couples and society a future. The combination of the opposite sexes creates a distinctive integrative union and social relationship. No two men together or two women together can do this. Just as the combination of the different chemical elements Na (sodium) + Cl (chlorine) together make salt, but Na + Na or Cl + Cl do not.
2. Tolerance opposes same-sex marriage. The law categorizes and treats relationships in three ways: some are barred and prohibited; others are tolerated and permitted; and some others are preferred and privileged. Historically, same-sex relationships were prohibited, but in recent decades they have become tolerated and permitted in the United States and many other countries. But tolerance is quite different from preference. Conjugal marriage always has been the most preferred and privileged social relationship because it is the foundation of society. The claim for same-sex “marriage” abandons tolerance and seeks special preference; it actually removes the preferential treatment of conjugal marriage, rather than elevating same-sex couples. Where same-sex marriage is legalized, tolerance is restricted. Freedom of religion is undermined, and freedom of speech is curtailed. Children in public schools are taught not true tolerance but the moral relativism of equivalency, i.e. that different forms of human sexuality are no more than matters of personal preference. Disagreement with this “principle” is not tolerated.
3. Equality does not require treating different relationships the same. Same-sex marriage advocates purport to desire “equal treatment” with heterosexual couples, but it is inequality to give full marital status to relationships that are so markedly different in lifestyle and social impact. Same-sex marriage really means the near-term elimination of actual marriage. As a matter of nature it cannot fulfill the same functions as traditional marriage, and the effect is to pull traditional marriage down to the lowest common denominator and soon render it meaningless. Our society cannot accept this outcome.
4. Marriage is a pre-existing social institution, not a mere legal creation or social construct. Marriage between male and female is a uniquely ubiquitous social institution, found in all civilized human societies. Finding marriage already in existence, the law has recognized the importance of marriage by regulating and thereby protecting it. The law does not create marriage any more than it creates parents, land or water, but the law regulates those resources -- marriage, parenting, land, and water -- in the public interest.
5. The legal definition of marriage signals important social functions. The way the law defines and treats marriage sends powerful social signals to all members of society about marriage roles and what is expected of married persons. By diluting the meaning of marriage, reducing it to a mere romantic relationship between any two persons, it dilutes the meaning of marriage itself and ignores and denigrates the integral responsibilities of marriage and marital parenthood. Conjugal marriage reinforces the taking of responsibility for the natural outcome of the sexual act: children; same-sex marriage weakens that tie.
6. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms families and makes more vulnerable those who invest their lives, and sacrifice their careers, for their marriages and families. In states and nations where same-sex marriage has been legalized, the public commitment to families and conjugal marriage and families is significantly weakened. Adoption has been impaired. Mothers are marginalized, and social support for them weakens. Sexualization of society increases. Public support for marital parenting wanes. Marital childbearing and childrearing drop, and public education becomes more propagandistic. Churches and religion are harassed.
7. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms children by depriving them of a mother or father, and removing the clear legal signal that marriage connects parents to children and parental responsibility. All children need and deserve to be raised by a mother and a father; they are deprived of that by same-sex marriage. Two moms are not the same things as a mom and a dad. Legalization of same-sex marriage is false advertizing to children; it teaches them that same-sex coupling and parenting is fully equivalent to dual gender marriage and parenting. It deprives some children of a parental connection with half of their biological heritage and family. Parental authority is diminished.
8. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms society by the transformative power of inclusion and by weakening the basic infrastructure of society. Conjugal marriage historically has “scripted” responsible living and civic virtue. Gay and lesbian lifestyles do not. By redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples, the social meaning of marriage is transformed by the power of inclusion; the culture of infidelity, promiscuity and polyamory that characterizes gay and lesbian sexual relations will redefine what marriage means in a way that will undermine that social institution and bring suffering to many families. Society should not engage in “consumer fraud” by sending the message that there is no difference between conjugal marriage and same-sex unions.
9. Marriage is defined to serve the public interest, not private special interests. Marriage is a public institution, not a mere private arrangement. The law allows many private relations organized and defined as the private parties wish, but the institution of marriage between a man and a woman exists and is protected by law to promote fundamental social needs, including the necessary link between husbands and wives and between parents and children for critical social needs, not just to bind boyfriends and girlfriends and other romantic interests.
10. The radical redefinition of marriage is a matter for the people, not the courts, to decide. In a democracy, the power to decide fundamental questions about basic social institutions is reserved to the people. It is not a judicial function. By a vote of 4-3, four California justices simply imposed their personally political preference under the pretext of interpreting the state constitution. That is why even strong supporters of same-sex marriage, such as the Washington Post, criticized the California Supreme Court decision for mandating same-sex marriage by judicial decree. It seriously violated separation of powers and undermined the integrity and independence of the judicial branch.
11. Many constitutional amendments have been adopted to protect threatened basic institutions and rights. That is how America got the “Bill of Rights.” That is why our nation passed the Civil War amendments – to correct a terrible decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why voters in 27 American states recently have adopted constitutional amendments to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That is why thirty-seven (37) nations around the world also have adopted constitutional provisions protecting marriage as the union of a man and a woman. When cherished rights and relationships are threatened, people pass constitutional amendments to protect them. That is why Proposition 8 has been proposed.
12. Proposition 8 is about marriage, it is not about homosexuality. The issue is whether the basic social institution of marriage should be radically redefined. The issue is not about homosexual relations, which have long existed without needing (or wanting) to be called “marriages.” It is not about homosexuality, or the nature-vs-nurture debate about the cause of homosexuality. (It is not whether homosexuality is biologically hard-wire-determined, or predisposed, or environmentally caused, or experientially influenced, or a matter of choice. It is not about homosexuality; it is simply about the institution of marriage. Today, tragically, many marriages fail, but legalizing same-sex marriage will not solve that problem. Rather, by reducing the meaning of marriage, and applying the “marriage” label to gay and lesbian relations, which have an even higher rate of instability than heterosexual couples, it will only worsen the problem.
13. It doesn’t end with redefining marriage. Legalization of same-sex marriage is the beginning, not the end, of the social revolution gay and lesbian activists promote. Consider what has happened in Massachusetts since same-sex marriage was “normalized” by a one-vote majority of the Superior Court there: 1- Catholic Charities, which included among its charitable activities the placement of children for adoption for a century, was told following the Goodridge decision that their refusal to allow adoptions by same-sex married couples was discriminatory and prohibited. When their request for a religious exemption was denied, that organization felt compelled to get out of the adoption business, rather than compromise their religious principles; 2- Sex education classes in the Massachusetts public schools now are required, based on Goodridge and attendant reforms, to include “neutral” instruction on homosexual acts as part of the curriculum, so as to give equal treatment and avoid discrimination. So much for “normalization” and for the right of parents to direct the education of their children on these vital matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
