Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Children win as natural marriage wins in Maine today!

Fox News has called itNew York Times has called it.  Yes on Question 1 WINS, 53% to 47%, an almost identical percentage margin, I might add, to California’s Prop 8 results.  Congratulations go to Mainers who GOT OUT THE VOTE and represented and protected the children who will ultimately be most affected by any marriage redefinition.  It is clear that THE MAJORITY still recognizes the eternal and natural truth that children have a right to be raised by a mother and a father and that GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO DO ALL IN ITS POWER TO PROTECT THAT RIGHT.

Says Fox News, “Gay marriage has now lost in every single state -- 31 in all -- in which it has been put to a popular vote.”  Apparently “We, the People” are JUST. NOT. HAVING. IT.  And thank goodness for that.  Way to go, Maine!

From Thomas Peters at NRO:

“Guilty confession: my favorite part of last night’s election coverage was watching Rachel Maddow’s demeanor go from exuberant, to smug, to infuriated over the results of the marriage referendum in Maine. And then she seemed to lose interest.

It now appears highly likely that, when all the votes are counted, Maine will join every other state in the union (which has had a popular vote on the issue) in rejecting gay marriage.

This result comes despite Maine being a liberal state, despite a 2-1 funding disadvantage, despite aggressive legal action against traditional marriage defenders, despite unusually high voter turn out, and despite Rachel Maddow and the elite press running interference.

Proponents of same-sex marriage, unlike in California’s Prop 8, can’t blame Maine on Mormons, on African Americans who turned out for Barack Obama, on confusing ballot wording. Their issue loses when the people decide. And it loses every time.

No doubt proponents of same-sex marriage will take this loss as a rallying cry to throw even more money into the basket, and to put more pressure on the White House.

The battle will move next to D.C., while harassment will escalate against ordinary folks who have voted against same-sex marriage (especially in California and Washington).

But for those who support tradition[al] marriage, as they move forward into the next chapter, let them never forget, but rather, let them Remember (the) Maine! Bully for them.”

— Thomas Peters is the communications director for the American Principles Project, where he also blogs.

Pearl blogs with peace tonight.


Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Donate to Natural Marriage in Maine!

From the Digital Network Army:
You are probably aware of the marriage campaign going on in Maine as they're working to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman. I started talking with Stand for Marriage Maine's campaign about a week ago and have become aware of the pressing need they have for cash donations. Their coffers have run completely dry and they still have a month to go in the campaign. Maine is the second state that has had the opportunity to actually vote on their marriage law. If we lose Maine, the opposition will be able to say that people voted it in.

I was on twitter yesterday and saw a link go by with the comment "I'm obsessively compulsively hitting refresh---donations are pouring in for equality!" I went to the link and they had a goal of 30,000.00 with a graphic showing how much had been donated. I looked at the number and hit refresh. Every time I refreshed, the number increased. In the five minutes that I monitored the page, the amount had risen thousands of dollars. Imagine what damage they can do with that kind of firepower unopposed.

The opposition is martialing it's forces and donations are pouring in to their coffers from gay marriage advocates all over California and other states nationwide. After their stinging loss in California, they can't afford to lose Maine. They're pouring all their attention and resources into the state hoping to tip the election. We need to help our brothers and sisters in Maine. There is a dire need for donations. We can't afford to lose this fight. You can't protect marriage with empty air. Please forward this message to friends, neighbors, churches, ANYONE who can help! and let's get them the help they need to win.

Stand for Marriage Maine's Campaign page is here, click to donate: http://www.standformarriagemaine.com/

It's our turn to help a neighbor! Send this out to anyone you know who also might be able to help! A little from many can go a long way.
Please donate whatever you can. Even $5 will make a difference! In truth, we can't afford to NOT help our neighbors in Maine. Should Maine follow California's example it would be a phenomenal message to the nation about how the citizens of this country truly view the sacred nature of marriage.


Friday, September 25, 2009

Maine Marriage Initiative - Grass Roots Fail, Fail, Fail!

Beetle's got a great story going at her blog. Looks as though EQCA (that’s Equality CALIFORNIA) is single-handedly managing the campaign to thwart the MAINE ballot initiative that seeks to reclaim a natural definition of marriage for children and families. Equality CALIFORNIA waging a culture war in MAINE. CALIFORNIA – MAINE. Wow. EQCA has a loooooooong arm.

I remember well when the No on Prop 8 Campaign and EQCA were so sure that the Yes on 8 campaign was “busing” volunteers into the state of California to tip the scales and outcome of the great Prop 8 debate. They were livid at the imagined offense.

I guess not incensed and offended enough not to employ the previously-imagined tactic themselves as they plead for out-of-state phone bank volunteers and organize road trips to Maine.

It’s pretty darn hypocritical IMHO.

[click image to enlarge]



Friday, September 11, 2009

Victor Guzman – Living Through the Refiner’s Fire



Thursday, September 10, 2009

Kerry Pacer: Gay ‘Person of the Year’ Gone Straight.

Kerry Pacer

From Ron Prentice:

In 2005, The Advocate, a national homosexual magazine, named 17 year-old Kerry Pacer their “Person of the Year” after she successfully took her fight to a U.S. District court to permit the formation of a gay-straight alliance club at her Georgia high school.  She claimed it was needed to teach tolerance of lesbians, gays and transgender kids because she had been bullied after having “come out” when she was 12.  

Fast-forward four years, and we now learn that Ms. Pacer is living happily with…. her boyfriend and their baby daughter.  This real life story doesn’t help the genetic argument for homosexuality. The champion of homosexual tolerance in Georgia high schools, self-declared lesbian and The Advocate’s youngest “Person of the Year” is straight.

For years, the homosexual community has asserted, “Being gay is not a choice.  No one would choose to lead a life wrought with incessant harassment. We were born that way.” And, they’ve argued that being transgender is also a genetic condition.  Backing this up with research seems important, doesn’t it?

Indeed, somewhere along the continuum between “choice” and genetic causation lies the truth.  Few homosexuals, especially men, have chosen their sexual orientation.  Yet it is also true that no reliable studies confirm the “born that way” claims.  If we’re listening, we’ll hear an abundance of testimony from living, breathing former homosexuals such as Kerry Pacer.  In fact, I’ve stood with hundreds of them, brought together by their shared experience of leaving homosexual behavior and finding freedom.

At a Los Angeles high school, a young man who claims a female orientation uses the girls’ locker room, alongside the girls, to dress for P.E.  Across the country in Maine, the Human Rights Commission ruled that a fifth grade boy who sexually orients himself as a girl should be allowed to use the school’s girls bathroom.

According to another story quoting Dr. Tracy Marsh, a Walden University faculty member in the School of Psychology, transgender is "a dynamic experience on a continuum, not a fixed point,” and that “…it honors that there are many expressions of gender, not just two."  This perspective promotes a free-for-all society and adds to “tolerance” as the new god to be worshipped, while the concept and practice of social order, religious freedom, and even disagreement, is silenced.

Through all of this, we keep coming back to the definition of sexual orientation having no primary biological cause.  In the case of Ms. Pacer, her sexual orientation as a 17 year-old clearly has changed.  In the case of the Maine elementary school child, who’s to say that he won’t have a different preference in the coming years?

[Read more . . .]


Yoink! – ACORN Exposed

Two questions:

1) Why is this not being broadcast all over the mainstream media?

2) Why are MY hard-earned tax dollars going toward this smut, deceit, and corruption?

It’s illegal.  Done.  Shut ‘em down and stop shoveling federal money into their pockets.

[Read more about this investigation here]

Why ACORN’s lies and deceit should concern us on more than just a financial and moral level: Inside Obama’s ACORN.


Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Ben & Jerry’s Hubby Hubby

Ben & Jerry's Hubby Hubby 

Poor kids these days.  Even ice cream is being politicized.  Let’s take our ice cream cravings elsewhere, America.  We aren’t beholden to Ben & Jerry’s liberal agenda.  They’ve most definitely lost my business.

Contact Ben & Jerry’s to let them know how disappointing this announcement is.


Friday, August 28, 2009

BBC on Homosexual Parenting

BBC Answers to 10 Tricky Children's Questions
In a quaint, little article published on the 14th of this month, BBC offers resources to parents for answering 10 Tricky Children’s Questions.

The last of the 10 is “Why does my best friend have two dads?”

The answer that knocks the wind out of me:

"A child always starts with one mum and one dad. When the child is born, the mum and dad are usually best friends. But just like children, adults can change their best friends. Sometimes, the mum or the dad finds a new best friend. When adults find a new best friend, they are often called 'step-mum' or 'step-dad' because they are a 'step' away from their first mum or dad. When we say someone has 'two dads', it might mean their mum was best friends with one of the dads when you were born, then became best friends with another man afterwards."
Mark Booth, Stockton on Tees

Now doesn’t this just ooze stability and security for a child?  “Don’t worry little Billy (Susie), your primary caregivers may change frequently throughout your life as one or another authority figure makes a new best friend (or heck, maybe even friends, plural), but you’ll turn out all right in the end because ‘All you need is love.’”  That’s reassuring.  Check out the rest of the answers.  Is there a clear bias?   Is your opinion on same-sex parenting represented in these responses from various “coaches?”  Do we put too much emphasis on LOVE in our society today?  What about reason?  Logic?  Example?

Can love really conquer ALL?

I say no.

[Hat tip: On Lawn]


Monday, August 24, 2009

Non-representing Representatives

Deceptive little buggars lately, aren't they?

New legislation in Wisconsin has legalized a domestic-partnership registry which includes homosexual partners even though the state has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman which was voted into law by the people of Wisconsin in 2006.

How did this new legislation come to be recognized in the face of such constitutional clarity?
"Governor Jim Doyle, a Democrat, lobbied for the legislation by including the
language in his biannual state budget approved by lawmakers." (Source)
Say what? He slipped domestic partnership registration legislation into his state budget proposal?!

Thank heaven for Wisconsin Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen, who has refused to defend the new legislation.

"My duty to is to the people of the state of Wisconsin and the highest
expression of their will - the constitution of the state of Wisconsin," Van
Hollen said. "When the people have spoken by amending our constitution, I will
abide by their command. When policy-makers have ignored their words, I will
not." (Source)

One can only wish that more politicians would remember to defend the will of the people they supposedly represent.


Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Imagine the Potential Spot #3

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Marriage and Divorce

Wednesday, June 24, 2009


Pearl is taking one; a much deserved, much anticipated, much appreciated sabbatical. In short, I'm taking a summer vacation to reconnect with my family, my neglected hobbies, my favorite books, and my Heavenly Father.

Never fear, I'll still be hanging around various social networking sites and keeping up on the latest threats to family and freedom, but my posts will be few and far between and will most likely be quick blurbs with links or videos for your viewing pleasure.

Don't forget me! :0)


P.S. You may have noticed a random picture of a random bike in my sidebar. It's an experiment in luck. I never win anything, but thought I'd participate in this particular giveaway for two reasons: 1) participation is easy with the simple addition of html to my blog, and 2) I am REALLY curious to see how well that would perform with two mischievous and wiggly toddlers in back. I'm dubious (imagining many painful wipe-outs). :0)

Monday, June 15, 2009

A Father’s Day Plea

"Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there's no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses."

[Read more . . . ]

~ Pearl

P.S. Never forget: "Marriage between one man and one woman is the ultimate expression of equality as no gender is marginalized.”

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

The True Meaning of the “Day of Silence.”

Day of Silence
Do you like stories?  Then you’ll like this blog post.  It’s chalk full of stories.  Of course, these aren’t exactly “happy ending” stories, though some might feel that way, but you ought to read them regardless.  Some stories are important for the motivation to effect change.  These are those kind. 

The Day of Silence is taking on a whole new meaning these days.  The email below, one of countless just like it, recently landed in the inbox of Brian Brown of NOM (National Organization for Marriage), an organization which, led by Maggie Gallagher, is currently fighting on the forefront of the marriage battles in multiple states.

There is something to be said for the fact that homosexual advocates want so badly to silence any and all opposition to their lifestyle that they will resort, over and over again, to threat and intimidation.  What is it that homosexual advocates are so afraid of?  The truth?


I've had hundreds of my gay-friends subscribe to your newsletter, only so that we can mark it as Spam once it shows up in our In-Box. Now, on Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail, and Aol, your mailings automatically go into the Bulk or Spam folders of everyone across the USA.


We will continue to support our efforts to destroy your mailings.



1) Well, this is one young lady who is taking note.  And I’ve got to be honest here, I’m not liking what I’m seeing.  Homosexual advocates are busy in our country today, folks.  We’ve got the CA Alameda School District announcing it’s plans to move forward with multi-sexual “tolerance” education for KINDERGARTNERS, despite an overwhelmingly large showing of very vocal parental opposition at a public forum.  And, of course, this is non-opt out curriculum with no parental notification.

During the meeting, one school board member who voted against the curriculum inquired when the term “heterosexual” was introduced in school vocabulary and was told fifth grade, when parental notification and opt-out provision are mandatory. However, the term “homosexual” is introduced in fourth grade, and there will be no parental notification or opt-out provision. When asked about heterosexual family portrayals in school curriculum, the board was told students study the Donner Family. Those who were actually educated in their schools will remember the Donner Family is notorious for engaging in cannibalism when stranded on their pioneer journey to California in the 1800’s.

At one point during the meeting, the school board president admitted receiving more emails and letters in opposition of the curriculum than in support.  At the numerous board meetings those in attendance regarding the curriculum were overwhelmingly in opposition. That is noteworthy considering many Alameda parents are still learning about the curriculum.

“It’s impossible to understand how these three school board members can sit there and listen to this compelling testimony from concerned parents and still put their radical agenda ahead of the good of their school district,” stated Karen England, who attended the meeting. “They can see first-hand this is dividing their community and yet they bow to the special interests groups who are pushing an indoctrination program at the expense of true education.”

(Beetle Blogger)

2) Also in California, the legislature is once again pushing through gay celebration legislation in the form of SB 572, Harvey Milk Day, which bill was defeated at the Governor’s desk just last year when he rightly declared that it had no place in public schools.  However, Arnold’s position toward homosexual marriage has done a complete about-face since he defended Proposition 22, nine years ago, so California citizens aren’t holding their collective breath for him to veto Milk once again.  Oh, and please take note that Harvey Milk Day would also be a non-opt out, no parental notification day. 

Harvey Milk’s life was characterized not by contributions to this state, but by contributions to the LGBT movement. Therefore, dedicating a day to him would be dedicating a day to the LGBT movement, not to honoring a man who helped California. And as of right now, there are 16 student-led* days honoring the multi-sexual movement (everything from Day of Silence, Gay Pride Day, to the festivities surrounding Martin Luther King Jr Day). Do we really need to take another day away from school to teach about Harvey Milk?

If it’s just about the fact he was brutally murdered, why not have a Mayor Moscone Day? They were both killed for the same reason—they did not want Mr. White to have his position back as supervisor. Mr. Milk was not murdered because he was gay, so why are we even considering a state day of recognition for him that would promote the LGBT lifestyle?

(Pride of America)

*Note: I am not certain what the author means by “student-led,” but it is clear that the Day of Silence, at least, is sponsored by GLSEN, the ever-present LGBTQ “champions.”

3) In Ramona, CA, sixth grade Natalie Jones opted to do a class report on homosexual hero, Harvey Milk.  The school’s principle informed Jones that permission slips would be sent home to parents first so that they could choose whether or not their children would be present for such a presentation honoring a man whose life work was to expand rights for those pursuing the LGBT lifestyle.  Now the ACLU is suing the school district for “discriminating against her speech” when they didn’t do that with any other student’s report (like the one who was reporting on Platypuses, or the one who chose to highlight a baseball player, etc.).  Parents are rightfully incensed at the lawsuit considering the fact that homosexuality is a very controversial subject for many families; and at least half of them were grateful for the advanced notification as six of the twelve children were opted out of the report.  Six of twelve.  Half.  And in the quote below you will witness the ACLU spokesperson blatantly denying the right of parents and families to determine the level of acceptance and equivalence they will demonstrate, and teach their children to allow, toward homosexuality.  In Blair-Loy’s mind, homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent, and so ought they to be regarded by everyone, “or we’ll sue . . . .”  Nice “open-minded” mentality.

The district claims that incorporating the Milk presentation is equivalent to "sex education" so parents should be notified. But the ACLU disagrees.

"If you do a class on Shakespeare, that's not sex education, even though those two characters are in a heterosexual relationship," Blair-Loy said.


4) Moving on.  Quite recently in New Hampshire, we got a rare glimpse of the true homosexual agenda as pro-SSM legislators themselves ripped off the blindfolds in a move that shocked the entire country.  They voted down an amendment (HB 73) to a same-sex “marriage” bill (HB 436) that would offer clear religious protections.  It was the only requirement Governor Lynch had for staying a veto once the bill reached his desk.  Why didn’t it pass?  Why were the pro-SSM legislators unwilling to vote in favor of these religious protections?

raytmimer said,

“This is going to be an interesting point of contention. Hasn’t the whole point been all along that there is no threat to religion in these bills? How can they explain rejecting protections for religion and still keep a straight face when our concerns are raised over religious freedoms?”

Chairm said,

“Raytimner, it is because the SSM campaign refuses to grant that those who disagree have any moral standing. It is the first axiom of SSM argumentation that to disagree is itself an act of bigotry. Indeed, the line is usually far more pointed than even that — they declare axiomatically that it is a religious bigotry. Hence the rejection of freedom of conscience and the obvious assertion of supremacy for identity politics of the gaycentric variety.”

(raytmimer and Chairm at Beetle Blogger)

If we rewind even farther, we would note that Senator Sheila Roberge had initially offered three alternatives to the Committee of Conference on Gay Marriage Bill HB 73, “all of which were rejected. She suggested asking voters in a nonbinding referendum whether the Legislature should permit same-sex marriage, postponing the effective date of the legislation from January 2010 to July 2011 or allowing businesses and individuals to decline to provide wedding services if doing so would violate their ‘consciences or sincerely held religious beliefs.’”

“Because a compromise must receive unanimous support to survive, Roberge was then removed from the committee and replaced with Sen. Matthew Houde, D-Plainfield, who voted with the majority [by phone]. Roberge said she was disappointed she was removed.”

(Boston.com and Pomegranate Apple at Beetle Blogger)

Here’s the tally so far:

Silence organizations fighting for their belief in the traditional marriage ideal.
Silence parents in order to indoctrinate children.
Silence schools, who would honor parental rights, by suing them.
Silence children by creating allies out of them through misdirected “hero” worship.
Silence religion as evidenced by a failure to pass religious protections for those preaching against SSM.

Let’s do that one more time:

Silence organizations.
Silence parents.
Silence schools.
Silence children.
Silence religion.

Oh, and remember this:

“This door’s wide open now.  It’s gonna happen.  Whether you like it or not.” (Mayor Gavin Newsom)

Welcome to the true meaning of Day of Silence.


UPDATE (4:05 PM): New Hampshire Governor, John Lynch, signed the homosexual “marriage” bill (HB 436) today, making NH the sixth state in the US to recognize homosexual “marriages.”  Like dominos they fall.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

“You Don’t Have to Yell” by Chris Rice

I happily stumbled upon this song, “You Don’t Have to Yell,” while listening to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir Radio mixed with a bit of Jon Schmidt on Pandora.  I love it.  This guy, Chris Rice, has a soothing, mellow voice and blends those excellent vocals with wonderful, timely messages.

A message for those who yearn to see traditional marriage safely and permanently elevated for the sake of children and society.*  We can do this quietly, respectfully, and firmly – without contention:

“Draw your lines and choose your side
  Many things are worth the fight
  But louder doesn't make you right
  You don't have to yell
  You don't have to yell”

It is my belief that such level-headed reasoning will some day prove victorious.  Thanks to Chris Rice for lending his beautiful talent to such a beautiful message of peace.


*This is purely my personal application and interpretation of the message of the song.  I do not know where Chris Rice “draws his lines.”

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

california supreme court
This morning the Supreme Court of California ruled 6-1 in favor of Proposition 8.  I am immensely relieved that this state’s judiciary was inspired to reaffirm the right of the people of California to amend our own Constitution as we see fit.  I am relieved that my Nov. 4th vote didn’t come to naught.  I am relieved that, at least for a time, marriage is as it should be in the great state of California.

Democracy has ruled the day here in The Golden State.

As per the 18,000 homosexual “marriages” performed between last year’s judicial ruling against Prop 22 and the November 4th vote approving Prop 8, they will remain valid.  I will be curious to learn how that is justified.


Monday, May 25, 2009

Mormons and Proposition 8: A PBS Episode

On May 22, 2009, PBS, at Religion and Ethics News Weekly, released a segment about Mormons and Proposition 8.  A timely subject considering the impending Supreme Court decision.  The twist, however, is that the Mormons interviewed are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who consider themselves active, but disagree with the Church on the matter of same-sex “marriage.”  I didn’t actually watch the video, but I read through the entire transcript and was quite astonished at a certain number the member’s opinions.  I wrote my thoughts into a comment, but since they are moderated I am not sure if it will be posted.  (I promise I didn’t use any foul language or get mean or anything).  :0)

Because I feel passionately about this particular subject, I’ve decided to give voice to my opinions here as well.  The following are some of the thoughts shared by interviewed members of the Church that I happen to strongly disagree with.  I can imagine that some of what I say here might raise the eyebrows of those not familiar with the finer tenets of my faith, but, as always, I hope that mutual respect and tolerance will dictate the tone of any discussion that may ensue.

That said, let’s begin.

“Dr. CHAN: Our church is the church of Jesus Christ, first and foremost, and my understanding of the Gospel of Christ is that it’s a Gospel of love and acceptance. So it seems like a policy that’s about discrimination, which often goes hand in hand with fear and hatred, not about love and acceptance, and that for me is really troublesome.”

I believe* that members of the LDS Church who are okay with homosexual "marriage" do not actually understand the eternal nature of marriage and family.  They do not understand the Lord's gospel as He has delivered it to us through ancient and modern-day Prophets.  Why would any active member of the Church ever vote for or promote a measure that would encourage any of God's children to abandon the ONE UNION that can offer them exaltation and life with their Father again?  According to our religious beliefs, celestial marriage, between one man and one woman, is essential to achieving the Celestial Kingdom and becoming Gods and Goddesses like our Heavenly Parents.

“The subject of marriage is debated across the world, where various arrangements exist for conjugal living. My purpose in speaking out on this topic is to declare, as an Apostle of the Lord, that marriage between a man and a woman is sacred—it is ordained of God.  I also assert the virtue of a temple marriage. It is the highest and most enduring type of marriage that our Creator can offer to His children.

While salvation is an individual matter, exaltation is a family matter. Only those who are married in the temple and whose marriage is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise will continue as spouses after death and receive the highest degree of celestial glory, or exaltation. A temple marriage is also called a celestial marriage. Within the celestial glory are three levels. To obtain the highest, a husband and wife must be sealed for time and all eternity and keep their covenants made in a holy temple.”

. . .

“We, as the Lord’s prophets and apostles, again proclaim to the world that ‘the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.’

We further proclaim that ‘all human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.’”

. . .

“That proclamation on the family helps us realize that celestial marriage brings greater possibilities for happiness than does any other relationship.  The earth was created and this Church was restored so that families could be formed, sealed, and exalted eternally.

. . .

These truths are absolute. Members of this Church invite all people to learn them and to qualify for eternal life.  We invite all to gain faith in God the Eternal Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ, to repent, to receive the Holy Ghost, to obtain the blessings of the temple, to make and keep sacred covenants, and to endure to the end.” [emphasis added]

[Celestial Marriage, Elder Russell M. Nelson, Nov. 2008]

So while these active members of the Church are promoting a belief that is directly contrary to the Lord's commandments as revealed through His Prophets and through "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," in truth, they are further facilitating and solidifying the sub-celestial or ignoble eternal existence of those who suffer from same-sex attractions.  And this they are doing in the name of love and acceptance. 

“Ms. COMPTON: This has not challenged my faith, no. My faith is independent of the morality or the politics of gay marriage. It’s deeper. My faith is in a Christ who loves everybody and wants everyone to come to him, and a God that loves the world no matter whether they are Mormon or Muslim or Jewish or Catholic, and wants all of us to be there and all of us to treat each other like we’re brothers and sisters and not like we’re them and us.”

Yes, Ms. Compton, Christ does want "everyone to come to him," but how can they when you and others are facilitating and promoting a union that, by it's very opposite-sex omission, actually takes them farther away from our Heavenly Father and our Savior?

“Ms. FAHEY: I even had some friends say that they still think that homosexuality is a choice. I don’t think the church leadership feels that way but members — some members feel that way, wrongly of course.”

To Ms. Fahey, who has decided that all those who believe homosexuality is a choice are wrong, I would suggest she read the latest statement from the APA on the nature of homosexual origins.  No one can prove what causes homosexuality, though theories abound.  Some say nature, some say nurture, and some say both.  I believe the last, but my opinion cannot be proved as is the case with the other two opinions as well.  That debate is beside the point, though, as is so well-expressed by Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman in the quoted interview excerpt following the APA’s statement below.

From the APA:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

[Source: A Guy in the Window]

And from the LDS Church:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’

ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important.

[Same-gender Attraction, LDS Newsroom]

Curious that the APA is backpedaling now, when liberal thought and homosexual marriage activists will spit upon them and sneer at them for it.  I’d like to know the events and discoveries that led up to that statement.

SEVERSON: As other states take up the issue of gay marriage, Mormon church leaders this time around have not asked members to get involved. Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court is once again considering the constitutionality of the ban on gay marriage. Their decision is expected soon.”

Severson, it is possible that Church leaders haven't asked members to get involved in other states because voters haven’t been given the chance to get directly involved in other states!  It just so happens that California is the ONLY state in which the issue of same-sex "marriage" was put to a vote by the people.  In all other states where it has been legalized, it has been pushed through by judicial fiat and sly legislatures meeting on the fly and giving little or no advanced notification to the people that the legislation was even being discussed.  It's amazing what Tim Gill's money can buy.  Amazing.


*All opinions expressed are my own.  Doctrinal misinterpretations (if there are any), are my own and should not reflect poorly on the LDS Church.  For official doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, please visit LDS.org.

Friday, May 22, 2009

California Supreme Court to Issue Prop 8 Opinions Next Week

According to the California court info website, the Supreme Court will “issue an opinion in three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 2009.”

Given that this final weekend before their decision just happens to be Memorial Day weekend, celebrating our country’s fallen heroes who died defending our Constitutional freedoms such as the Freedom of Religion and the Freedom of Speech, let’s hope that our esteemed Supreme Court Justices take time to reflect on the real-life threat that legalization of homosexual “marriage” poses to said freedoms.

Here’s to praying for the Court, the children, the future, and the future children of America.

Anxiously awaiting,

Thursday, May 21, 2009

NOM and CPR Action Present: “I’m Confused” – A Pro-Traditional Marriage Video Featuring Children of the Homosexual “Marriage” Future.

This excellent sub-40 second commercial clip does an amazing job of bringing the entire marriage debate right back where it belongs – with the children.

Government regulates marriage for the benefit of society; to ensure the best possible emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual outcome for the potential posterity of the marital union. It doesn't matter that that union may be sterile or that it may end up in divorce. Just because the human execution is malfunctioning (sterility) or flawed (divorce) or even broken (abuse), does not make the divine institution flawed. Marriage is what it is and those who pretend otherwise are endangering not only themselves by exposing their tender feelings to more disappointment (marriage appropriation will not yield the acceptance they so yearn for), but our country's innocent future as well - the children.


Tuesday, May 19, 2009

True Gender Equality

Gender Inequality NotEqual

“Marriage between one man and one woman is the ultimate expression of equality as no gender is marginalized.”

This is a thought I have recently adopted (and do eagerly disseminate) that was coined by my very good friend Pomegranate Apple (also writing now at Beetle Blogger).  Ponder it.  It is very profound.

Radical feminists would have us believe that the only way for women to achieve equality is to marginalize men.  Some have even gone so far as to propagate the sentiment that true equality can only come as women embrace their supposed “inner lesbian” and categorically deny any need for the male gender.

  • "Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
  • "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" (National NOW Times, January, 1988).
  • [Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual tyranny... " -- Cheryl Clarke, "Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance," in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color
    (Source: Opine Editorials)

When approached thoughtfully, this quite easily becomes transparently illogical.  How can we ever be equal to those we’re attempting to rise above?  Yes, it’s great that women can vote, own property, and wear pants.  Fantastic, actually.  But, demanding that women can (and should) do all that men do, actually denies the unique nature and contribution of man and instead sets woman at a contrived advantage by the forced combination of her innate, feminine characteristics and her socially-driven, male character acquisitions.

Radical Feminism = woman on a pedestal; man subservient.  Does that seem like equality to you?

Male chauvinism, on the other hand, demands the exact opposite.  Instead of recognizing and appreciating the unique abilities and contributions of women, machismo demands that women walk behind men, serve men, and eternally submit to men.

Male Chauvinism = man on a pedestal; woman subservient.  Still not equal.

Not surprisingly, the only situation in which true gender equality can be achieved is marriage between one man and one woman, where cohabitation, daily interaction, respect for marital vows (life-long commitment), and the mutual care of physical, spiritual, and family assets (aka children) demands a cooperation the likes of which cannot and will not be required in any other situation.  Successful marriage relies heavily upon the equal contribution of both sexes.  Women and men balance each other perfectly: testosterone to estrogen, physical strength to spiritual strength, adoration to admiration, justice to mercy.  Where one is lacking, the other steps up.  Where one excels, the other observes, learns, and grows.

In parenting, the same applies.  Children need the influence of a father and a mother, as both contribute different yet vitally essential lessons to developing minors.  Two lesbian partners cannot possibly provide the necessary contributions of the male gender as they do not posses the inherent male characteristics and abilities with which to deliver such lessons.  Textbooks, research, and education can only take one so far.  It is strictly in hindsight that an individual recognizes which lessons were most vital to his development, so it is logical to conclude that a teenager will not, in the midst of his character development, approach his two “mommies” and say, “I really need you to teach me, by example, how a man should treat a woman.”  That is a lesson that a good father will teach his son unconsciously as he goes about the course of his days interacting respectfully with his son’s mother.  For a lesbian mommy to teach the same lesson unconsciously, she would have to abandon her femininity in favor of masculinity, effectively illustrating the unique importance of a male role model in the home through imitation of male behavior.  Additionally, for mommies to try to teach the same lesson consciously would very simply be less effective as it has been proven that children learn more by the example of those in primary proximity than they do by lecture from the same.  Think, “Do as I do; not as I say.”

Homosexual marriage/parenting/relationships = marginalization (sometimes even derision) of opposite gender = two left feet = unnatural imbalance = discord, anxiety, depression, confusion, dissatisfaction.  Definite inequality here.

More examples of essential lessons taught by the unique presence of an opposite-sex parent in the home:

- A little girl learns from her daddy (through observation) what to look for in a future spouse.
- Children learn to nurture and serve others by watching an inherently sensitive mother do just that.
- Kids know their own strength and its appropriate use through roughhousing with dad.

Incidentally, it is extremely interesting to note that more often than not, one individual in a homosexual partnership will take on the role of male (dominant, commanding, and butch) while the other adopts the role of female (emotional, meek, and effeminate) in an attempt to imitate and recapture nature where the natural has ceased to exist.  And still more desperate attempts for the unnatural to imitate the natural include increasingly convoluted, gender-confusing actions and behaviors such as estrogen/testosterone injections, sex changes, and transvestite fetishism.  On a greater level, this desperate imitation can be interpreted as lending profound importance to the institution of marriage as homosexuals demand the acquisition and redefinition of a uniquely heterosexual union which currently provides a protected platform for the essential blending of opposite genders and, therefore, healthy continuation of society.

Marriage between one man and one woman = true gender equality = balance = peace.  Who wouldn’t want that?

Please note that bringing up skyrocketing divorce rates and spousal abuse does not provide a logical basis for abandoning the singular encouragement of the heterosexual marital ideal.  It merely points out a problem with the humans involved in the institution, not the institution itself.  And there are many ways to deal with such problems (counseling, elimination of no-fault divorce, beheading . . . just kidding) that do not include devaluation through redefinition.


Saturday, May 16, 2009

What Has Happened to Public School?

harvey milk day
With Harvey Milk Day sitting on the Governor’s desk and Alameda School District attempting to introduce homosexual acceptance education in kindergarten curriculum, I am left breathlessly wondering, “WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO PUBLIC SCHOOL?!”

(And I’m sure I am not the first person to so lament.)

Take a look at this . . . .

2009 Official California Public School Event Calendar

Race recognition in our schools:

January 19 – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
February 20 – Frederick Douglass Day
March 5 – Black American Day
March 21 – International Day for Elimination of Racial Discrimination
June 11 – Race Unity Day
September 25 – Native American Day
February – National African American History Month
May – National Asian Pacific American Heritage Month
September – National Hispanic Heritage Month 
October – Filipino American History Month
November – National American Indian Heritage Month

Environmentalism in our schools:

March 7 – California Conservation, Bird, and Arbor Day
April 12-18 – National Environmental Education Week
April 21 – John Muir Day
April 22 – Earth Day
May 3-9 – Be Kind to Animals Week
June 5 – World Environment Day 

Women’s rights in our schools:

February 15 – Susan B. Anthony Day
March 8 – International Women’s Day
August 26 – Women’s Equality Day
March – National Women’s History Month

Other Days of Note:

March 31 – Cesar Chavez Day
April 1-7 – Labor History Week


Don’t get me wrong, nothing is inherently wrong with childhood awareness of each of these, but my goodness, what happened to the good old days of simple public instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic?  Why are parents being steadily denied the opportunity to teach their children the essential moral lessons of all time?  To honor women in a manner deemed appropriate by them whether that includes traditional roles or not?  To teach about civil rights without mandatory instruction of newly contrived “rights”?  To present the Constitution as our Founding Fathers designed it?  To teach respect for the earth with whatever level of enthusiasm they wish to instill?  To impart that true tolerance demands only respect for differences, not acceptance of them?  What gives government the right to decide that parents are performing inadequately simply because children’s opinions do not align with those of popular culture, Hollywood, and Liberalism?

I think David Kupelian, author of The Marketing of Evil, hit the nail square on the head when he said:

“Today’s culture is so poisonous that your only hope is to literally create (or plug into) another culture entirely – a subculture.  Just as today’s homosexual culture, for example, used to be a miserable subculture lurking in public toilets and seedy clubs, but today has become the sophisticated culture of the “beautiful people” and Hollywood, so must your true American culture – if it’s ever to come back – begin again as a subculture.

The best solution I know of for accomplishing this is to homeschool your children and network with other like-minded parents in your area.  Trust me, it’s already being done, you’re not reinventing the wheel.  Sports, music, drama, Scouts, 4-H, whatever extracurricular activities you want are all available to homeschoolers.  You can literally pick and choose the culture in which your children grow up, and you can actively participate in its creation.  I believe homeschooling today represents the single most important and promising avenue for the true rebirth of American Judeo-Christian culture.  The real America is now being reborn in families where children are raised with real understanding and insight and protected from the insanity of the popular culture until they’re big enough and strong enough in their convictions to go out in the world and make their mark.  May it only grow.”

He later goes on to say:

“Of course, the main factor keeping most American children in government schools is that they’re free.   So isn’t free schooling a good thing?  Sure.  Free food is great too, but not if it’s been poisoned.

The government’s schools are free in the same way everything else the government does is free – you’re forced to pay for it with your hard-earned taxes or you go to prison.  Still, it costs a lot to raise kids these days, and if you’ve had thousands of dollars extracted from you in taxes to pay for these schools, shouldn’t you get your money’s worth by sending your children there – for “free”?  Although that’s a powerful magnet, there’s also a hidden cost, as John Taylor Gatto points out.

Beyond all the other reasons it might be unwise to entrust your children to the government, Gatto points to one more, which he considers the core problem.  When all is said and done, he doesn’t dwell on the grotesque psychological experiments and failed pedagogic approaches, and school crime sprees that steal headlines.  Rather, Gatto points to the subtle, soul-killing power of forced government schooling, the devastating effect on each child’s not-so-hidden genius of sitting at a desk in a classroom all day for one’s entire youth.”

. . .

“The net effect of holding children in confinement for twelve years without honor paid to the spirit is a compelling demonstration that the State considers the Western spiritual tradition dangerous.  And of course it is.

The bottom line, says Gatto:

Spiritually contented people are dangerous for a variety of reasons.  They don’t make reliable servants because they won’t jump at every command.  They test what is requested against a code of moral principle.  Those who are spiritually secure can’t easily be driven to sacrifice family relations.

Please understand.  The people responsible for this disaster – both then and now – are not deliberately trying to hurt children.  They are people who fervently believe, with a religious zeal, in a radically different world view than the one in which most Americans believe – indeed, radically different from the one on which this nation was founded.”

What is the moral of this story?

If you choose to enroll your children in public school education, don’t do it blindly.  Don’t do it with a singular anticipation of the hours of free time it will afford you.  Know what you’re up against.  Stay involved.  Be prepared to address any negative education from teachers and peers that your children may receive throughout the course of each 7-hour day.  After extracurricular activities, you will most likely only have about three hours before bedtime in which to do damage control.

If you have a desire to homeschool, but don’t know where to start, just get researching.  Yes, there is so much information out there that it is easy to get overwhelmed and give up.  Just don’t.  Empower yourself through education.  Know your rights as a parent.  Don’t get stressed out.  You can do it.

Here’s to homeschooling and safeguarding the next generation!