Articles you should Read Right Now

1. In Brazil, the senate is considering a law which would imprison anyone for saying homosexuality is wrong:

http://www.tfp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1057

2. This article goes through studies to show:

a. same-gender relationships show statistically higher rates of abuse and violence

b. same-gender relationships (especially long term) have higher rates of disease (including but not limited to AIDS)

c. same-gender couples (on average) do not practice monogamy as part of their relationship (ex: even in committed relationships partners have multiple sex partners). And in places where civil unions or marriage (netherlands) is possible, they are less likely to take advantage of these benefits than heterosexual couples. And when I say less likely i mean by a huge percentage.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02&f=PG03I03

and a blog with an update:

http://flapsblog.com/2008/10/30/claims-by-no-on-california-proposition-8-campaign-growing-more-desperate/#comment-137206

Children Have a Right to a Mom and a Dad—Day #5

Prop 8 and Equal Rights from a Child’s Perspective

submitted by j.a. robinson

Two people love each other, derive happiness from being together, and want to raise a family together. They want to join in marriage. Are all unions created equal? Proponents of gay marriage say yes. If marriage has no gender, then the answer would have to be yes. But marriage has always had a gender component. If you remove the gender from marriage, you create a civil union, but you destroy the concept of marriage.

Judges created gay marriage. Popular opinion did not. Nature did not.

Under the prior law, all people were treated equally. Any man could marry any woman. The law did not confer anything which nature did not. And every child at least had the theoretical right to a father and mother.

Under the current state of the law, marriage means a union of two people, not the union of a man and woman. Marriage is neutered.

Those who vote No on Proposition 8 will take gender out of marriage. This will mean that children will not have a legal right to a father and a mother. Children will not be treated equally. Some will get two mothers, some two fathers, and some will get one of each.

Nature never intended that. The law should not be in the position of telling children that they do not have a natural right to be raised by a loving mother and father in a marriage. We live in an imperfect world and situations occur all the time when children must be raised without a mother or father, and are better off than the alternative. But this is the result of problems in our imperfect world–problems which people should work to solve together. Ideally, our laws should  be designed to create a situation in which a child has no right to be raised by a mother and father.

This does not deny the love that gay partners have for each other, or suggest in any way that they may not make wonderful parents. But to say that this relationship is identical to a traditional gender marriage ignores the reality of gender. Perhaps unfortunately, nature created people with gender. Gender causes lots of blessings and also a few challenges. Judicially declaring marriage to be free of gender may end up causing more problems than it solves.

(originally posted here)

Another Myth Dispelled

submitted by greg:

I’ve heard some argue that Prop 8 should be defeated to ensure that California same-sex couples who move to other states will be able to force those states to recognize their marriages.

Opponents of Proposition 8 have also argued that defeating Prop 8 is important to ensure rights from the Federal Government for same sex couples. A friend of mine wrote the following to me: “Exactly 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections [are] provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.” His point presumably was that defeating Prop 8 will ensure that California same sex couples get these thousands of federal rights that are being denied to them now.

In a nutshell then, those against Prop 8 argue that Prop 8 could take away the rights of same sex couples under Federal law and under the laws of other states.

This is false and here’s why:
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. This is more commonly known as the Federal Defense of Marriage Act or “DOMA.”
DOMA has two main effects.
First, it provides that no state is required to recognize a same sex relationship as a marriage within their own state, even if the same sex relationship is called a marriage in another state. (See 28 U.S.C. Section 1738C).
This means, for example, that if a same sex couple is “married” in Massachusetts, but then moves to Ohio (where the Ohio Constitution bans same sex marriage), Ohio does not have to recognize that “marriage.”
Second, the Federal Government may not (i.e. is prohibited) from treating same sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if recognized by a state. (See 1 U.S.C. Section 7).

Thus Prop 8 cannot take away any federal rights from same sex couples, because DOMA prevents the Federal Government from recognizing any same sex “marriages.” Prop 8 will also not take away rights of California same sex couples who move to other states, because DOMA does not require other states to recognize California same sex marriages.

Please remember to vote YES on Prop 8! All of our hard work and efforts to persuade others does not mean anything if our own vote is not counted.

Going Green! Vote Yes on Prop 8: Children have a natural right to a mom and a dad day #4

This is a letter is written and submitted by my friend Carla (also published in an abbreviated form in the Pasadena Star News):

It is ironic that some Californians believe in ‘green, natural, organic’, until it applies to homosexual marriage. Two people of the same sex cannot ‘naturally’ have a child. It can only be done through unnatural means. Nor are two people of the same sex the best situation in which to raise a child. Children have an innate need for a Mother and a Father to rear them for optimal emotional growth.

There is just no getting around that fact.

No matter how ‘loving’ the home, the need is there for both Mother and Father. Mother Nature has cleverly made this possible, and now we are attempting to get around her safeguard.

Since the passage of legalized homosexual marriage in the Netherlands, that society has imploded. The percentage of children born out of wedlock has skyrocketed; fewer people now bother to marry. Dutch social academicians are alarmed.

And now we want to try this same social science experiment in our own society. This is a project that will affect our most vulnerable members of society, our precious children, in ways we don’t yet understand and cannot foresee. Please vote yes on Proposition 8 and reaffirm the importance of marriage between a man and a woman.

Children Matter: Society has a moral obligation to protect them. Children have a right to a mom and a dad Day #3

The following post is written by my good friend, Rosanne. I ran into her on campus the other day and we had the most awesome conversation about how prop 8 should be a reminder to our society that children need to matter more. She is studying Marriage, Family and Human Development:

Proposition 8 has lead to very controversial, sometimes heated discussions. One side argues it’s not within the hands of the law to legislate morality, while the other says that the right to keep marriage between a man and a woman was already decided between the people of California, and we must respect democracy. My question is, what are we arguing about? What is the big deal about marriage?

I argue that society has a literal and clear moral obligation to protect the rights of marriage to be held strictly between a man and a woman. This is not simply the protection of marriage in the state of California for this generation, but this decision will affect this nation and others for decades, if not longer. The family was formed from the idea that a man and a woman were biologically, emotionally and psychologically built to balance one another and procreate.

Studies have shown that in parenting, the mother tends to focus on more immediate well-being of the children while the father is more apt to show and act in concern for the child’s long-term well-being. While both of these can be accomplished with just one influence, this balance is the key to good adjustment in children’s growing and ability to adjust. Mothers accomplish this by staying with their children and helping them learn every day, while fathers are able to work and earn money so that the family can grow and prosper as a whole, giving the child good resources for the things they will need. But as children are taken to day-cares and neighbors’ homes to be reared, they lose the influence of the mother’s emotional investment in their child’s immediate well-being, and adjustment is threatened simply by the mother’s lack of presence. Simply stated, the child is better off with the mother at home tending to the immediate day-to-day needs of her family.

Marriage has been recognized as the union of a man and a woman, bound by civil laws to live and work together and build a family and home. However, as a society we have redefined how we see this all-important issue. Marriage is seen as a more flippant and passive issue, a union that can be made or broken on a whim with no fault and under any circumstances. Throughout the years, we have failed to recognize the repercussions of these decisions. But first, how did marriage (and therefore, family) go from the most important institution in society to the one looked upon with the most flexibility? In American, we have gone through a very systematic and specific chain of events to get from one to the other.

Being a system made of changeable parts (its citizens), society as a whole is made to be naturally evolving based on its citizens’ actions. Going on the assumption that people will always look towards their and others’ best interests, we can safely say that these changes will lean towards being good, specifically on the economic side. As the financial situation becomes better, people start to have higher standards of living. This directs people to have a stronger focus on individual satisfaction. When the individual becomes the focus (as has happened in America, we are intensely individualistic), it leads people to have higher expectations for their marriages to obtain this “greater personal happiness.” When these expectations are not met, people are more willing to sue for divorce. This puts more pressure on courts who in the past had not allowed much room for separations, and with so many people wanting to be cut loose from their partners, divorce courts will ease the laws and more people will get divorced, causing marriage to eventually be seen as a contract that is easy to enter into and easy to escape. In situations of abuse, divorce should of course be considered as an option, but as a society, we are not willing to work out our smaller differences for the sake of our children.

So what does this say about Prop 8 – how does this tie in to homosexual marriages? I think it is important to realize that the importance of marriage has changed significantly because of our shift into an individualistic society. People may say, this is good, it is natural for society to evolve based on its needs and the collective voice of the people, do what you need to be happy. What we fail to mention here is our children. They are our future, and as such, we have a very high moral obligation to do everything we can to make their lives as potentially successful as we can. And the fact of the matter is, as Americans, we do not care about what happens to them. We are so highly focused on our personal freedoms and well-being that we forget about the most important part of life – raising up a good generation of people who are socially able to handle decisions and look at situations from a solid standpoint. But as I’ve illustrated in the above chain of reaction, we are willing to conform to changes that may or may not be what’s best for the future. Over and over, statistics show that divorce and instability are not good for children, for it leads them down a path of uncertainty and confusion. Children need stable moms and dads who are willing to guide them in direct and clear ways of living.

It is absolutely best for children to have a mother and a father. Men and women are made to work together, to balance each other. Voting yes on prop 8 will be the first step to showing that marriage is a serious issue and must be dealt with very carefully. This isn’t about making sexual orientation more acceptable or making it easier for homosexual couples to gain rights that come through marriage. This is about making sure we protect this fundamental institution that was designed for the benefit of our children and for the people as a whole, to work together and function in healthy and progressive ways.

Same-Sex Marriage and Creeping Totalitarianism

The following essay is generously provided by my friend who is a English Language masters student and has lived in both the Ukraine and Taiwan for extended periods of time.

Same-Sex Marriage and Creeping Totalitarianism
N. E. Rasmussen
27 October 2008

Recent public debate over legal same-sex marriage has largely centered upon its effects on individuals. Just as important, I believe, are matters that have been discussed only secondarily, matters of the relationship between society and State. Specifically, I believe that the steps necessary to institute legal same-sex marriage represent an unusual and worrisome expansion of the State’s claims to authority and status.

Defining Totalitarianism

The word totalitarian conjures up specters from the last century—images of leader worship and revolutionary violence, of prison camps and secret police. But these are the incidents of totalitarianism, not its essence. Their different forms rise from a common root: A philosophical stand in which the State is pre-eminent, in which it may exert whatsoever power it will, in which its claim upon the bodies and minds of its subjects may not be excelled. That is the common heritage of Fascists and Bolsheviks; that is totalitarianism.

What, then, do I mean by creeping totalitarianism? Simply this: the extension of State power to new domains, the reduction of competing authorities, or the consolidation of State power that had been dispersed. Creeping totalitarianism is a stepwise, slow, even covert movement toward the position of control described above, a quiet and gradual betrayal of liberty. I believe that as many as three such extensions are threatened by the same-sex marriage laws currently being debated: While instituting same-sex marriage, the State must co-opt its competition and promote legal positivism, and it may also diminish democracy.

Co-opting the Competition

Statehood is not a new invention; human society has included organized states for thousands of years. But the natural family is older yet. It is “the natural and fundamental group unit of society” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights 16.3), and its popularity was in no way reduced by the invention of the State. Family environment has a profound, lifelong effect on a person’s values and worldview, creating loyalties and priorities stronger than any the State can induce. Indeed, as G. K. Chesterton observed, “it is the only check on the State that is bound to renew itself as eternally as the State, and more naturally” (Collected Works 4:256, cited by Carlson, in Wardle, Lynn D., ed. (2008). What’s the Harm?: Does legalizing same-sex marriage really harm individuals, families, or society? Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America).

Both the Bolsheviks and the National Socialists appear to have understood this well. In the former case, steps were taken to socialize nearly all aspects of domestic life, from child care to laundry, as a step toward the entire abolition of family. In the latter, apart from the sterilization and murder of those whose procreation was deemed unworthy, plans were drawn up for government management of others, and propaganda emphasized that bearing children was public business, a service to the State. Both schemes envisioned a family unable to challenge the supremacy of the State.

It is therefore with a wary eye that I look upon any legislation that purports to subordinate the family to the State. In claiming the power to redefine family, and especially in equating the natural family to an arrangement that cannot “renew itself […] more naturally than the State” (ibid.), the State appears to have moved against the most ancient check on its power.

One might argue that legislation rejecting same-sex marriage likewise asserts State power over the family. That it does. But we have recognized for centuries a general power of the State to regulate marriages of the customary sort, and that power is not extended merely by an explicit legal description of the marriages so regulated.

Promoting Legal Positivism

Previously, of course these marriages were not described by law; they were described by tradition or religion, and presupposed by law. This is entirely unexceptional in history; in addition to these authorities, custom, nature, reason, and others have taken a part in creating legal concepts as diverse as nation-states, warfare, treaty, property, and arrest. Courts have humbly and realistically acknowledged this, in appeals to “community standards” and in other ways. But in order to create a novel form of marriage, the State must exalt law in defiance of these other authorities and declare that marriage is its sole creation. Such a declaration tends toward the notion that law is the sole source of legal concepts, that a legal concept is only to be accepted as it is created by some positive provision of law, and that authority makes a law valid, independent of any connection to exterior factors such as ethics or reason. This notion is called legal positivism.

Legal positivism is ridiculous upon examination. No positive provision licensed the proclamation of the Bear Flag Republic, the war that took the American Southwest from Mexico, or the Constitution that allowed Congress to create the State of California. That State exists by custom and tradition; it exists because we say it does, and we act as though it does. But the flaws of legal positivism do not stop at ridiculousness.

Legal positivism disrupts a balance of power. Legislating same-sex marriage will cause conflict with dissenting religious organizations, because it exalts law over religion; it will chill any thoughtful discussion of family structure in a public venue such as a school, because it exalts law over reasoning; and it will have unforeseen effects on the psychology of children raised where received tradition, generally observed custom (for same-sex marriage has never been widespread even where legal), and their own most likely natural inclination say that two marriages differ, but the State proclaims otherwise. Such legislation may create chaos in law, as where Massachusetts asserts that marriage is defined by its laws, and then in fact has no law defining it; and further chaos in the significance and teleology of the very institution it claims to define, as where two straight Toronto men got married for tax purposes, with intent to divorce upon engagement to women.

Most dangerous is the message implicit in legal positivism. If the State can legislate same-sex marriage despite these other authorities, law itself becomes the standard of rightness. No authority can resolve the chaos created above, for no authority has traction upon the law to impeach or critique it. Law can be arbitrary, and there is no ’should’ except what is: A thing is right because it is legal, rather than being legal because it is right. If we previously saw the State attempting to control its organizational rival, this is a broader move against its moral rivals, and a dangerous assertion of ownership over the minds of the populace.

Diminishing Democracy

Were all of this the democratic action of the society, acting through the State, it would still be unwise, but it might not be worth protest. But this has not necessarily been the case. Consider the recent experience of California: Proposition 22, a statute explicitly confining marriage to mixed-sex couples, was adopted by initiative in 2000. At that time, 14.7 million people were registered to vote there. Turnout in the election stood at 54%, and the measure passed with 61% voting in favor (an unusually large margin for a vote), i.e., with 4.8 million thinking citizens backing it. In 2008 it was overturned by four of the seven justices of the California Supreme Court. Certainly the disproportion smacks of Judge-knows-best paternalism and the denial of popular sovereignty; but more alarming still is the constitutional effect of the ruling, which subtly defies the separation of powers.

The Constitution of California presumes that marriage is heterosexual, a point conceded by the majority of the Court. Justice Baxter, in a partially dissenting opinion, summarizes the reasoning that led the Court to overturn that presumption: “The majority relies heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative statute” (In re Marriage Cases, California Supreme Court, S147999, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Baxter, J., p. 1). The Constitution of California does not permit the Legislature to repeal an initiative, but the Court here contends that it has had the same effect, not only legally but with constitutional force, through other statutes it has passed.

I believe the Court would not permit the Legislature to amend the Constitution by majority vote, or rather would not construe the Legislature as having done so, in another case where such amendment went against its own inclinations. Rather it would enforce the constitutional prohibitions strictly. But when legislative powers depend not on the Constitution but on the inclinations of seven judicial officials, it looks very much like a small, relatively unaccountable elite has assumed the power to alter any law and is using the legislative body to give the changes the scent of democracy. Such situations are sadly familiar to readers of history. The chief difference here is that the legislative rubber-stamp has been inferred from prior actions, seized as it were, rather than given explicitly in the present.

Baxter continues: “History confirms the importance of the judiciary’s constitutional role as a check against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights. […] Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where, as here, the claimed constitutional entitlement is of recent conception and challenges the most fundamental assumption about a basic social institution” (ibid., p. 7). And nowhere is such restraint more warranted than where the citizens, fount of sovereignty, have intervened firsthand, where the Constitution prohibits a more-accountable branch of government from undoing their intervention, and where the alternative to restraint explicitly elevates that branch of government from its constitutionally subordinate position. The true rulers of California have taken back the issue of marriage from their delegates in government, and a judicious judiciary must leave it in their hands: “If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by […] democratic means.” (ibid., p. 1).

The people of California, incensed by the Court’s usurpation, have placed the wording of Proposition 22 in a constitutional amendment, this year’s Proposition 8. It represents their last good chance to peacefully assert the sovereignty of the citizen over the officers of government, to remind them that they are the instruments of society and not its masters. Thereafter they will have recourse only to that terrible right and duty spoken of in the Declaration of Independence: “When a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.” I pray such a revolution will never be necessary; but, should it come, I trust in the victory of freedom.

Conclusion

On a personal note, I have lived in former one-party states: Twelve months on Taiwan, when one-party rule by the KMT (1950-1986) had been history for twenty years, and twenty-five months in Ukraine, when memories of the Soviet Union (1922-1991) were half that age. Meeting the people of these lands and hearing their histories has left me with a great wariness, healthy I believe, toward the expansion of government power, either over other institutions or over the minds of the populace, against or in avoidance of a reasoned, democratic mandate. Unfortunately, in our day, would-be tyrants from both ends of the political spectrum push for exactly that. Threats may come equally from an executive who asserts that human rights, civil liberties, and international good faith somehow compromise national strength, or from a judiciary aggrandizing the power it holds, the tool it wields, and the organization that serves it. Let us be discerning of all, skeptical toward either, and resolute in defending our democracy by ballot, boycott, or any other appropriate means, for eternal vigilance remains the price of liberty. It is not too high a price to pay.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Emily, for inviting me to write an essay on same-sex marriage; to David N., for sparking my thoughts with a comparison to the Equal Rights Amendment; to Jenny H., for reading a draft; and to Kristin A., for drawing Baxter’s opinion to my attention. I owe much of the argument about legal positivism to FitzGibbon, in Wardle 2008. I am also indebted to W. H. Auden for “There is no such thing as the State/And no one exists alone” (“September 1, 1939″).

Copyright

Copyright 2008 Nathan Ellis Rasmussen. This essay may be copied and distributed in its entirety (including this copyright notice) but may not be sold. Treaty, statute, and case law may grant you other rights, such as the right of parody or the right to quote excerpts in scholarly work, which this copyright does not remove. The authoritative text of this essay can be found at http://flat-earth.blogspot.com/2008_10_26_archive.html

Yes on Prop 8=No on California Social Experiment: Children have a Right to a Mom and a Dad Day #2

Some anti-prop 8 arguments point to “numerous” studies supporting the hypothesis that gender in parenting doesn’t matter.

What these arguments don’t say is that these studies are deeply flawed. There is not enough evidence to prove the same-gender parenting case.

France took a year studying out the issue. We should vote on prop 8 with extreme care.

For your reading information, I am linking an article that explains the issues with the studies in depth. I think it’s pretty important to realize there simply is not enough information on the effects of same-gender marriage on children.

Massachusetts’ law has only been in effect for four years. This is not enough time. Our law has only been in effect since June. The effects which concern prop 8 supporters take a generation to fully develop.

Vote yes on prop 8. No child’s* needs should be sacrificed to give a group more social standing/confidence. There are other ways to achieve this goal.

You can find the entire text here: Institute for Marriage and Public Policy

Numerous reviews of the literature on sexual orientation and parenting have been conducted.12 At least three such reviews have pointed to the serious scientific limitations of the social science literature on gay parenting.13
Perhaps the most thorough review was prepared by Steven Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who was asked to review several hundred studies as an expert witness for the Attorney General of Canada.

Nock concluded:
Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that

1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal
flaw of design or execution;

2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research. 14 Design flaws researchers have found in these studies include very basic limitations:

a. No nationally representative sample. Even scholars enthusiastic about unisex parenting, such as Stacey and Biblarz, acknowledge that “there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of [same-sex couple] families.”15
b. Limited outcome measures. Many of the outcomes measured by the research are unrelated to standard measures of child well-being used by family sociologists (perhaps because most of the researchers
are developmental psychologists, not sociologists).
c. Reliance on maternal reports. Many studies rely on a mother’s report of her
parenting skills and abilities, rather than objective measures of child outcomes.
d. No long-term studies. All of the studies conducted to date focus on static or shortterm measures of child development. Few or none follow children of unisex parents to adulthood.

But perhaps the most serious methodological critique of these studies, at least with reference to the family structure debate, is this: The vast majority of these studies compare single lesbian mothers to single heterosexual mothers. As sociologist Charlotte Patterson, a leading researcher on gay and lesbian parenting, recently summed up, “[M]ost studies have compared children in divorced lesbian mother-headed families with children in divorced heterosexual motherheaded families.”16
Most of the gay parenting literature thus compares children in some fatherless families to children in other fatherless family forms. The results may be relevant for some legal policy debates (such as custody disputes) but,
in our opinion, they are not designed to shed light on family structure per se, and cannot credibly be used to contradict the current
weight of social science: family structure matters, and the family structure that is most protective a child well-being is the intact,
married biological family.
Children do best when raised by their own married mother and father.

*Children cannot be separated from the marriage issue. While many people see marriage as a private matter concerning only private love and commitment, the reason government is involved with marriage is to ensure children have an institution (the family) to care for them.

*The fact that same-sex couples can already adopt children is a separate issue from the state recognizing a definition of marriage which inherently denies children the right to a mom and a dad.

Thank You France: Children have a Right to a Mom and a Dad. Merci!

I apologize for not posting anything in a while. I had a lovely retreat where I carved pumpkins, went hiking, and made homemade rootbeer (and lots of halloween cupcakes). Part of this retreat included a party of 6-8 married couples. Most had children. While I ate candy, chatted, and thought about what my pumpkin was going to look like, I observed.

It was the most delightful scene in the world to witness the parents taking care of their kids in a party setting. Dads were picking up their daughters so they could see the the cauldron with dry ice and homemade rootbeer inside. Moms were making sure their kids were eating a healthy balance of candy and “real food.” Both moms and dads were teaching their kids about stuff without even realizing it(everything from how to eat a cupcake to how to properly run up a skate ramp).

Again, I have no thing against same-gender couples. I have no thing against those who live a homosexual lifestyle. I do not, however, see this relationship as benefiting children. Children have a right to a mom and a dad. The state of California allowing same-gender marriage may seem progressive to some– –but what it says to me is that the state of California sanctions a relationship that does not best serve children.

While no heterosexual parents are perfect, and some situations are down right abusive and traumatic, the response is not to eliminate a child’s right to a mom and a dad. The response is to better educate, better encourage, better help parents be better.

While a lesbian couple or a gay couple may provide a stable home, love, and support to a child. By definition, a same-gender marriage cannot provide them a mom and a dad. Every child has the right to a mom and a dad.

Society should sacrifice for the health and well being of its children.

This is why I am voting “yes” on prop 8 (on my absentee ballot).

This begins “Children Have a Right to a Mom and a Dad Week.” Where I will be providing you with information- –so you can discuss with/email your friends/neighbors/family.

CHILDREN HAVE A RIGHT TO A MOM AND DAD! (day #1): Please read this report on the French Parliament decision from two years ago. They decided to prohibit same gender marriage.

Go here for the news article.

“The commission’s report, the Parliamentary Report on the Family and the Rights of Children, released January 27, 2006 did acknowledge that the French family has altered significantly, becoming “more diverse and less institutionalized”, but recommended nonetheless that in the best interests of children homosexual ‘marriage’ should remain prohibited.
“The Information Mission made every effort to hear all views on the subject. It organized 14 round tables and heard 130 people from the diversity of French society.  It traveled to Spain, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada to assess the reforms that have been undertaken in other countries.”

Go here for the translated summary report of the French Parliament decision. (it’s only two pages)

From the report:

Children represent the future of society. They “must not suffer from conditions imposed upon them by adults”. “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.

“The purpose of adoption is not to provide a child to a family but rather provide a family to a child …Given the original trauma of his personal history, the adopted child requires the judicial and emotional security that only married parents can provide.” Furthermore, same sex parenting introduces additional discontinuity for the adopted child, “namely the loss of the analogy between the original couple and the couple educating him/her”. Favoring equality for adults would bring about a greater inequality towards children. For both adoption and medically assisted reproduction, the report rejects the notion of a right to a child.”

Traditional Marriage being represented Equally?

This is the cover for the book Who’s in a Family? This book is used to teach young children about all kinds of families. You might notice, that no where on this book cover is a tradition marriage with children.

(maybe the one on the middle right side? except I honestly can’t tell the gender of either “parent.”)

This is an analysis from my friend at beetlebabee:

I just got a good look at the book, “King and King“, by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland, that was read by a second grade school teacher to her entire class in a segment teaching about marriage.  This book’s inclusion in the Massachusetts elementary school curriculum is shocking not just for the obviously inflammatory ending where the prince marries another prince instead of the princess, but in the way that it tears down and denigrates traditional marriage and women.

“By the time I was your age, I’d been married TWICE!” a horrible looking, overweight, crooked toothed figure tells her son.

How is this portraying marriage to our little ones?  Dirty, Cheap?  Meaningless?  One by one, the princesses are brought in, “No!” the prince says and goes on to comment about how one princess is too fat, one has crooked teeth, one is black and her arms are too long….  The book sends a message that replaces traditional marriage, it’s not just including, it’s tearing down and replacing.

“Who’s in a Family?” by Robert Skutch is another book used by Massachusetts schools to teach about the family.  Not only does it deal with gay families, but it does NOT include traditional, nuclear families on it’s cover.  A quick glance illustrates the main point of the book.  There are no pictures of what most of us would consider a family.  As I look at the arguments of the opposition I have to ask, why the exclusion if there is no anti-traditional agenda?

CA Kindergartners treated to "Coming Out Day"

 

This was posted originally here by Daniel (I thought it was important enough to double post):

I’m amazed that the opponents of Prop 8 continue to call us liars for saying that children will be taught about gay marriage in school. Here is the latest evidence to the contrary showing that not only will it happen but it’s already happening. From worldnetdaily:

“SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in “Coming Out Day” at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.

One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold school of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school.

The little girl replied, “We’re learning to be allies.”

The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch.

According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating “Gay and Lesbian History Month” and is in the process of observing “Ally Week,” a pro-”gay” occasion usually geared toward high school students.

The school is scheduled to host discussions about families and has posted fliers on school grounds portraying only homosexuals. According to the report, a “TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud” will take place Nov. 20. Students will listen to traditional stories with “gay” or transgender twists, to include “Jane and the Beanstalk.”

Some parents only recently noticed posters promoting the school’s “Coming Out Day” tomorrow – celebrated 12 days after the national “Coming Out Day” usually observed on Oct. 11. When WND contacted the school to confirm the event, a female representative replied, “Yes, it is scheduled on our calendar.”

When asked if the school made any efforts to inform parents, she refused to answer and said Hayward Unified School District would have to respond to additional questions. However, the district did not answer its phones or e-mails, and a voicemail recording would not take messages. “Coming Out Day” is not listed on the district’s online school calendar.

Some of the parents contacted Pacific Justice Institute for representation when they learned the school was pushing pro-”gay” events for young children without warning.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said opponents of California’s proposed ban on same-sex marriage, or Proposition 8, often say the measure would not have an effect on public schools – but this is one of many recent developments that prove otherwise.

“Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?” he asked. “Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools.”

Concerned individuals may contact Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science by calling (510) 889-7399. The Hayward Unified School District can be reached at (510)784-2600 or by filling out the district contact form.