By Jim Kouri
"I shudder to think how millions of California children will be led astray, how marriage will be destroyed, and how immorality will step on the neck of morality if Arnold Schwarzenegger signs five anti-family bills into law. The ‘Terminator’ has less than two weeks to sign or veto very bad bills!" said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families.
Thomasson is disappointed with California’s Christian pastors and elders. In the last five days, many individuals and several businesses have responded to CCF’s action alert. However, to date, only one church has faxed in veto letters to the liberal Schwarzenegger’s office in Sacramento.
"This is not right, since the majority of pastors in California oppose sexual indoctrination of schoolchildren (SB 777 and AB 394), oppose demeaning marriage (AB 43 and AB 102), and oppose forcing the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda on businesses, organizations, and churches (AB 14)," said Thomasson.
"Distracted drivers cause car accidents; distracted pastors may accidentally assist anti-family bills to be signed into law. The Governor will notice our loud voice or our relative silence. The choice is [ours]," he added.
California’s leading pro-family organizations are urging Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto five bills they believe will harm children, marriage, and religious freedom that are on his desk. And the Governor is taking notice — he’s listed the five bills as among a dozen pieces of legislation upon which telephone callers to his State Capitol office can "vote."
Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), Capitol Resource Institute, California Family Council, and Traditional Values Coalition are all urging vetoes of two school sexual indoctrination bills (SB 777 and AB 394), two marriage-demeaning bills (AB 102 and AB 43), and a bill that forces homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality upon businesses, churches, and nonprofit member organizations such as the Boy Scouts (AB 14).
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt in Education, Family, Liberalism, Social Issues categories at 12:19 AM EST
No Comments »
Is marriage becoming politically incorrect?
by Carey Roberts
Am I the only one who is worried about the collapse of the traditional American family right before our very eyes?
Census Bureau bureaucrats are not in the habit of making apocalyptic pronouncements, but last year Mark Mather reported that the "dramatic decline" in the married population is "one of the biggest demographic stories of the past several decades." Now, married couples now account for a minority 49.7% to be exact – of all U.S. households.
The cause of this extraordinary demographic shift is two-fold. First, Americans are getting married only half as often as we used to. Second since 1960, the share of divorced Americans rose from 2% to 10%.
African-American communities have been especially hard-hit. In 1960 four-fifths of all Black families had fathers and mothers at home. Three decades later, that number had plummeted to 38%.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt in Family, Social Issues categories at 7:06 AM EST
No Comments »
by Robert E. Meyer
We had a Marriage Amendment referendum in Wisconsin this November, as they did in several other states. I have to admit that for a while I was pretty concerned that the outcome of the vote was in doubt.
Last spring, I was having breakfast with a man who has been very influential in my life over the past several years. I complained to him about the indifference and complacency that I noticed on the marriage issue. At that time, I saw Letters to the Editor every week arguing for voting "no" on the amendment referendum. I saw very few rebuttals. It would be more than generous to say the arguments against the amendment were very specious, but they were cleverly presented to appeal to the emotions, and dupe anyone who was not doing their own independent research.
In Wisconsin, as well as seven of the eight states with binding referendums on marriage, the amendments passed, taking the question of the legal composition of marriage out of the hands of judges.
After the vote, editorial sections of regional newspapers I read, were teeming with sour-grape diatribes by those who had voted against the Marriage Amendment. They spent their editorial capital either ridiculing the ethic, or trying to shame the "backward majority" who had voted for the amendment.
One such letter was composed by a man in his late twenties, who took a futuristic approach in his effort to scold "narrow-minded" readers.
He imagined that it was the year 2056, and that he was an incontinent senior citizen, who was trying to get someone to change his soiled diaper. He reminded the current generation alive then, that though the state of Wisconsin had passed an amendment legally sanctioning only traditional marriage, he was one of the "enlightened" progressives who didn't vote with the rest of the ignorant yokels.
I responded to him in my own Letter to the Editor as such…
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt in Family, Liberalism, Politics, Social Issues categories at 8:14 AM EST
No Comments »
SB 1437 passes California State Assembly, outraging parents and grandparents who demand that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger veto raft of sexual indoctrination bills
RESPOND RIGHT NOW: Call Governor Schwarzenegger immediately to urge him to veto SB 1437 and SB 1441. Sacramento (916) 445-2841, Los Angeles (213) 897-0322, San Diego (619) 525-4641. Visit the CCF Action Center for more steps.
Sacramento, California – The Democrat-controlled California State Assembly today passed SB 1437, one of four bills that would sexually indoctrinate schoolchildren and college students. SB 1437 would alter K-12 public education textbooks, instructional materials, and school-sponsored activities to positively reference transsexuality, transvestitism, bisexuality, and homosexuality, including homosexual “marriage.” The Assembly floor vote was 46-31 (five more than needed to achieve a 41-vote majority). SB 1437 now goes to the state Senate for a concurrence vote.
Immediately before the debate, a Republican-offered amendment requiring schools to acquire parental permission before sexual curriculum was taught to their own children failed on a 26-48 vote. During the 36-minute debate on SB 1437, seven Republican spoke against the bill (Haynes, DeVore, La Suer, Huff, La Malfa, Spitzer, and Mountjoy), while six Democrats spoke in favor it (Nunez, Goldberg, Frommer, Saldana, Ruskin, and Levine).
In his opening remarks, Democrat Fabian Nunez, the Assembly Speaker and the bill’s floor jockey, openly said the real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system. “The way that you correct a wrong is by outlawing. ‘Cause if you don’t outlaw it, then people’s biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view,” Nunez said.
And, in his close, Nunez admitted that SB 1437 will promote lesbianism to young girls. “If somebody wants to teach kids in kindergarten that Jack and Jill ran up a hill, this bill doesn’t prohibit that. But it does say that if somebody wants to say that if Jill and Jill ran up the hill and somehow that’s wrong — then this bill says that that is not acceptable,” said Nunez.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt in Education, Family, Social Issues categories at 10:16 PM EDT
No Comments »
The perception of a child's innocence may be politically correct. But in today's society many children are proving themselves without innocence.
Children today are participating in increasing numbers, cruel, pre-meditated crimes, and sometimes deadly crimes at an alarming increasing rate.
Children can kill, steal, humiliate and lie. Nobody needs to be reminded of the Bugler case in Britain a few years back when two kids battered a toddler to death with bricks and an iron rod. Another more recent example is the brutal killing of a young girl in Yorkshire by a group of boys and girls roughly her own age. She was willfully set upon, beaten and kicked to death. (The Conservative Voice)
And what is the cause of this anti-social behaviors? The lack of parental discipline and the absence of moral guidance in the schools.
The big bureaucrats in brother Brussels have equated spanking with torture and have empowered one of its watchdogs, the World Organization Against Torture, to peer into the last domain of privacy and autonomy of our society namely, the family home. The mechanisms of power have finally succeeded in usurping the authority vested in the family unit, the cornerstone of our civilization. Children are now at liberty – and are encouraged - to call the authorities if their parents so much as lay a hand on them.
The line between slapping, spanking, shaking, pinching, etc. is all but academic now because any forceful action directed at children by their parents can henceforth be classed as 'torture'. What is the difference between a light smack on the bottom and the visible bruise that is left after a father has, in the last moment, managed to grab his small daughter by the arm just before she ran into the path of an oncoming bus? Do children have the ability to distinguish between actions, on the part of the parents, to harm them and actions intended to protect them? In other words, do they have the moral ability to discern the parameters separating good and bad, right from wrong? (The Conservative Voice)
Since the sixties, the baby boom generation was being taught that kids left to their own will discover what is right and wrong. They may know what is wrong, but they do not see the consequences of their action. Therefore, they take no responsibility. And their source of learning these anti-social skills are coming from watching TV and playing violent games on the computer with no restrictions.
Posted by Walt in Education, Family, Social Issues categories at 8:08 AM EDT
No Comments »
Is gay marriage really polically correct in our permissive society?
Thomas Sowell's recent article, Gay 'marriage', illustrates the absurdity that same-sex proponents will go to legalize an 'action' when trying to redefine marriage. For centuries marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman. But today, in some states same-sex marriage is considered political correct.
The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.
When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.
In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business. (TownHall.com)
Mr Sowell continues with the point why same-sex unions is becoming unfavorable in many states, such as Massachusetts, the first state to legalize same-sex marriages. That law will de addressed in Novembers election as the majority of voters in Massachusetts want the law repealed.
Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval. . .
. . . In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.
They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban. (TownHall.com)
Read the rest of the article, and see the self-evident truth that argues against same-sex unions. It is no wonder why many sates are reversing their stance on same-sex unions or establishing laws defining marriage as a union between one man and one women only, with no exceptions.
Posted by Walt in Family, Law Issues, Social Issues categories at 7:23 AM EDT
No Comments »
Here is a good example of political correctness going too far.
The National Union of Teachers, Great Britain's largest teaching union is advocating that children as young as three years old should be taught about same-sex relationships in a bid to stamp out homophobia.
The NUT document says: "In the case of homophobia, the use of the word 'gay' is prevalent in primary schools and young boys who are perceived to not conform to masculine stereotypes are at risk of bullying, isolation and social exclusion.
"It is too late to wait until primary school to challenge prejudice and intolerant abusive language (The Daily Mail of UK)
I ask, how can a child at that age understand this concept of same-sex relationships? And what about their childhood innocent? Yes, children should be taught to respect all persons without overly exposing them to one particularly minority group.
At least there is some sanity in UK.
…Nick Seaton, of the Campaign for Real Education, branded the demands as "ridiculous".
He said: "I very much doubt that three-year-olds will be able to grasp the implications of these things anyway.
"Apart from that, even if they do, it seems completely wrong for the state education system to try and brainwash youngsters in this way.
"It is achingly politically correct and it's a sad reflection on the direction state education is taking, with the emphasis on teaching politically correct values, rather than worthwhile subjects." (The Daily Mail of UK)
and,
Hugh McKinney, of the National Family Campaign, added: "To attach any kind of value judgment to the views and statements of three-year-olds is simply nonsense.
"Nobody condones homophobic language but to try and teach impressionable, immature youngsters about issues such as this is simply wrong for their stage of development.
"The state system should not be the basis for such teaching until children are older and more able to form their own judgments." (The Daily Mail of UK)
The only alternative is private schooling. But not everyone can afford to send their child to a private school.
Posted by Walt in Education, Family, Social Issues categories at 9:37 PM EDT
No Comments »
Gender-neutralizing bill could also jeopardize prom kings, queens.
Soon it may no longer be polically correct to have references to 'Mom' and 'Dad' if Zelda has her way in bill SB 1437 becomes law. This law could potentially require gender-neutral bathrooms in our schools and all references to 'husband' and 'wife' or 'mom and dad' removed from school textbooks as the norm.
The bill SB 1437 is sponsored by Democratic Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a lesbian actress best known for playing Zelda in "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis" in the '60s. The legislation would add "gender" (actual or perceived) and "sexual orientation" to the law that prohibits California public schools from having textbooks, teaching materials, instruction or "school-sponsored activities" that reflect adversely upon people based on characteristics like race, creed and handicap.
The end means of SB 1437 would disregard all notions of the traditional family unit. SB 1437 seeks to eliminate all 'stereotypes' of the traditional family so that young children are brainwashed into believing that families with moms and dads are irrelevant.
The resulting effects would be that school districts would likely be prohibited from having a 'prom king and queen' because that would show bias based on gender and sexual orientation. The measure also could affect issues like gender-specific sports teams.
Currently, Campaign for Children and Family is leading the fight against SB 1437 and other related bills being considered in California and through out the U.S. CCF is is an innovative nonprofit, nonpartisan pro-family organization serving children and families in California and America that believes that the natural family needs respect and support, and that children need healthy role models to have the best life possible.
Source: WorldNetDaily.com
Posted by Walt in Education, Family, Social Issues categories at 1:01 PM EST
No Comments »
