Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Shameful Sean

Know what? I am discovering that it takes a rabid, radical pro-gay bigot to turn the term "shameful" upon its head! Did you catch what Sean Penn said during the Oscars the other night?

The following is a portion of an email letter from ProtectMarriage.com about this incident with Penn:

February 24, 2009

This just in from Hollywood:

“I think it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights.”
Sean Penn, accepting the Oscar for Best Actor
February 22, 2009

This is the message that was communicated throughout the world on Sunday night during the Academy Award show by Hollywood liberals, including their “best actor” Sean Penn.

In fact, viewers weren’t two categories into the awards show when a gay screen writer bashed the Mormon Church, as much as said that supporters of Prop 8 are hateful bigots and promised that, soon, gays would have the right to marry. He even promised that the Obama Administration would make sure gays could marry “federally.” That brought a big round of applause.

It is perhaps not surprising that Hollywood liberals would use their “awards” show to campaign in favor of gay marriage. After all, many of these same liberals donated or raised millions of dollars to attempt to defeat Proposition 8.

What is perhaps surprising is their brazen attempt to influence public opinion against traditional marriage by manipulating people into thinking that this is a “human rights” issue, or a “civil rights” issue, or even an “equal rights” issue. What they don’t tell people is that gay couples in domestic partnerships in California already have equal rights! Gay domestic partners in California enjoy the same legal rights as married spouses.

Liberal Hollywood activists like Sean Penn know a thing or two about reaching audiences. They make millions – tens of millions – learning how to connect with an audience. One audience they no doubt hoped to influence on Sunday night was the California Supreme Court, which is hearing challenges to invalidate Prop 8 in just ten days. Another audience probably watched the show from the upstairs of the White House in Washington. Still another audience is made up of voters here in California, enough of the 7 million of whom they hope to shame into repudiating their votes cast in favor of traditional marriage the next time the issue is on the ballot. Traditional marriage has served society well, and there are many sound reasons why people support one man, one woman marriage – including continuing the best institution to give children both a mother and a father. Prop 8 wasn’t an attack on gay couples, it was an affirmation of traditional marriage – but you didn’t hear that at the Academy Awards.

ProtectMarriage.com has made very powerful, legally sound arguments in our briefs filed with the Supreme Court. Our attorneys, including former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, are working hard to prepare to present these arguments directly to the justices on March 5 when the challenges to Prop 8 will be heard. We think that attempts to campaign to get the attention of judges, like we saw from Hollywood the other night, will fall on deaf ears. We are confident that the Court will decide the Prop 8 cases strictly on the law, and we have the law on our side.

However, we must also be mindful of the incessant effort from Hollywood and gay activists to portray our support of Prop 8 in hateful, negative terms. From the protests that have been orchestrated against Proposition 8, to the “outing” of countless donors to our campaign, to the violence and vandalism of our churches, supporters of traditional marriage have been subjected to a carefully orchestrated attempt to erode public support and intimidate our donors and volunteers. It’s time that we fought back, and ProtectMarriage.com intends to do just that! /QUOTE


As I stated in a reply to an anonymous commenter in a previous comment thread - FIND YOUR OWN NAME for gay unions! Hey - THAT'S IT! Call them "gay unions" and stop all of this nonsense and attempts to re-define marriage for everyone else! Just because YOU want it re-defined DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULD BE!

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Conscience Collides With Political Correctness

How many readers of this blog recall the signs that used to appear in restaurants and bars that said, "We reserve the right to not serve anyone?" At least I think that is how it was worded.

Today, we often find signs that state, "No shirt, no service." or "No shoes, no service."

What was the message behind such signs? The owner of the business had free speech rights to serve, or not serve a person based on their particular behavior.

If a person came into a restaurant without wearing a shirt or shoes, the restaurant owner had the right to refuse service. If a person came into a bar and was boisterous, obnoxious, cursing or - clearly already drunk - the bar tender had the absolute right to not serve that person any alcohol. What's more, the bouncer had the right (as per the instructions of the owner) to escort such a person off the premises!

Our First Amendment rights not only include freedom of speech and freedom of religion; but also freedom of association.

Today, because of ultra-tolerance and political correctness and "hate speech" inferences, the refusal for service by any business owner is often misconstrued as "bigotry," "hatred," "intolerance," etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. The following link is a case in point:

ADF Truth and Triumph: Point & Shoot
What happens when a photographer's conscience collides with political correctness.

When you read the article, you will see that this Christian woman was CLEARLY TARGETED by the lesbian couple who wanted to punish her for her refusal to photograph their "commitment ceremony." There were PLENTY of other photographers willing to take the job. So, why did they sue this one person?

Gotta run out. Will return to finish this post later.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Why DOMA Matters!

In the following commentary, Niger Innis states EXACTLY why DOMA MATTERS and MUST BE PROTECTED! The following paragraph from the commentary tells us the utmost importance of DOMA:

In the absence of the federal Marriage Protection Amendment, DOMA provides federal statutory protection to states against activists vowing to use the federal courts to force the destructive decisions of judges in Connecticut and Massachusetts on other states.

Mr. Innis goes on and describes how California has now become a "case study" regarding how radical homosexual activists will attempt to use the courts to overcome the passage of the "YES ON PROPOSITION 8" results that came about as a result of millions of voters in California. Why? Because they don't like the results! Well....TOO BAD! I don't like the results of Roe. v. Wade....oh WAIT! BAD EXAMPLE! Roe v. Wade WAS NEVER VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! So, over 70 million aborted babies later, we see the devastating results of an over-reaching judiciary - DON'T WE!!??!!

Let's not let the same thing happen to marriage.



Here's a copy of the complete article:

Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Gay marriage harms kids
and democracy

President Barack Obama's personal triumph over the generational legacy of a broken home has the power by virtue of example to heal and to strengthen marriage in America for the future of our children and grandchildren.

But we hope that the nation's first black president will not allow great harm to be inflicted upon the future of marriage by aligning himself with those who falsely invoke the legacy of "Civil Rights" for the purposes of radically changing the definition of marriage.

Now an emboldened, radical Democrat Congress and its allies in the media are pushing President Obama to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the legal underpinning of state marriage amendments approved by voters in 30 states.

In the absence of the federal Marriage Protection Amendment, DOMA provides federal statutory protection to states against activists vowing to use the federal courts to force the destructive decisions of judges in Connecticut and Massachusetts on other states.

This statutory protection is now more important than ever, as witnessed by the rapacious lawsuits of radical activists in California. If federal DOMA falls, every state marriage amendment stands to be overturned by activists in federal court.

To truly appreciate the intense level of legal Armageddon certain to be unleashed if DOMA falls in Congress, one only needs to look to California.

In May 2008, in the name of civil rights, the California Supreme Court voided the 4.6 million votes of California voters who in 2000 democratically approved Proposition 22 - the California Defense of Marriage Act.

In response to this egregious act by four judges, California voters rallied again to place on the 2008 Election Day ballot a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. The amendment, known as Proposition 8, passed with over 70 percent of the African-American community voting "Yes" to define marriage as a man and a woman.

But like "Groundhog Day," the very same four judges who voided the democratic votes of Californians voters last May are now deciding the same fate for Proposition 8. A court ruling voiding a second democratic vote on marriage in the nation's most populous state would mark the beginning of the end for democracy in America.

The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), one of the "Big Four" historic civil rights groups in America, believes the most important fundamental freedom for all people is the right to govern themselves. Once this simple ideal is realized, other necessary freedoms will automatically follow.

The abolition of the right of the people to govern themselves - or vote - is only a first step in the taking away of civil rights. Because wherever marriage has been redefined, the freedom of religion, association and conscience have been trampled upon in the name of a brave new social, cultural and legal norm that denies the importance of mothers and fathers for children.

When a Massachusetts court created "same-sex" marriage, Catholic Charities in Boston was forced to shut down its adoption services program because it refused to alter the program's 100-year-old mission of placing children in homes with a home with a mother and a father. What happened in Massachusetts is simply a foretaste of what is to come to every state from California to Missouri to Virginia - with or without state constitutional amendments - if federal DOMA falls. That's why the Congress of Racial Equality has partnered with the Alliance for Marriage to launch ProtectDOMA.org, to protect marriage for the future of our children and grandchildren.

While the battle over the repeal of federal DOMA may largely go unnoticed among a financially battered and worried general public, its outcome will undoubtedly leave a legacy for future generations well beyond the nation's financial meltdown.

Western Europe's wholesale embrace of a radical cultural chic and simultaneous rejection of traditional marriage has led to the demographic crisis in which it is currently embroiled. Europe's population is expected to decrease from 728 million now to 658 million by 2050, due to declining birthrates. This phenomenon will put an overwhelming strain on the largess of Europe's social welfare system and economy.

President Obama truly stands at a crossroads. Rather than destroy marriage, he can in fact be its great protector. It is America's job to convince him.

Niger Innis is an advisory board member of Alliance for Marriage and National spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equality

Hat Tip: www.afmusa.org