|
In This Issue:
June 18, 2008
No More Brides or Grooms in California?
On Monday, the first legal same-sex marriages were performed in California. By now, hundreds of such ceremonies have been held. By the end of the week, the number will no doubt be in the thousands. Most people do not comprehend the magnitude of this radical change and how it can affect them and their children. Parents in Massachusetts learned the hard way how legalizing same-sex marriage can and does affect their children. Shortly after same-sex marriage became legal in their state, the young children of the Wirthlins and the Parkers were subjected to homosexual indoctrination in their local elementary school. The parents filed a lawsuit against their elementary school simply asking for the right to opt their children out of such indoctrination. Alarmingly, the federal district court ruled that “The conduct at issue [that is, teaching about homosexuality through children’s books] is rationally related to the goal of . . . eradicating what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court characterized as the ‘deep and scaring hardship’ that the ban on same-sex marriage imposed on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason.’” Parker v. Hurley, 474 F. Supp. 2d 261 (D. Mass. 2007) (quoting Goodridge v. Department of Health, 440 Mass. 309, 341 (2003)). On appeal the appellate court also reasoned that since “Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution,” the state’s schools have the right to “educate their students regarding that recognition.” Parker. v. Hurley, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 2070 (1st Cir. Mass., Jan. 31, 2008). (Click here to read important details about this case and alarming quotes from the court decisions in an excerpt from "The Assault on Parental Rights," a chapter in my forthcoming book The Worldwide Assault on the Family—Exposed. ) In other words, where same-sex marriage is legalized it is likely that parents will not have the right to opt their children out of homosexual indoctrination in the public schools. So much for the “live and let live” claims of activists, which assert that legalizing same- sex marriage only affects the same-sex couples that now can marry. An example of the radical change that has already gone into effect in California are the revised marriage licenses which have replaced the words “bride” and “groom” with the genderless terms “Party A” and “Party B.” This seemingly simple change sends the message that gender makes no difference in marriage, and ultimately to parenting, as many of these couples will bring children into their relationships. Thus, what same-sex (genderless) marriage communicates is that children can do just fine without either a father or a mother as many of these same-sex couples will push for adoption rights or have children through some kind of assisted reproduction technology. Surprisingly, newspaper editorials across the country commenting on the legalization of same-sex marriages in California have not been as enthusiastic as might be expected, which gives us additional hope in our efforts to defend marriage. The Institute For Marriage and Public Policy reports that “Of the nation's 20 largest newspapers, 12 wrote editorials in response to the decision, with 7 opposing the ruling and 4 favoring it, while one offered a mixed reaction. Their excellent eight-page analysis, “Newspaper Reactions to California Marriage Cases,” is available here. An excerpt from their report states, “The major fear voiced by newspapers opposing the ruling is that the undemocratic imposition of same-sex marriage will spark a ‘culture war’ similar to that sparked by Roe v. Wade's overturning of abortion laws, and that the gay rights movement would be better served by trusting the democratic process and the rapid change in opinions among their fellow citizens.” Fortunately, the people of California will have the last word when they vote on a state constitutional amendment in November defining marriage as between only a man and a woman. Family Watch is putting all the resources we can muster into supporting not only this California constitutional amendment, but also the marriage amendment in Florida, as well as efforts in several other states that likely will have amendments or other marriage-related issues on their ballots this fall. We urgently need your help in this effort. We hope all our U.S. subscribers will read the box below that outlines how everyone can help. This is the most urgent crisis we have ever faced--the protection of marriage in the U.S., and it is a fight we must win! Sincerely,
Help Us Defend Marriage in the U.S.!Family Watch is making a maximum effort to defend marriage in the U.S., and we need your help. The most critical need is additional financial support. There are several critical ballot measures where we need to provide important input and support, including California, Florida and probably Arizona. You can easily and securely make a tax-deductible contribution online here. You can also print out a form on that same link to mail in a contribution if you prefer. We have also set up a periodic contribution option where you can make a monthly contribution that will be charged to your credit card. We encourage you to make a monthly commitment of at least $25 for a minimum of five months to help us through the November election effort. In addition to financial support, we also need your help contacting people in these key states. We will be sending appropriate state-specific information to policymakers and others on developments in their state. Please forward this newsletter on to everyone you know in these key states and urge them to sign up for this free e-newsletter on our Web site. What happens in the next few months will have a major impact on whether we can save marriage in the U.S. Please help us in this critical effort in any way you can!
News Items of InterestAdoption
Homosexuality Related
General Interest
Have We Gone MAD?FWI Communications Director Lynn Allred offers some bizarre, real-life examples that make us wonder. . . Have We Gone MAD? A New Low at the High Level Meeting I scarcely know where to begin. Let’s start with the outfit. It was an exquisitely beautiful, bejeweled Indian sari. Deep turquoise, with a plunging neckline, and yards and yards of draping fabric. Absolutely stunning. The manicure was perfect. Long, pearly nails on very feminine hands. The hair was shoulder length. Thick, lustrous and wavy. The makeup had been carefully and expertly applied. The movements were elegant and graceful. And the jewelry! It was over the top. The ultimate in glamour. He was really something. He? That’s right. He. I made a valiant effort, but it was hard not to stare. There was an insurmountable disconnect between what I was seeing with my eyeballs and my brain’s ability to process it. I think maybe his breast implants are what ultimately did me in. We met the individual I just described at the United Nations High Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS in New York last week. He was one of many transsexuals/transgenders, sex workers (for the unenlightened, those are prostitutes) and IV drug users in attendance demanding the human right to engage in whatever the heck behaviors they wanted to regardless of the consequences to themselves or to society. With the expectation that the government would pick up the tab for the aforementioned consequences. The man in the sari was there as an official member of the Civil Society Task Force, established at the request of the UN General Assembly. Frightening. (Oh, did I mention that travel and expenses for members of the Task Force were paid for by the UN -- translation: your tax dollars hard at work.) But here’s the really scary thing. Day one, I was shocked and appalled. Day two, I was amused. By day three, I just wanted to see what color sari he was wearing and hardly even glanced at him gliding down the UN hall with his pink purse. And I suspect that’s exactly what he wanted.
Please forward this on to others!If this was forwarded on to you, you can subscribe
|
| www.FamilyWatchInternational.org |
