A Brief Break in the Action!

Due to final exams, I will not be engaging in any sort of civil discourse with my guests to this site until next week. I will return to respond to each and every one of your comments on December 20th. Just like many of you, I am studying for a final and need to focus on my books instead of engaging in debate. I appreciate all of you leaving your comments, in which many of them are interesting and thought provoking. Please continue to leave your opinions, comments, or suggestions and I will respond to them once I wake up from my nap ;)

Thanks for understanding and I will talk with you all very soon.

Good luck to all of those who are taking final exams. Scia Ciantee

"Good"!! - Cynthia Marchand

Emer O'Shea knew something was wrong the minute she picked up her daughter from Franklin Elementary School. The third-grader was normally very perky upon seeing her mother and new baby sister, but this time she glanced at her mother without indicating what was wrong, except to say that the school's social worker had visited the class. But Emer soon heard from another parent about what had happened in her daughter's class that day, and she was both stunned and mortified. The next day her young daughter finally opened up with a question that would baffle most parents of an 8-year-old child, "Mommy, is it possible for a man to have an operation to become a woman?" Read full story here.

I am a little confused. What are the benefits of teaching 8 year-old children about transgenders and transvestites? O.K., O.K. I can understand that diversity and tolerance should be taught...but, and this is a huge but, not by the government run indoctrination camps, AKA public schools. This job is up to the parents of the children attending public school systems. If the parent(s) then want to answer tough questions about transgenderism and write it off as a "teachable moment" then so be it. But don't force your lifestyle on my children and think it is O.K., especially when I am paying taxes for my child to strictly learn about the ABC's and 123's and not about lifestyles that are psychologically unbalanced and dangerous, which is a medical fact and not opinion.

Don't these public schools know that there is a major federal civil rights lawsuit being brought against the Lexington Public School system over very similar circumstances?

I would teach my daughter about different lifestyles if the public school system would teach about Christianity and Judaism. You might be thinking well what about the separation of church and state. Let me tell you something, the phrase church and state does not exist.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, he writes: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Letter to Danbury Baptists (1802).

Once again, there is a double standard when it comes to teaching about diversity and teaching our children right from wrong.

What do you think?

A Personal Message From Kris Mineau

Last week, Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus (and chief lobbyist for the Massachusetts Teachers Association), stood boldly before a cheering crowd at the State House shouting "it's over, it's over." By a vote of 109 to 87, legislators recessed the Constitutional Convention to January 2 without taking a vote on the people's amendment on marriage. Each of those 109 legislators personally broke their oath of office and violated the constitution with the clear intention of never taking a vote on the people's business.

Media outlets from the Boston Globe to the Wall Street Journal and all across the Commonwealth and the country have opined about this dereliction of duty by the Massachusetts legislature. I have only one thing to say to Arline Isaacson and those like her: No, it's not over!

But to you and the tens of thousands of concerned, involved citizens who have stood with us since the beginning of this fight, I have this to say: We'll continue to fight until justice and democracy rule in Massachusetts for all citizens! While the legislature intentionally provided few alternatives for us with their blatantly unconstitutional maneuver, we are not without options and we are not without hope.

Backers of the Marriage Amendment are not alone in this fight. In their rush to shut down the Constitutional Convention to run from the same-sex marriage issue, lawmakers also gave a blow to a citizen-initiated amendment on universal healthcare. This measure, too, deserves a legislative vote.

As of now, January 2 is the day of reckoning for a vote on the Marriage Amendment. Then we'll see if House Speaker DiMasi will continue to be successful with his arm-twisting of members - many of whom stood with us not to recess until the Speaker personally pressured them into violating their oath of office.

As you know, gay-rights advocacy organizations, according to their own gay and lesbian newspaper, Bay Windows, poured $1 million into the November 7 election for one key reason: so lawmakers would be indebted to them and return the favor by killing the Marriage Amendment by any means possible.

This is a tragic time in our democracy, and will be a defining moment in our history. The actions of those who oppose real democracy are being exposed and people like you and me are standing up for truth and justice. We're mobilized, and we're not backing down! Your continued presence at the State House during key events is crucial, and we're looking ahead to a January 2 showdown. Your calls to legislators, letters to the editors, and personal dialogues with friends and family to get them involved in this noble fight will ultimately win the day.

Be sure to visit VoteOnMarriage.org for the names of the 109 legislators who betrayed our constitution and violated their oath of office.

We can move Massachusetts in the right direction by simply standing up in the face of a state legislature dominated by greed and arrogance. It's our state, not theirs. Don't let them take away your right to be heard!

Please, continue to take action as we send updates and alerts on our progress going forward. There are 49 days left between now and January 2. Together, we will win this fight!

May God bless the Commonwealth and all our families,

Kris Mineau President, Massachusetts Family Institute and Spokesman, VoteOnMarriage.org

Agenda Driven "Journalist"

">David Wedge is the Boston Herald's Chief Enterprise Reporter and also writes Sunday's "Pols & Politics" column. This past Sunday, November 12, Mr. Wedge wrote a piece about the Constitutional Convention that occured this past Thursday at the State House. Read Here for full article.

Here is the 'Letters To The Editor' response from State Rep. MARIE J. PARENTE even if the Herald does not publish it:

Naturally, I believe that David Wedge's 11-12-06 attack on my 26-year legislative career that ended recently and involuntarily was unwarranted. He never contacted me about my recent primary election, nor did he inquire why I sought to speak at the recent Constitutional Convention. I had asked the legislator at the microphone to yield for a question and when he did not, I asked for a point of personal privilege. The noise of many on going conversations in the House Chamber was deafening and I had to raise my voice to be heard.

David Wedge chose to ridicule me and ignored the real story i.e. that the hard work, time, effort and money put forth by one hundred and seventy thousand petitioners to place a question on the Massachusetts ballot was disregarded, disrespected and callously discarded. Many of the petitioners are Herald readers.

In addition, I have never won a contested primary election, as my support is broad based. After one primary loss, over six thousand, seven hundred voters wrote my name in. Why? Because I did what they sent me to Boston to do. Stand up, be counted, and speak up loudly above the crowd if necessary. That is how I got the first Vietnam Veteran out of prison. That is how I successfully authored over one hundred and fourteen laws for my district and co-authored one hundred laws that have improved the lives of families, children, foster children, laborers, elderly and veterans. I wrote dozens of reports on the Big Dig, Privatization, Foster Care, Cell Towers, Teen-age suicide, Fraud and Waste in Government Land helped craft the new School Building Reimbursement Program. Call me what you will, David, you can never diminish my sense of achievement and the thrill of helping people. Unlike your invectives, a young marine described me thus, "I would rather die standing tall than live on my knees."

I just got off the phone with Rep. Parente to thank her for her courages speech she did in the House Chambers Thursday regarding the work of those who collected the historical number of signatures for the marriage amendment to be voted on in 2008. Rep. Parente was sharp and to the point with her words and raised her voice only to be heard over the House Chamber's conversations. Rep. Parente is a dedicated, hard working and passionate legislator who will be greatly missed as of 12:01 a.m. of January 3rd 2007 when the changing of the guard occurs at the State House.

Also to go un-noticed are Rep. PAUL J.P. LOSCOCCO and Rep. PHILIP TRAVIS who both worked very hard all day at the convention to push for a vote on the citizen initiated marriage amendment. To the three representatives already mentioned and all of those who voted down a recess to the convention: THANK YOU!

Yes, Mayor Menino “The American Revolution started here in Boston, and the (petition signer's)Revolution will continue..."

LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!

54% of the Country Say "NO" to Gay "Marriage"

Voters have approved "defense of marriage" amendments in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. But it appears Arizona is the first of more than two dozen states that have considered such measures to defeat a move to constitutionally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

On Election Day two years ago, ballot measures amending state constitutions to protect traditional marriage made a clean sweep, passing in 11 states. That brought to 20 the total number of states taking it upon themselves to define marriage as a heterosexual relationship, effectively banning same-sex "marriage" in those states. Seven of the eight states considering similar initiatives on Election Day 2006 followed suit, with victories ranging from a 80-20 margin in Tennessee to a relatively close 52-48 margin in South Dakota. But with practically all precincts counted, the amendment in Arizona appears to have suffered a narrow defeat (49 percent to 51 percent).

(for - against)

1. Arizona 49% - 51%

2. Colorado 56% - 44%

3. Idaho 63% - 37%

4. South Carolina 78% - 22%

5. South Dakota 52% - 48%

6. Tennessee 80% - 20%

7. Virginia 57% - 43%

8. Wisconsin 59% - 41%

On an election day in which voters may have been sending any number of messages to President Bush or to the Republican-controlled Congress, their message to homosexual activists was clear and overwhelmingly unified.

"Americans believe overwhelmingly that marriage is the union of one man and one woman," says Jim Pfaff with Colorado-based Focus on the Family, where the marriage amendment passed comfortably with 56 percent of that tally. "They know it's a vital institution to our country and to our government despite its faults," he adds.

Voters in Colorado also turned away a measure that would have granted domestic-partnership rights to same-sex couples, effectively establishing "civil unions." Pfaff calls the outcome of the two measures a reflection of voters -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- who "believe in the value of marriage."

Slightly more than 2.3 million Virginians cast their vote on that state's marriage amendment issue, with approximately 1.3 million of those (~57 percent) saying yes to traditional marriage. Chris Freund with VA4marriage.com is convinced Virginians made a real difference in the outcome.

"Virginians have made it very clear that they do not want marriage redefined ...," says Freund. "We're just very pleased that Virginians -- and in particular, the Church in Virginia -- really stepped up to the plate and sent a very clear message."

In South Carolina, some opponents of traditional marriage are being accused of resorting to illegal tactics in their attempts to defeat the constitutional amendment measure. But Oran Smith with the Palmetto Family Council says voters in his state were not fooled.

"We were very distraught about all the work we put into putting signs at the key precincts and such that were just absolutely stolen, because they were replaced in the wee hours of the morning with signs from the opposition," says Smith. Despite those attempts, the South Carolina amendment won with an overwhelming 78 percent of the vote.

Though marriage in the majority of U.S. states is now constitutionally defined as the legal union of only one man and one woman, Focus on the Family's Pfaff says the work for pro-family activists is far from over.

"What we need to do now is to continue to press forward to protect marriage nationwide, and then thereafter we need to strengthen marriage," Pfaff urges. He believes that one way to do that is by reforming the nation's no-fault divorce laws.

The people have voiced their vote. This is part of the democratic process that makes laws in this country. So lets all vote on marriage and put this issue to rest shall we.

I will keep you informed of the results of the Constitutional Convention at the State House tomorrow. A second formal session of the convention is to take place around 1pm and dirty tricks to prevent the voters of Massachusetts their right to vote on marriage are expected to swing into action.

Flood the phone lines to the State House and call your representative and senator now to tell them to...

LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!

Democrats Go On Record In Support Of Homosexual Marriage

Activists pushing for legalizing homosexual marriage say they will not stop with just homosexual marriage. They demand more. They want government and societal acceptance, approval and financial support for many kinds of relationships, including polygamy. And the Democratic Party says it will help them achieve their goal.

Activists say that marriage is "not the only worthy form of family or relationship," and it "should not be legally or economically privileged above others." The statement was signed by 270 homosexual rights activists and heterosexual allies.

Other kinds of relationships that they say deserve marriage-like benefits include "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner (polygamy)" and "queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households." The goal of the activists is the destruction of traditional marriage.

The Democrat National Committee has developed plans to help the homosexual activists achieve their goal. Democratic National Committee (DNC) spokesman Danien LaVera says the DNC has developed a five-point plan to help homosexuals block any legislation which prohibits homosexual marriage, and to push homosexual marriage.

The first successful effort occurred in Illinois where the Democrats helped the activists keep the marriage protection law off the ballot in that state, including a donation of $10,000.

LaVera said the DNC strongly opposes efforts to ban homosexual marriage by amending the federal or state constitutions and that the Democratic party plans to step up efforts to promote pro-homosexual marriage bills in several states.

Democratic parties in eight states have already adopted platforms endorsing homosexual marriage bills. They include New York, California, Washington, Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts and Hawaii.

Here is the 5-point plan LaVera said the Democratic National Committee has developed to fight for homosexual marriage:

1. Labeling efforts to ban homosexual marriage as "divisive" ploys by the Republicans and others to deflect voter attention from other important issues..."

2. Begin a "party-building" operation which includes specific training for state Democratic operatives in all 50 states on how to campaign against ballot measures banning homosexual marriage.

3. Working closely with the gay group National Stonewall Democrats to "develop strategy and talking points' to combat state measures defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

4. Working cooperatively with homosexual organizations fighting ballot measures in each state where they surface, providing campaign advice, expertise, and logistical and financial support.

5. Empowering and organizing homosexual communities around the country with the help of the DNC's new homosexual outreach organizer Brian Bond.

Take Action

1. Sign the NO HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE pledge. Officials of both parties will be notified of the number who sign the pledge. We will not provide either party with your name or email address.

2. Please forward this email to friends and family alerting them about the plans of the Democratic party to help legalize homosexual marriage and abolish the traditional family.

3. Tell your friends about the efforts of the Democratic Party.

Click Here to Sign the Pledge Now!

"We will be pushing to have the language of our marriage statute to be amended to refer to just any two people as a couple, rather than man and wife."

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, October 25th that same-sex couples are entitled to the same "rights" of marriage as heterosexual couples are.

Read the full story HERE.

In a press release earlier today, VoteOnMarriage.org condemned the New Jersey Supreme Court for its decision Wednesday suggesting that the New Jersey state Constitution grants a "right" to same sex unions.

"The New Jersey Court joins the Massachusetts Court in legislating from the bench," said Kris Mineau, president, Massachusetts Family Institute and spokesman, VoteOnMarriage.org.

However, while the decision wasn't all that traditional marriage advocates could've hoped for, it was not as disastrous as the 2003 Goodridge decision. It is important to note that even in their attempt to rule in favor of same-sex unions, the New Jersey Court affirmed that it is the responsibility of the legislature to decide whether they pass some sort of civil union, or amend their marriage laws to include homosexual couples. This is similar to the ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court that brought about that state's civil union law. The decision lies with the legislature as the representatives of the people. We the people of Massachusetts deserve that same chance to weigh in and have a say in the definition of marriage.

Recent decisions regarding same sex marriage from the high courts of New York, California and the state of Washington each upheld the fundamental principle that marriage is primarily for the purpose of procreation and the nurturing of children. As such, they have found a compelling interest in preserving traditional marriage because the best environment for raising children is in a home with a mother and father. The New Jersey decision departs from recent precedent and calls on the state legislature to amend the current statutory scheme to afford rights and benefits equal to marriage to same sex couples within 180 days, whether in the form of "marriage" or in a separate legal "civil union" statute.

Matt Daniels is a pro-family advocate with Alliance for Marriage, another group that has been pushing for a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. In a recent Associated Press interview he commented that, with this ruling, the high court in New Jersey has given state lawmakers an unacceptable choice.

"The court is holding a legal gun to the head of the Legislature," Daniels asserts, "and saying under court order, 'You may choose between two bullets, which are in the chambers of this gun -- one is gay marriage, the other is gay marriage in all but name -- and you get to 'choose.'" However, he insists, "That's not a choice. That's not the democratic process."

VoteOnMarriage.org again calls on the Massachusetts Legislature to carry out their constitutional duty and vote on the Marriage Amendment.

VoteOnMarriage.org also calls on the United States Congress to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment so that out of step courts around the country can't create a marriage "hodge-podge," weakening the institution of marriage for everyone and creating a tangle of lawsuits that will be fought indefinitely.

Help me understand something. What is wrong with this statement from Laura Pople, president of the New Jersey Lesbian and Gay Coalition?:

"We will be pushing to have the language of our marriage statute to be amended to refer to just any two people as a couple, rather than man and wife."

I have mentioned time and time again on this blog the comments that the radical homosexual community has said about marriage which echos what Ms. Pople is saying. This community is taking America down a slippery slope with the advocation of any two people taking part in a marriage. This will naturally, and as silly as it may sound, lead to lawfull marriages between animal and man or women or children and man or women. This is simply not right. Just by this fact alone, this nonsense needs to come to an end.

Now more than ever we need to stand tall for traditional marriage. Please join me at the State House on November 9th and let's show the legislature we demand our right to vote on marriage.

Thank you,

Scia

Pro-Marriage Message at Root of Employee's Dismissal

A Virginia man has allegedly been fired from his job for supporting a state ballot initiative defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Luis Padilla was reportedly terminated from his employment at a Cargill Foods plant in Harrisonburg because of a written message on the rear window of his pickup truck that read: "Please, vote for marriage on Nov. 7." That is the day when voters in Virginia will be considering a proposed amendment to the state constitution protecting traditional marriage.

According to the Daily-News Record in Harrisonburg, Padilla -- who worked in Cargill's human resources office -- was dismissed for insubordination when he refused to remove the message, which company officials could be considered harassment. He apparently had removed the sign when first requested, then later posted it again and parked his truck outside the company parking lot. The newspaper report indicates the former Cargill employee was trying to reach an accommodation with the company about the message when he was fired.

The Family Foundation of Virginia sent a letter to Cargill, calling for Padilla's reinstatement. However, the large private company has denied the request, saying "Cargill is not required to allow Mr. Padilla to impose his beliefs on his co-workers." Victoria Cobb, executive director of the Family Foundation, says Cargill is engaging in viewpoint discrimination.

"We are seeing something that is starting to happen across America and even here in Virginia, where political correctness has run amok. That's the simplest way to put it," says Cobb. "The legal letter that we have received back from Cargill's legal department has basically said that they have these 'Valuing Differences' initiatives and they have this 'Everyone Matters' policy; and yet, apparently, Mr. Padilla's views are not respected."

Cobb believes Padilla, a father of two who is a native of Honduras and is in America on a work permit, is the victim of viewpoint discrimination and is being denied his right to free speech.

"If nothing else, even if there is not legal recourse the way we'd like for there to be legal recourse, there is absolutely a sense that this is intolerable behavior from a company," Cobb states. She also feels it is "devastating to our democracy" when there are individuals who believe, like Cargill, that simply posting a sign in a car window constitutes "imposing" one's beliefs on others.

"It is abundantly clear that those who seek to impose same-sex 'marriage' on society are not at all interested in tolerance of other viewpoints," says Cobb in a press release. "And they are willing to go so far as to destroy a man's family and take his livelihood to get their way."

A spokesman for the Family Foundation-affiliated Valley Family Forum echoes those sentiments. "This action exposes the hypocrisy of people who claim to stand for 'tolerance' but who instead do all they can to silence all opposing views," says Dean Welty. "In this case, those who accuse Mr. Padilla of 'harassment' have themselves become the 'harassers."

According to Cobb, who is also a spokesperson for the group va4marriage.org, Padilla has not yet decided whether to file a lawsuit against Cargill, noting Virginia law gives employers a great deal of latitude when it comes to firing employees. She says she is hopeful legal action will not be necessary and, toward that end, encourages Cargill to reinstate Padilla immediately.

On Election Day 2006, voters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin will consider constitutional amendments declaring marriage to be only the union of one man and one woman. The president of the group Americans for Truth believes the amendments should pass with little difficulty in five of those eight states.

"Arizona and Wisconsin are more of a battleground," Peter LaBarbera asserts, "and then there's a special situation in Colorado where there's a pro-domestic partner initiative that was very smartly, by the way, put up by homosexual activists. So those are the three states to watch. I think the rest of the states will pass handily."

In the case in all of the 20 states where a marriage amendment has been adopted by voters, the average approval rating has been 68 percent: SEE CHART

So, my question is if 40% of the country has passed inititives to ban same-sex "marriages" via a vote from the people, and marriage has been understood and governed by our countries laws to be between a man and a women, why is it so awful for Mr. Padilla to express his views on normative practices?

Pro-Family Groups Hail Calif. Court's Ruling Upholding Traditional Marriage

In a closely watched case challenging California's marriage laws, the California Court of Appeals rejected same-sex marriage in a 2 to 1 decision this past Friday October 6, 2006. The pro-family legal organization Liberty Counsel, representing Campaign for California Families, presented argument before the court.

The majority's opinion stated that the same-sex couples in these appeals were asking the Court of Appeals to "recognize a new right," but that courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, "especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution" as marriage. "In the final analysis," the judges stated, "the court is not in the business of defining marriage."

The majority opinion also declared that the lower trial court's decision "essentially redefined marriage to encompass unions that have never before been considered as such in this state." The appellate court's decision went on to state that it is "beyond the judiciary's realm of authority to redefine a statute or to confer a new right where none previously existed."

Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, was pleased with the California Court of Appeals' ruling. He says the court "followed the lead of other courts around the United States in recognizing that judges should not rewrite marriage laws with the stroke of a pen. The state of California did not create marriage and judges should not redefine it."

The marital union between a man and a woman is a unique relationship, Staver observes, one that "uniquely fosters responsible procreation" and contributes to the continuing well-being of men and women, children, and the state. "To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples would abolish marriage," the attorney contends. "The result," he says, "would be nonsensical and would have devastating effects on children and society."

Marriage Victory Hailed as Great Day for California and the Nation

Pro-family and religious leaders, conservative groups and public policy and legal organizations around the U.S. are celebrating the California Court of Appeals' ruling and applauding those who helped secure the court victory. On hearing of the decision, California attorney Richard D. Ackerman -- who was among the first to sue San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for authorizing the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses -- remarked, "This is a great day for California and the nation."

Ackerman says while so many courts have failed to respect the system of checks and balances America's founders established, "California proved itself capable of reading the Constitution for what it actually means and was intended to be." He believes the ruling will do much to restore the public's faith in the nation's judiciary, which has lost much respect due to "errant judges wishing to make their own law," he observes.

The California attorney says his state and the rest of the nation owe a great debt of gratitude to Liberty Counsel and its attorneys Mat Staver and Robert Tyler and to the Alliance Defense Fund. These organizations and attorneys, Ackerman notes, took on the issue of homosexual marriage "regardless of being called hateful, intolerant, and the like. ADF and Liberty Counsel saw these battles through to the end."

Another legal group, the Pro-Family Law Center (PFLC), also commended the legal team that argued the case, noting in a recent statement that the ADF and Liberty Counsel attorneys "always saw this as an issue about the democratic process." No state, PFLC asserts, "should ever be controlled by radical activists, like Gavin Newsom, who happen to be in political positions of power."

Traditional Marriage Not Yet Safe, Activists Warn

But although VoteYesMarriage.com coalition spokesman Randy Thomasson called the California Court of Appeals' ruling "a great decision upholding the right of California voters to protect the natural and beautiful institution of marriage for a man and a woman," he warns that the victory might be short lived. He says the California Supreme Court could still create homosexual "marriages" next year when this case is appealed.

Thomasson points out that the state high court already has three justices who support the notion of same-sex marriage: Judges Kennard, Werdegar, and Corrigan. "They only need one more justice on their side to destroy the time-honored institution of marriage," he says. "Therefore," the California activist continues, "the only certain way to fully and permanently protect marriage in California is to place the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment on the ballot to override the judges and politicians."

Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family Action's Senior Vice President of Government and Public Policy, agrees that one-man, one-woman marriage in California remains vulnerable, as it does in other states due to the ongoing efforts of activist judges and elected officials to push same-sex marriage, even when the voters have overwhelmingly rejected it.

The California's Court of Appeals' decision upheld traditional marriage, Minnery notes, just as courts in Georgia, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Washington have recently done. Thus the California court "demonstrated a proper understanding of the role of courts by declaring that the right to change public policy is the realm of the state Legislature," he says.

But now, the Focus on the Family Action official contends, California lawmakers need to respect the will of the voters as expressed in 2000 when they approved Proposition 22, by protecting one-man, one-woman marriage with a state marriage amendment. Meanwhile, he says Congress needs to pass a federal marriage amendment, to ensure the uniformity of the definition of marriage nationwide.

"Despite these encouraging marriage decisions, marriage cannot remain vulnerable to the whim of judges who could impose their own will on society," Minnery insists. Marriage, he says, must be protected both in the states' and the federal constitution.

Parental Rights & the Constitution of America... or is it of Europe?

Michael Farris, chancellor of Patrick Henry College where he teaches constitutional law and chairman and general counsel of Home School Legal Defense Association, wrote an incredible piece for WorldNetDaily focusing on how the Supreme Court wants to open its interpretation of the constitution based on international law. It is an eye-opening read:

A recent article in the American Journal of International Law tells this story:

In the keynote address to the 2003 annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, Justice Stephen Breyer declared that "comparative analysis emphatically is relevant to the task of interpreting constitutions and enforcing human rights." Justice Breyer concluded that nothing could be "more exciting for an academic, practitioner, or judge than the global legal enterprise that is now upon us." In a room filled with international lawyers and academics, he received a home court standing ovation.

Breyer's use of the term "comparative analysis" means that the Supreme Court should use international law sources to help interpret American law, including the U.S. Constitution. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist said it even more directly: "Now that constitutional law is solidly grounded in so many countries, it is time that the United States courts begin looking to the decisions of other constitutional courts to aid in their own deliberative process."

Read the full article Here

So, to put things into perspective relative to what my focus here on Know Thy Facts is all about, there has been many comments posted suggesting that the interpretation of law of the U.S. constitution is based on the countries morals. Well, if you think that take is the truth, and boy...it is FAR from the truth, then how would you like to interpret the U.S. constitution based upon the way other countries interpret their constitutions? Think about that and let me know if "We The People" really means anything to you now.

"Sexual Indoctrination Bills" Fall Short of Approval

Pro-family groups in California and across the United States are celebrating Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Thursday veto of two pro-homosexual bills. The bills were two of three pieces of legislation regarded by pro-family leaders as "sexual indoctrination bills," which would have, among other things, mandated pro-homosexual policy and curriculum changes in the state's schools. Read the full story HERE. Read full contents of bills HERE.

The governor also vetoed a bill that would of legalized same-sex "marriages" in California. Read the full story HERE.

As I reported earlier on this blog, it was uncertain how Governor Schwarzenegger was going to react to the school bills and I was almost certain gay "marriage" was going to be legal in California. But low and behold THE PEOPLE SPOKE and the legislature LISTENED. Interesting how democracy works when state officials listen to the people they REPRESENT.

Now, we just have got to get Beacon Hill in Massachusetts to LISTEN to the people, all 170,000 of those who signed the traditional marriage petition last fall. Our campaign is making some awesome headway in the fight to protect traditional marriage and I will keep you all updated about the constitutional convention on November 9th.

Rumors have circulated that House Speaker Sal DiMasi is planning to postpone or disrupt the Constitutional Convention once again, most notably with efforts to deny a quorum by encouraging legislators to be absent and shirk their constitutional duties. I am so glad the MA legislature is voted in BY THE PEOPLE but does not REPRESENT the people.

Get in touch with your State Representative and State Senator and tell them that they must attend the Constitutional Convention on November 9th. Tell them that they must vote and that you will be watching what they do and don't do!

Click HERE to get in touch with your rep. and senator.

LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!

Wal-Mart Sponsors Diversity Week, Includes How To Defeat A Constitutional Ban On Homosexual Marriage

Wal-Mart has given its full endorsement to the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage. Boise State University in Boise, Idaho, will observe LGBT Diversity Week October 9–13. One of the sponsors for the Diversity Week is Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is joining the Pleasure Boutique (an adult bookstore which bills itself as "Idaho's largest selection of adult movies and DVDs and largest adult toy selection in Idaho") and other groups in sponsoring the week. Diversity Week is a week of celebrating homosexuality and promoting the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage.

Among the events being sponsored by Wal-Mart is Idaho Votes No Campaign Update and Information Workshop. Voters in Idaho will be voting on a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in November. This Wal-Mart sponsored event will inform voters how to oppose the amendment and how to get others to do so. Wal-Mart is putting their money behind the effort to legalize homosexual marriage.

Other events being sponsored by Wal-Mart: Gay History of Idaho, Diversity in the Workplace, Women's/Lesbian Issues, Hate Based Crimes, Heterosexism, Homosexuality and Disabilities, LGBT Youth in Trouble, MCC-Faith and LGBT, and a youth dance for those age 24 and under.

We earlier reported on Wal-Mart throwing their clout and cash behind the homosexual marriage effort.

I just want one question answered: Why is Wal-Mart trying to just focus on a consumer market that engages in an alternative lifestyle? What is the purpose of having this small subgroup of people, who make up less than 3% of the population, as the target audience? Does Wal-Mart realize that 86% of the American population are Christian/Catholic? ...is this smart advertising?

Where Are The Children's Rights In Same-Sex Marriages?

Louis DeSerres, co-founder of Preserve Marriage - Protect Children's Rights, addressed the harm to children's rights resulting from same-sex marriage at the What’s The Harm? How Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Society, Families, Adults, Children and Marriage symposium held at Brigham Young University Law School.

The symposium, jointly sponsored by The Marriage and Family Law Project at Brigham University Law School and The Marriage Law Project at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, was held on September 15-16, 2006.

Louis DeSerres asked if there is a more natural and self evident birth right for a child than to have a mother and a father. More specifically, while nature creates every child with two biological parents, same-sex marriage leads to the creation of fatherless and motherless children, taking away one of the child's natural parents.

Adult same-sex couples seeking the right to marry have relied on constitutional equality arguments in their court challenges. It is noteworthy that not a single child has been represented in any of these court challenges to defend his right to a father and a mother, a right recognized in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Furthermore, when children are discussed, the issue is relegated to family law, as if children do not enjoy the constitutional protection that adults enjoy. In time, the advantages gained by adults have started to seep into family law and children's rights and best interests are being further marginalized.

Man-woman marriage provides the child with many benefits. Louis DeSerres listed 14 such benefits. These are lost with same-sex marriage.

Can this harm be undone? Unfortunately, the harm is permanent as no legal authority can bring back the missing biological parent of a child born from an anonymous sperm donor or a surrogate mother. Only prevention can protect children's rights to a father and a mother.

Commenting on the "inevitability" of same-sex marriage, he cited the decision by France to reject same-sex marriage because it violates children's rights. Furthermore, the decision by the people in 20 U.S. states out of 20 to constitutionally reaffirm marriage as between one man and one woman with an average 70% of the population does not constitute a trend towards same-sex marriage. Recent court cases in the U.S. have also strengthened the man-woman nature of marriage, rationally based on the needs of children.

There are thus two models to address same-sex marriage. Either favor adults at the expense of children, like Canada(www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/Marriage_Canada_children_forgotten.pdf), Massachusetts and a few other countries have done, or rightfully place the rights and best interests of children ahead of those of adults as France has chosen (www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France-summary.pdf).

Earlier this year, Mr. DeSerres testified at the Massachusetts Judiciary Commission hearings on the Marriage Amendment. (see www.voteonmarriage.org/leghearing.shtml#louis).

For more information on marriage and the rights of children, visit http://www.preservemarriage.ca/

Government Run Indoctrination Camps (A.K.A. Public Schools) At Their Best!

A bill, HR 5295, approved by the U.S. House on Tuesday, September 19th, 2006 would require school districts around the country to establish policies making it easier for teachers and school officials to conduct wide scale searches of students. These searches could take the form of pat-downs, bag searches, or strip searches depending on how administrators interpret the law. Read the full story HERE.

Do to the fact that Representative Geoff Davis (R-KY 4th) is in a close race with his opponent Nick Clooney this year he thinks it is O.K. to have teachers and school officials strip search our children when "acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment, of any minor student on the grounds of any public school." Click HERE for the contents of bill HR 5295: Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006.

According to Rep. Davis this bill suggests "he's getting things done in Washington?". Please contact Rep. Davis and tell him to discontinue his sponsorship of HR 5295 as it DOES "excessively intrude" on any students "person" WITHOUT parental permission.

Seems like America has another reason to send their children to private schools.

Never Forget

As we all try and mourn in our own ways the tragedies of September 11th, 2001 we must all come to some sort of closure and move on in life without forgetting this day.

I for one spent my time today taking part in the moments of silence at 8:46am and 9:03am when the first and second towers were hit respectively. WRKO 680 am Boston's Talk Station had an excellent commemorative special of 9/11 as it pinpointed on the memories of that day. I for one found myself breaking down during those moments of silence as I reflected on all of the lives lost and the families destroyed. I spent the weekend recording a documentary of September 11th and wanted to burn some copies and hand them out at work today, but did not get a chance to do so. I felt obligated to share with others this historical day in history and remember what had occurred five years ago as 2,973 innocent civilian lives were gone in about two hours time.

As I was thumbing through the newspapers to read about the fifth anniversary I came across an article in the Boston Herald that put some sort of closure to those who lost their lives and who did not get the respected burial they deserved.

The article by Michele McPhee focused on the events of the day but more importantly told of how ironworkers found two intersecting beams that formed a cross. This cross symbolized the tomb stone of those who perished that day at Ground Zero. I found this heart warming and new then that the deceased were safe with God and are no longer suffering.

Although we can vividly remember what we were doing and feeling on September 11th, 2001 we must all remember that day and mainly focus on the fact that we will see our loved ones again. That thought alone brings a smile to my tear ridden face as we all struggle to lick our wounds from such a tragic day.

I leave you with a poem that I came across and wish to share with you:

Meet Me In The Stairwell

By Stacey Randall

You say you will never forget where you were when you heard the news On September 11, 2001. Neither will I.

I was on the 110th floor in a smoke filled room with a man who called his wife to say "Good-Bye." I held his fingers steady as he dialed. I gave him the peace to say, "Honey, I am not going to make it, but it is OK...I am ready to go."

I was with his wife when he called as she fed breakfast to their children. I held her up as she tried to understand his words and as she realized he wasn't coming home that night.

I was in the stairwell of the 23rd floor when a woman cried out to Me for help. "I have been knocking on the door of your heart for 50 years!" I said. "Of course I will show you the way home - only believe in Me now.

"I was at the base of the building with the Priest ministering to the injured and devastated souls. I took him home to tend to his Flock in Heaven. He heard my voice and answered.

I was on all four of those planes, in every seat,with every prayer. I was with the crew as they were overtaken. I was in the very hearts of the believers there, comforting and assuring them that their faith has saved them.

I was in Texas, Kansas, and London. I was standing next to you when you heard the terrible news. Did you sense Me?

I want you to know that I saw every face. I knew every name - though not all know Me. Some met Me for the first time on the 86th floor.

Some sought Me with their last breath.Some couldn't hear Me calling to them through the smoke and flames; "Come to Me... this way... take my hand." Some chose, for the final time, to ignore Me.But, I was there.

I did not place you in the Tower that day. You may not know why, but I do. However, if you were there in that explosive moment in time would you have reached for Me?

September 11, 2001 was not the end of the journey for you. But someday your journey will end. And I will be there for you as well. Seek Me now while I may be found. Then, at any moment, you know you are "ready to go."

I will be in the stairwell of your final moments.

God

Ford Sales Drop 11.6%. Homosexual Groups More Important Than Support For Employees, Dealers.

Pro-Family Crowd Urges Calif. Governor Against Signing Pro-Homosexual Bills

Pro-family advocates in California are concerned that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will force the state's children to be subjected to sexual indoctrination in public schools.

On Tuesday, the pro-family group Campaign for Children and Families (CCF) held a protest on the steps of the State Capitol in Sacramento. Rally speakers expressed frustration over Schwarzenegger's August 28 signing of SB 1441, a bill forcing religious colleges to promote homosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality if they accept students receiving state financial assistance.

However, the focus of the protest was to encourage the governor to veto three bills that pro-family forces believe will, in effect, turn California public schools into centers for the pro-homosexual sexual indoctrination of children. Randy Thomasson, president of CCF, says Schwarzenegger needs to hear from concerned citizens, not just in California but across the United States.

"As California goes, so goes the nation," Thomasson asserts. "If these bills are signed into law, other state legislators will try to introduce the same legislation in other states," he says.

The three pieces of legislation that were the focus of the protest rally -- AB 606, AB 1056, and SB 1437 -- have parents and grandparents "very concerned," Thomasson explains. That is because these bills push transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality on children without their parent or guardian's permission, he says. The Governor has already vetoed SB 1437 yesterday (Wednesday, September 6th, 2006) and here is the wording of this bill.

Meanwhile, if enacted, AB 1056 would spend a quarter million of taxpayer dollars to turn ten of the state's schools, including kindergarten, into "sexual indoctrination centers," a CCF news release notes, and would thus "betray the academic purpose of education."

Schwarzenegger has until the end of September to veto or sign the bills. Thomasson believes the enactment of any of these pieces of legislation in California would adversely impact the entire nation. And, he points out, it is not only parents and grandparents who need to be concerned because everyone in society would be affected.

"There are only two sides," the CCF spokesman contends. "There’s a side of supporting these bills or the side of opposing these bills; we cannot shudder and run for the covers or run for the hills and try to emotionally insulate ourselves and say it doesn’t touch me," he says.

Like I have asked many a time on this site: What is the purpose in teaching our children about sexual orientations? Do not give me answers of 'to teach tolerance and diversity' because that is left up to the values of the household the child comes from not from the values of the public schools.

Wal-Mart asks for, and receives, permission to join homosexual marriage group

Wal-Mart, the largest retailer in the world, has asked for and received permission to join the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. The NGLCC is a leading promoter of homosexual marriage.

Read "Wal-Mart Partners With Gay and Lesbian Group"

Although Wal-Mart has never excluded homosexuals from being employees, customers, or suppliers, the company wanted to be more closely identified with promoting the homosexual agenda. Wal-Mart is now a "corporate member" of the NGLCC, putting their approval on the NGLCC's efforts to abolish the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. A Wal-Mart vice president will serve as an advisor to the NGLCC, helping them promote homosexual marriage.

Wal-Mart agreed to give $25,000 to the NGLCC and to pay for two conferences scheduled by NGLCC. Also, Wal-Mart will give homosexual-owned businesses special treatment when making purchases. Companies not owned by homosexuals will be moved down the list.

NGLCC called Wal-Mart's action "part of the company's ongoing commitment to advancing diversity (homosexuality) among all of its associate, supplier and customer bases."

Wal-Mart is offering the same kind of support for homosexual marriage which Ford Motor Company has been giving to homosexual groups for years.

Take Action

1. Send your email to Wal-Mart: Click Here to Email Wal-Mart Chairman Rob Walton Now!

2. Wal-Mart often blocks our emails. To make sure your voice is heard, please call Wal-Mart's home office headquarters and ask for Chairman Rob Walton at 479-273-4000. Also, call your local Wal-Mart manager and express your concerns. Please, be polite when you call!

3. Print out and distribute our specially produced Pass Along Sheet .

News provided by the American Family Association

Knight: Despite Claims, Pension Reform Not Endorsement of 'Alternative Family Lifestyles'

When he signed the Pension Provision Act of 2006 into law last week, President Bush called it the "most sweeping reform of U.S. pension laws" in more than three decades. Part of the provision under the new law allows anyone inheriting retirement account funds to roll it over into an IRA and avoid a huge tax bill. That change is being trumpeted by homosexual "couples" and those who live together as a triumph for their cause -- but that's not quite true, says a spokesman for one pro-family organization.

Simply by default, the new changes apply to anyone -- friend or relative -- and any couple, regardless of marriage status or gender. "Non-spousal beneficiaries," the law calls them; and pro-homosexual groups see awarding of this benefit, heretofore reserved for married couples, as a nod of approval in their direction.

The Human Rights Campaign, the largest pro-homosexual lobby in the United States, is among the groups touting the pension reform and claims a major role in its inclusion of key provisions that benefit the "gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-sexual" (GLBT) community. "In a challenging political climate," says HRC president Joe Solmonese, "we persevered and helped to secure critical federal protections that will make difficult times for domestic partners a little easier." He told the San Francisco Chronicle it is the first change in the tax code to help same-sex couples.

But Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America, says alternative lifestyle groups are looking for anything they can call a victory. "Certainly, the homosexual activists probably had a hand in lobbying for it," he acknowledges. "But if you look at the provision, it's so general that in no way could they claim that it's the government blessing same-sex relationships."

Knight contends that recent defeats at the ballot box and in court rulings are two reasons why proponents of alternative family relationships are claiming a victory in this case.

"The homosexual activists have taken it on the chin lately, with 20 states enacting marriage amendments and seven courts -- actually eight now -- striking down their challenges to marriage laws," he points out. "They've been losing across the board, so I'm not surprised if they'll want to claim this as a gay victory when in effect it's really far more general than that."

It is a real stretch, says Knight, for anyone to claim the pension reform is a government blessing of same-sex partner benefits. "It's not the government saying, 'Okay, now we're going to recognize same-sex relationships just like marriage,'" he comments. "It's not like that at all."

Instead, Knight thinks legislators simply chose to change legal requirements to reflect a culture which is experiencing deterioration of commitment to traditional marriage and family. "Overall, I'd say it's not a good change if you care about the health of marriage because it disincentivizes marriage," he offers. "On the other hand, it reflects the growing reality of never-married, divorced, and cohabiting people."

The CFI spokesman says the new law is an unfortunate acknowledgment that, with a drop in the number of traditional marriages taking place, there is no longer a broad expectation for retirement funds to go to marriage spouses of those who have died.

News from the American Family Association

Why hasn't the radical homosexual community embraced the Benefits Fairness Act, which is an alternative to most of the rights that they are screaming for? The act recognizes that there are relationships that are ineligible for marriage but who nevertheless would benefit from a status similar to a next-of-kin status.

The whole concept of "second class citizenry" is the typical answer to the act. Why is it that the pro-marriage, pro-family advocates can bend to try and come to a middle ground on the issue of marriage but the radical gay community cannot? Has the pro-gay "marriage" sponsors ever engaged in conducting a citizen initiated petition to put gay "marriage" in the law books? No. Has the radical homosexual community ever come to some common ground with pro-marriage advocates in terms of suggesting or writing up a proposal that would please both sides of the fence on this issue? No.

It seems that the radical gay community only promotes for the destruction of marriage and family. This is strongly suggested in many comments by leading homosexual advocates of gay “marriage”:

“The trick is, gay leaders and pundits must stop watering the issue down – this is simply about equality for gay couples – and offer same-sex marriage for what it is: an opportunity to reconstruct a traditionally homophobic institution by bringing it to our more equitable queer value system…a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture…”

-Michelangelo Signorile, OUT magazine, May 1996, pp. 30, 32.

An article in OUT magazine quotes Mr. Signorile again on the question of the virtue of marriage and monogamy and pushes this quote as a normal opinion from a typical gay man:

“As far as the legalities and financial aspects, yes, I’d definitely get married. But would that make me monogamous? No way. I think it’s silly for anyone, straight or gay, to define it that way.”

- Signorile, OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 113.

“I think it’s possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner…In our case, we have an open marriage.”

-Jonathan Yarbrough: The first gay man along with his partner Cody Rogahn to get a same-sex marriage license in MA. who spoke to the press just before his wedding in Provincetown, Massachusetts, on May 17, 2004 (Franci Richardson, “P’town Ready for the ‘Big Day,’” Boston Herald, May 17, 2004.)

Just in today’s Boston Globe there is the continued advocation for the use of no fault divorce but for homosexual couples whose “marriages” have “dissolved”.

One question I would like to ask Ms. Robinson is how are same-sex relationships the same as heterosexual relationships besides “sometimes they last, sometimes they don’t”?

Why is it that the destructive outcomes of no fault divorce need to be “installed” into a community that does not, for the most part, even adhere to the values of traditional marriage in the first place?

Democrats Help Block Marriage Protection Amendment

Party goes on record in support of homosexual marriage

Activists pushing for legalizing homosexual marriage say they will not stop with just homosexual marriage. They demand more. They want government and societal acceptance, approval and financial support for many kinds of relationships, including polygamy.

Activists say that marriage is "not the only worthy form of family or relationship," and it "should not be legally or economically privileged above others." The statement was signed by 270 homosexual rights activists and heterosexual allies.

Other kinds of relationships that they say deserve marriage-like benefits include "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner (polygamy)" and "queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households." The goal of the activists is the destruction of traditional marriage.

The Democratic National Committee has developed plans to help the homosexual activists achieve their goal. DNC spokesman Danien LaVera says the DNC has developed a five-point plan to help homosexuals block any legislation which prohibits homosexual marriage, and to push homosexual marriage.

The first successful effort by the Democrats occurred in Illinois where the Democrats donated $10,000 to help the activists keep the marriage protection law off the ballot in that state.

LaVera said the DNC strongly opposes efforts to ban homosexual marriage by amending the federal or state constitutions and that the Democratic party plans to step up efforts to promote pro-homosexual marriage bills in several states.

Democratic parties in eight states have already adopted platforms endorsing homosexual marriage bills. They include New York, California, Washington, Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts and Hawaii.

Here is the 5-point plan LaVera said the Democratic National Committee has developed to fight for homosexual marriage:

• Labeling efforts to ban homosexual marriage as "divisive" ploys by the Republicans and others to deflect voter attention from other important issues, including "the Bush's administration's failed policies."

• Begin a "party-building" operation which includes specific training for state Democratic operatives in all 50 states on how to campaign against ballot measures banning homosexual marriage.

• Working closely with the gay group National Stonewall Democrats to "develop strategy and talking points' to combat state measures defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

• Working cooperatively with homosexual organizations fighting ballot measures in each state where they surface, providing campaign advice, expertise, and logistical and financial support.

• Empowering and organizing homosexual communities around the country with the help of the DNC's new homosexual outreach organizer Brian Bond.

  Take Action

  1. Sign the NO HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE pledge. Officials of both parties will be notified of the number who sign the pledge. We will not provide either party with your name or email address.
  2. Please forward this email to friends and family alerting them about the plans of the Democratic party to help legalize homosexual marriage and abolish the traditional family.

  Click Here to Sign the Pledge Now!

  News from the American Family Association

The Misfits

"I wanted him to be a kid who sees himself as cool, who sees nothing wrong with being attracted to the boy who sits next to him in art class as opposed to the girl on the other side of him."

This is a direct quote from an Interview with James Howe author of "The Misfits". This book is geared towards middle school aged children, which for the most part are grades 7 and 8. So, we are talking about 12 - 13 year old school children.

The "him" in the opening quote is a character by the name of Joe who is an openly gay 7th grader. Joe, according to Mr. Howes, is a reflection of himself as a boy. Mr. Howes now as an adult is gay and it is not clear how or when he thought he chose to be gay. In another interview by Scholastic students Mr. Howe admits to marrying a women and having a child. His wife Debbie is described as his "late wife Debbie" which could mean many things. Mr. Howe could of lost his wife Debbie to an illness/accident, ect and then decided to act on his closeted boy-aged gay behavior after his loss or he could of divorced his wife due to the "lies" he was living in as a gay man married to a women or whatever the case may of been. The point here is Mr. Howe admits to being part of a traditional marriage and then acting on his gay behavior that was the result of whatever stressor in his life. Why did he decide to continue with this behavior after his "late wife Debbie" left him via the potential circumstances as described above? Why does he know need to promote and cohersively indoctrinate these "values" onto 12-year-old children?

Mr. Howe also introduces attraction, starting to date, and love in "The Misfits. Are these adult themes really appropriate for the schoolhouse curriculum? Have the "government run indoctrination camps (public schools)" ever advocated for and TAUGHT about attraction, dating and love to 12 year olds? Yes, the students talk about it amongst themselves in the halls but has it EVER been TAUGHT via books and stories? I mean, how much more agenda driven diversity lessons do our children need in order to graduate? Why is diversity and tolerance taught in the schools in the first place? Isn't that up to the parents of the children?

And yes of course there is a sequel to "The Misfits" that Mr. Howe is working on where the same characters go to the 8th grade.

"The Misfits", among other books written by Mr. Howe, are listed on the Great Books for Gay Teens website. A lot of Mr. Howe's work does not DIRECTLY deal with a homosexual theme as some deal with gender identity and how to deal with loss and challenges in life. These are good themes but a way to "warm-up" to younger readers to bait and hook their minds for his agenda driven gay "teachings" provided in his other works.

Look out for “The Misfits” in your child’s book bag this Fall. Already I have found out this book is going to be required reading at Melrose Middle School this upcoming school year. I will post more schools in the Massachusetts area as I engage in further research on the topic.

78 Dealers Ask Ford to Stop Supporting the Homosexual Agenda

Great news! Read the dealer's letter to Bill Ford before you continue.

Ford sales have consistently dropped since AFA began the boycott. The drop in March was 5%, April 7%, May 2%, June 6.8%, and July 4.1%.

Ford has made yet another donation to a homosexual group pushing homosexual marriage. And they continued supporting homosexual marriage with ads in two homosexual publications—The Advocate and OUT.

Ford is listed by Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) as being a "Topaz" sponsor of PFLAG. PFLAG did not identify the specific amount required to be a Topaz sponsor, perhaps because they did not want the amount made public. Nevertheless, it requires a considerable sum to be a PFLAG "Topaz" sponsor.

Here is the policy statement from PFLAG: "PFLAG supports revision of federal and state statutes to extend to persons in same-gender committed relations the right to marry with the full legal rights and benefits, as well as responsibilities and obligations." PFLAG is a leader in promoting the pro-homosexual agenda and legalizing homosexual marriage.

Ford obviously agreed with the goal of PFLAG to legalize homosexual marriage, else they would not have made the donation to help PFLAG.

When Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), an organization helping homosexuals come out of the homosexual lifestyle, asked Ford for a grant, Ford refused. In fact, in our research AFA did not find that Ford gave a donation of any amount to any organization helping those who want out of the homosexual lifestyle. Ford says they are committed to diversity, but their definition of diversity is evidently confined to supporting only pro-homosexual organizations.

Ford continued their support of the homosexual lifestyle by advertising in the August, 2006 issues of both The Advocate and OUT. They placed a full page ad in OUT and two full pages in The Advocate. Ford has been supporting homosexual media with advertising for years.

What kind of material is Ford supporting? Here is the front cover of The Advocate along with one of the Ford ads. The pictorial contents inside the magazines are so offensive that we could not include them in this mailing. Here are some titles of the articles in the magazines: Is Porn An Option, At Your Service (male escort), The Book Of Lesbian Love, Five Sex Tips For Gay Men, Five Sex Tips For Lesbians, and Private D--K In A Hard Place.

According to the Detroit Free Press, Ford "donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to homosexual groups, sponsors gay pride parades, and holds mandatory diversity training..."

Take Action

• Forward this email to your local Lincoln, Mercury, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, Mazda or Ford dealer (all owned by Ford). Find their email address here (click on the auto icon). Ask him to forward it on to Chairman Bill Ford, the one person who can stop Ford's financial support of homosexual organizations.

• If you haven't already done so, please sign the Boycott Ford Pledge.

• Print out the Boycott Ford Petition and distribute at Sunday School and church. Extremely important! Help us get the word out about Ford by forwarding this to friends and family!

  News from the American Family Association

Just for Laughs!

Pro-Homosexual Push Commonplace in Schools Coast to Coast

Homosexual Activists Transforming Public Schools Into Propaganda Factories

"I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto!" was Dorothy's famous line in The Wizard of Oz. It has become a classic, meant to convey the bewilderment of a person who suddenly realizes he's in a strange world and wonders how he got there.

For many parents in Massachusetts, California, and elsewhere in the U.S., the truth is beginning to dawn on them: They aren't living in Kansas anymore. Public education is being used to brainwash thousands of children -- even as young as kindergarten -- into believing that homosexuality is simply a normal and healthy variation of human sexuality.

To be sure, when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, Massachusetts and California have been East Coast-West Coast thoroughbreds that seem to be racing each other for the honor of wackiest state in the country.

Massachusetts got off to an early lead, where activists have had nearly carte blanche since the early 1990s. Thus, at John Glenn Middle School in Bedford, for example, pink triangles adorn classroom doors, and a rainbow flag flies over the school during "gay pride" festivities. In Newton, parents discovered that first-grade teacher David Gaita had "come out" to his students and told them he was homosexual and loved men "the way your mom and dad love each other." And in Brookline, MA lesbian eighth-grade teacher Deb Allen told National Public Radio that she explicitly teaches her students about lesbian sex, including the use of sex toys.

Meanwhile, in California, activists have been busily trying to turn that state's public school system into a re-education camp that would make Fidel Castro proud. According to the Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a California-based pro-family group, the state may soon pass and implement three separate bills -- SB 1437, AB 606 and AB 1506 -- which would have a staggering impact on what public schools teach children.

CCF said that the combination of the three measures would force all California public schools to promote homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to schoolchildren as young as kindergarten; require textbooks to promote these lifestyles; prohibit schools from sponsoring traditional school activities, such as school proms that vote for a boy-girl couple as prom "king" and "queen," or sports teams that "discriminate" against transgendered kids; and prohibit public schools from teaching that there is a natural family -- that is, a father, a mother and their children.

Court-Ordered Indoctrination

However, children don't have to live in California or Massachusetts to encounter the indoctrination process. In April, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual pressure group, sponsored its 10th annual "Day of Silence," a nationwide school-based protest. Nearly 4,500 schools participated, according to GLSEN. In order to promote the homosexual lifestyle, more than 450,000 kids refused to speak a single word during the school day, often with the approval of school administrators and teachers.

In Wisconsin a group called Students for Unity used the Day of Silence to distribute a questionnaire at Port Washington High School. According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, hundreds of students answered questions like, "If you have never slept with someone of your same gender, then how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?" and "Could it be that your heterosexuality is just a phase?"

Two teachers approved of the distribution of the questionnaire in their classes and followed up with discussions, said LifeSiteNews, even though parents were not informed about it beforehand.

Meanwhile, at Boyd County High School in Kentucky, students in Ann Qualls' English class were required to watch the first 15-20 minutes of Brokeback Mountain, a recent film about two homosexual sheepherders. While none of the movie's explicit sex scene was shown, the entire class was spent on the film -- again without the knowledge or approval of parents.

Boyd County is well known by pro-family groups for another reason: All students and faculty in Boyd County schools are under a court order to attend diversity sessions that normalize homosexuality.

The court order stems from an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit filed against the school district three years ago, after the high school refused to allow the formation of a student homosexual-rights group on campus. Boyd County lost the suit, and in 2004 agreed to a settlement that included mandatory diversity sessions for faculty and students.

Training for students included a video stating that if one student speaks out against homosexuality to a gay student -- that is considered harassment. The offending student would be punished.

Some parents were angered by the agreement, and sued the school, demanding that their children be allowed to opt out of the training. In February, however, U.S. District Judge David Bunning ruled that all students and faculty must undergo the mandatory sensitivity training in order to make the schools safe for homosexual kids.

"Students have no religious or free-speech rights to opt-out of school training aimed at stopping anti-gay harassment in Boyd County schools," Bunning said. The judge added that anti-harassment training that deals with "actual or perceived sexual orientation" was "rationally related to a legitimate educational goal, namely to maintain a safe environment."

Making Schools Safer?

Homosexual activists have insisted for years that things like diversity training and gay pride events are necessary to prevent the harassment of kids who identify themselves as homosexual. This "safer schools" mantra carries emotional weight because most adults would probably agree that all students should feel safe in school.

In order to promote safety, however, activists often demand that schools indoctrinate students so that they accept homosexuality as normal. Following Bunning's ruling in February, for example, Sharon McGowan of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project swept aside suggestions that Boyd County could make schools safe without the mandatory diversity training sessions.

"Just telling students not to pick on others because of their sexual orientation or gender identity doesn't force them to change their beliefs, and the judge agreed with us about that," McGowan said. (emphasis added)

It is this type of agenda -- forcing students to change their beliefs about homosexuality -- that makes parents squeamish about groups like GLSEN.

But even if students don't end up altering their views about sexuality, the potential for confusion among children is startling. In New Jersey, for example, a school board decided that Eagleswood Township Elementary in West Creek could continue to use 71-year-old Lily McBeth as a substitute teacher -- even though he had undergone a sex change.

Parents who were both for and against rehiring McBeth spoke during an emotionally charged school board meeting in February, but in the end the board said his sex change did not affect his ability to teach children.

One worried parent, however, said: "Show me the research that says this will not affect my children. I will not allow my children to be placed in a petri dish and hope that it turns out fine."

Unlike Dorothy, though, parents in New Jersey and elsewhere don't have magic slippers to safely whisk their children back to Kansas. And, as it turns out, Kansas isn't so normal anymore, either.

News from the American Family Association Journal