Attack on Parental Rights

Picture from SurlyGirl

Attack on Parental Rights

from ParentalRights.Org

The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children has been recognized and upheld for centuries. But there are dark clouds on the horizon.

Today parental rights are coming under assault from federal judges who deny or refuse to recognize these rights. Adding further danger to the child-parent relationship, international law seeking to undermine the parental role is advancing on the horizon. Together, these threats are converging to create a "perfect storm" that looms over the child-parent relationship.

In the early 1980s, a landmark parental rights case reached the Washington State Supreme Court. The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter's participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter's life by grounding her.
But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent's actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was "conflict between parent and child." Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.
Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila's parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away.

DANGEROUS PRECEDENT

Parental rights are under attack in our nation, with the first threat originating from within the federal court system. As this story illustrates, a growing disregard for parental rights has been spreading within the courts of our nation.
Across the country, many judges are beginning to deny the vital role of parents in the lives of their children, instead inserting the government into a "parental" role in a child's life. This dangerous assertion is leading to the severance of the child-parent relationship in numerous instances across the nation—removals that cause unnecessary pain to both children and their parents.

A thirteen-year-old boy in Washington State was removed from his parents after he complained to school counselors that his parents took him to church too often. His school counselors had encouraged him to call Child Protective Services with his complaint, which led to his subsequent removal and placement in foster care. It was only after the parents agreed to a judge's requirement of less-frequent church attendance that they were able to recover their son.

HANGING BY A THREAD

Not all judges hold a low view of parental rights. Some, like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe that parental rights are among the "inalienable rights" of Americans enumerated in the Declaration of Independence but they are finding it increasingly difficult to rule in favor of parental rights when it is not explicitly included in the language of the Constitution.

Read the entire article here

The website has a lot of good resources (articles, information, etc.).

Diversity: Where to Draw the Line.

We want to spotlight the Support Traditional Marriage Blog. They've only been online since December 1, but every post is a solid contribution to the marriage discussion.

Diversity: Where to Draw the Line

by Support Traditional Marriage

The Article

Isobel White wrote a very interesting article on Prop. 8 and schooling. It deals with the idea that for schools to "ensure a basic level of respect and safety" they should "acknowledg[e] that diverse families exist and that some schoolchildren will, in fact, grow up to fall in love with someone of the same sex."
So there are two parts of this diversity argument.

To be respectful and safe, schools should:

1. Acknowledge that diverse families exist
2. Acknowledge that some students will have homosexual tendencies as adults

But by lumping them together, she also infers that anyone who disagrees with either is promoting schools NOT to be respectful or safe. Only a bigot wouldn't accept the beauty of diversity, right?
While I agree with part of what she says, I don't believe that endorsement of the entire idea is necessary for children to respect diversity.

What I Agree With

We should accept each child, regardless of the family from which s/he comes. Children usually don't have a choice about their family make-up. Thus, it should not be held against them. John should not be belittled because his father is an alcoholic, Suzy should not be teased because her father deserted her when she was two, and Amy should not be shunned because she has two mothers and no father.

What I Disagree With

I do not believe that we should endorse all family lifestyles as equally beneficial for individuals or society. Because we acknowledge that children are raised by married parents, single parents, foster parents, grandparents, and same-sex parents, should we promote all of these as the same? No. In teaching children which family lifestyle they should aspire to, they are not all equal. The intact, heterosexual, married family should be held as the gold standard; in a "best-best" comparison, it is vastly superior to any other family style.
What Schools Should Teach
I believe that if the schools follow the teachings outlined above, they will adequately address family diversity.

To recap:

1. Children should be accepted regardless of their family background.
2. Heterosexual marriage is the gold standard for future behavior.
If, in a high school setting, some parents allow their children to be taught about specific homosexual behaviors, that is their choice. But with the background given above, at least they will know what is best for individuals and society.

So what? What can I do?

If you have children in the schools, I would talk with their teachers to clarify what they teach regarding diversity. Also, talk with your children periodically to determine what they are actually being taught, since "diversity training" doesn't require parental notification or allow an opt-out process (at least in California).
---------------------------
Other posts:
Re-Writing an Article to be Pro-Family
Co-Habitation: A Parable

Permissive Laws, Permissive Behaviour

Posted yesterday on Pearl Diver.

Dr. Trayce Hansen, licensed clinical and forensic psychologist, compiled an overview of various comprehensive research studies performed regarding the genetic v. environmental debate surrounding homosexuality.

Permissive Laws, Permissive Behaviour

Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.

A closer look at the research

Twin study investigations of homosexuality were recently conducted in both Sweden and Finland. Such twin studies compare rates of homosexual behavior between different sibling groups who share varying degrees of genetic similarity (ie, identical twins versus non-identical twins). By comparing such rates, twin studies help sort out the extent to which homosexual behavior is genetic and/or environmental. For instance, if homosexuality is genetic, then in cases where one identical twin is homosexual the co-twin should be homosexual nearly 100 percent of the time because identical twins share 100 percent of their genes.

But that is not what these two large-scale Scandinavian studies found. Both studies revealed that when one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10 percent or 11 percent of the time. Such findings indicate that homosexuality is not genetically determined.

A Danish research investigation studied two million adults living in Denmark, a country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 1989. This study uncovered a number of specific environmental factors that increase the probability an individual will seek a same-sex rather than an opposite-sex partner for marriage.

For Danish men, the environmental factors associated with higher rates of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father. Significantly, there was a linear relationship between degree of urbanization of birthplace and whether a man chose homosexual or heterosexual marriage as an adult. In other words, the more urban a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a man, while the more rural a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a woman.

For Danish women, the environmental factors related to increased likelihood of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence.

...

Finally, an American research study—the most comprehensive and representative survey of sexual behavior in America—reported its findings concerning homosexuality. The results of this study also support an environmental theory of homosexuality, not a genetic one. In particular, this survey identified specific types of environments that increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior. The authors describe these environments as "congenial" to the development of homosexuality.

For American men, the environmental factor most related to homosexual behavior was the degree of urbanization during the teenage years. Specifically, boys who lived in large urban centers between the ages of 14 and 16 were three to six times more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than were boys who lived in rural communities during those same ages. The authors offer the following possibility: "an environment that provides increased opportunities for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both allow and even elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual behavior." Note the word "elicit." These researchers believe that growing up in a more pro-homosexual region may evoke or draw out homosexual behavior in young men. The implication is that some homosexual men who were reared in urban centers would not have become homosexual if reared in non-urban centers. The authors explain, "the environment in which people grow up affects their sexuality in very basic ways."

This map of the CA Prop 8 results would seem to support the "urban influence" findings.

For American women, the environmental factor most associated with a homosexual or bisexual identity was a higher level of education. And though that was also true for men, the pattern for women was more dramatic. For instance, a woman with a college degree was nine times more likely to identify herself as non-heterosexual than a woman with only a high school diploma.

For more information about the college education influence on homosexual determination, click here.

To read the entire Trayce Hansen research compilation with reference and source citation, click here.

Officer Fired for Expressing Christian Views on Homosexuality

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman at LifeSiteNews.

NORFOLK, BRITAIN, December 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Norfolk County police officer who was fired for quoting the Bible regarding the immorality of homosexual sexual relations says that he is "totally devastated" by what has happened to him.

"It was a job I loved. This is destroying me and my family," Officer Graham Cogman told the Daily Mail last week.

Cogman was reportedly dismissed from his position in late November after he sent an email quoting Biblical passages denouncing homosexual behavior, and another e-mail linking to a ministry in the USA that seeks to cure homosexuals of their condition.

Cogman says he sent the emails after being "bombarded" with emails sent by police department employees promoting the "gay" agenda, including messages urging him to wear a pink ribbon in honor of "gay history month." He reportedly responded to one email from a homosexual liaison officer with the Christian saying, "Love the sinner, hate the deed."

There are no reports of firings or discipline against the employees of the police department who promote homosexual behavior.

[Read more...]

Sign the Petition: Oppose Senate Resolution 7 and HR 5 in the Assembly

From United Families International:

Since the passage of Prop 8 California's Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger has gone on record calling for the State Supreme Court to overturn that vote.

Our state senate and assembly have drafted resolutions blatantly fighting against Prop 8.

"On Tuesday, [...] Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (both D-San Francisco) launched senate resolution 7 and HR 5 in the Assembly. If approved, the bills would place both houses of the California Legislature on record as opposing the controversial initiative and declaring it an illegal revision to the state constitution." Politicker CA, December 2, 2008

Remind California legislators of their responsibility to voters: sign this petition

Write to your State Senator and Assemblymen---Let them know they are accountable to the people who voted for them.

Digital Network Army (DNA) Announces New Website Today

DNA
Digital Network Army

So, the gay rights activists want to wage war on democracy? Well, it looks like they'll have to defeat a very dedicated defense. Check out our new teammates' website (www.digitalnetworkarmy.com) that debuted today, enlist to become a traditional marriage soldier, and pass along the good word of grassroots unity by grabbing a badge for your own site. As a member of this fantastic organization of ground troops, you will get regular emails from enthusiastic DNA Team Captains letting you know where your web time is needed most and will be most effective. Whether you like to blog, comment, write to political figures, sign petitions, submit essays, or just educate yourself on current marriage happenings, there is something for everyone.

Are you on Facebook? Join the DNA Facebook Group , too.

DNA Badge HTML Codes

To use, just copy and paste this code into a new html/javascript gadget found in your blog "page elements" under the layout tab. If you use Wordpress then just put the html code in a text widget. For other blog formats... well, just put the html wherever your blog lets you put html for your sidebar. Maybe someone with another type of blog platform will comment with some advice for you "other people."

Large:

<a href="http://www.digitalnetworkarmy.com/"><img src="http://i420.photobucket.com/albums/pp287/digitalnetworkarmy/DNA_logo21.jpg"></a>

Small:

<a href="http://www.digitalnetworkarmy.com/"><img src="http://i420.photobucket.com/albums/pp287/digitalnetworkarmy/DNA_logo21-1.jpg"></a>

Gay Marriage. Robert and Gary. And Fred. And Martin

by LeftCoastVoter

A fact that the Main Stream Media hid (and quite well) during the Prop 8 battle is the fact that up to 75% of Gay males in a “committed relationship” or a “marriage”  accept their partner having open sexual relations with another male.

It seems a little incredulous, so let me break it down so that we are all on the same page.

Robert and Gary are married.  Or deeply committed to each other.  They are “partners.”

It’s OK with Robert if Gary goes out and has sex with Fred.  And Gary thinks its OK if Robert has a sexual relationship with Martin.

You don’t believe me?  Ask David Benkof over at the Jerusalem Post. He wrote a column about it.  Here’s the highlights:

“…many male couples, including those in “marriages,” have arrangements with each other that allow for mutually agreed upon infidelity under certain circumstances…”

“…many gay couples are quite open about their mutually approved “adultery.”…”

“…Even gays and lesbians in monogamous relationships tend to see nothing wrong with consensual adultery, even when a couple has children. …”

The entire article is here.  Do you need more?  Perhaps David Nimmons is a big enough name for you.  You know, the founder of Manifest Love and a Gay Leader in New York.

In his book, The Soul Beneath the Skin, David cites numerous studies which document approximately 75%  of Gay Men in a “committed relationship” are not monogamous. They go out and have sex with other men.  And they both accept that.  Even when they have children in their “family.”

Remember Bob and Gary? And Fred?  And Martin?

That’s another reason why it’s Gay Marriage Gay Lifestyle is not OK.

I’d welcome your thoughts if they are on topic.  And if you want to say, “No, that’s not true,” then do some research first, perhaps contact David Nimmons (he’s Gay and will tell you the truth) or David Benkof (he got hate mail from Gays when he suggested that they try monogamy…and he is bi-sexual)

Stay tuned, much more to come.

Camel in the Tent: New Jersey Civil Union Findings

We found this post on Beetle Blogger.

We think people should know about it.

“What do we want?” “Equality!” “When do we want it?” Now!”

“All we want is to be equal!” “Stop Treating us like second-class citizens!

Oh…No Wait…Equal Isn’t Enough.
Let’s Call it Marriage!

Camel nose in the tent strategy rears it’s head in New Jersey.

A New Jersey commission on the legal equality of civil unions in that state has weighed in on the marriage debate. After talking to everyone under the sun and not being able to find a single case where the legal benefits of civil unions differed from the legal benefits of marriage, the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission has determined that their state should accept gay marriage because civil unions are “too hard to understand”. This is a new tact for same sex advocate groups who have previously stated that all they wanted was to be able to have the same rights as married couples. Now that civil unions are equal under NJ law, the commission says it’s still not good enough. They need to take it to the next level.

The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission (NJ-CURC) was established by the New Jersey Legislature after the passage of the Civil Union Act in February of 2007. The Civil Union Act gave civil unions statewide, all of the legal benefits that were afforded married couples. The duty of the commission was to study all aspects of the Civil Union Act, which authorized civil unions. The Commission’s duties included evaluating the implementation, operation and effectiveness of the act.

There are two obvious problems with the credibility of this study. First, the commission was universally comprised of same sex marriage advocates who elevated anecdotal evidence over actual testimony, and second, they totally missed the boat on the purpose of their commission. They basically heard a bunch of private citizens and gay activist groups saying “it’s not the same… we want the word marriage”, and responded to that rather than just doing their job which was to make sure that there was no legal discrimination against civil unions.

They were supposed to come back with results like, “this law makes same sex unions and marriage equal under the law” or “same sex unions are unequal in the following areas.” What they did say was same sex unions are too complex for hospitals and others to understand so we should make Civil Unions into Marriages. This conclusion was based on, as far as I can tell, absolutely no firsthand testimony.
State Healthcare Facility Director, John Calabria who is responsible for responding to complaints from citizens of New Jersey about medical institutions testified directly to them that “We have received no complaints” regarding the compliance of medical facilities to the Civil Union Act. Although the agency receives 8000-9000 complaints per year, none of them was about being discriminated against in a medical institution.
New Jersey Director of the Division of Taxation, Maureen Adams was given the leading question, “If the state moved to marriage, how that might affect [the taxation of citizens with civil unions] that you’ve just testified to?” She responded, “There would be no fiscal impact, any filing impact, has all been realized with the Civil Union Law.” AKA you can’t give these people anything to make them more equal.

On the other hand, impassioned testimony from Peggy Sheahan-Knee who is the President of the New Jersey State Bar Association agrees with the commission. She claimed multiple people were discriminated against and denied access to their loved ones in medical institutions. The trouble is that she didn’t provide any specific examples in her testimony. Not only that but her integrity is somewhat in question since she also stated emphatically that, “The Civil Union Law fails to provide equal rights to same-sex couples” but was was unable to provide a single example of this. She provided several examples where the law was misunderstood by the public but none where the law failed to provide equal rights.

So what is the whole conclusion to this befuddled mess? “Since civil unions and marriages are the same, let’s give them the same name to reduce confusion.”

Here’s a newsflash for the Commission….reducing confusion was not on the menu, legal rights were. All this time we’ve been hearing ad nauseum about the gay community needing rights, wanting rights, demanding rights. Now they have them and they’re still not happy. Now we have to have the name, marriage, which is what the whole ordeal has been about from the beginning.

It’s not about rights.

The Associated Press release can be found here

Major Victory for Prop 8 Protestors

by Greg Gutfeld, Fox News

Today, I salute gays for a major civil rights victory: They forced some old lady to quit her job.

After Proposition 8 passed, angry gays discovered that Margie Christoffersen — who fills pitchers at El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles — had given cash to the cause, which restricted the definition of marriage to include only straights. So they picketed her place of business with hilarious protest signs until the evil lady finally resigned.

Now, some might say this is nothing like Rosa Parks on the bus. But they're wrong. I mean, it takes guts to ruin some old lady's life just because she supports a bill based on her silly religious beliefs!

Seriously, if I was there, I would have thrown paint on her — a soft lilac shade, of course.

But why stop there? Now that you banished the old broad, get your a-- down to those other parts of town where you don't brunch and give those blacks and Mexicans a piece of your mind. And, when you're done, why not the Muslims — who are not only against you marrying, but living too!

Look, I'm all for gay marriage, but just because some folks aren't as ["enlightened"] as you are, doesn't mean you can treat them like poop. No one is going to take you seriously until you protest more seriously. Blacks sat in restaurants where they weren't welcome and women protested outside the White House for days on end.

But instead of picketing a Cineplex playing a Tyler Perry movie, gays hit a joint in West Hollywood a few blocks from a busy gay bar.

And to that I say: Comer con gusto!

Sexually Attracted to Traditional Marriage

This is too funny.  We loved this letter posted on Playful Walrus.

Defending Your Support of Prop 8

Are you being criticized for your support of Prop 8?  Maybe friends, family, bosses, customers, coworkers, social networking contacts, bloggers, and commenters have lashed out at you or pressured you?  Maybe you have received angry calls from strangers that you perceived as threatening bodily harm to you, but in retrospect, you realize that the person calling you willingly subjects himself to the described treatment for jollies?

Well, I think I have a solution.

Feel free to copy and paste this defense I am providing below.  You don’t even have to give me credit.  Just be sure to modify it so your critic's name appears in the salutation.  Modify as necessary to be relevant to your circumstances.

============
Dear [insert name of your critic here],

I know you are upset with me.  Perhaps I can get you to understand why I supported Prop 8.

You see, from an early age, I have felt something deep inside me.  I knew I was different from a lot of other kids around me.  I thought maybe I was the only one who had these feelings.  I felt shame and self-loathing.

But as I got older, I found out that I wasn’t the only one.

You see, I am sexually attracted to supporting marriage amendments.

Now, I thought maybe I just needed the right experience with judicial tyranny.  That if I had a good experience with judicial tyranny, I could live happily ever after with letting judges tell me what to do, changing the meaning of words, invalidating my vote, and making me give things to other people even though I don’t want to.

But I couldn't deny the truth.  I tried.  I tried to conform to what those judges wanted.  I tried to listen to my Hollywood idols, my lesbian pastor, my college professor, my hippie parents- who all said that Prop 8 was wrong and would rot my brain.  Still, I found myself keeping the official voter pamphlet under my mattress, and sneaking peaks at the text of Prop 8.  It was so short, so simple, but it was enough to turn me on.  I couldn't sneak around anymore.  I couldn’t live a lie.

Bells went off when I donated money or time or my words or expertise to supporting the passage of a marriage amendment.  In pulling that lever to support Proposition 8, I felt true love.  I felt so happy and free.  I was so alive!

I had come to grips with my sexual orientation.  I am attracted to supporting marriage amendments.

I know that’s not what you wanted to hear.  I didn’t choose to feel this way.  It is how I've always felt.  And since it is my sexual orientation, you have to respect that and allow me to do whatever I need to do to find fulfillment of my desires.  You may find it repulsive or disgusting, or dysfunctional or irrational or just plain wrong.  But please don't judge me or hate me for being who I am.  Perhaps you can get over your Eightophobia by attending meetings of Parents and Friends of Marriage Amendment Supporters?  That would mean so much to me.  If you'd like, I can send over a new book for your kids to read that will help them deal with this: My Uncle Likes Supporting Traditional Marriage.. a Lot.  It is a pop-up book.

Thank you for your understanding and acceptance.  I know that, since this is my sexual orientation, you have to support me in how I feel and can’t criticize me for doing anything that I say is a result of my sexual orientation, nor deny me anything that I say I need because of my sexual orientation.  After all, it is all about love and happiness.

That is why I supported Prop 8.  I had to be true to myself.

Thanks again!