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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
