SANTA ANA, Calif. — A federal court Thursday threw out a legal challenge filed against California’s constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys represent ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponent and campaign committee of Proposition 8, which was allowed to intervene as a defendant in the lawsuit in May.
…..
In December 2008, two men filed a lawsuit claiming that the California marriage amendment, which voters decisively passed as Proposition 8 in last November’s election, violates the U.S. Constitution. The two men obtained a “marriage” license in California during the short window of time in which such licenses were allowed to be issued to members of the same sex.
In its order (pdf.) dismissing the two men’s challenge to the amendment, the court wrote, “Proposition 8, as codified in Section 7.5 to Article I of the California Constitution, was recently held by the California Supreme Court to present no bar to the recognition of Plaintiffs’ marriage within California, as said marriage was performed before Proposition 8 was passed…. As Plaintiffs’ marriage is valid within California, they cannot present an injury with respect to the recognition of their marriage by the State of California…and, therefore, they do not have standing to pursue their claims against the State of California.” [...]
What a colossal waste of time and tax payers money.
Police officers told an open-air preacher in Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, it is a criminal offence to identify homosexuality as a sin. They said this to Andy Robertson, even though he had not mentioned homosexuality in his preaching. He was recording his preaching because the local council had been making allegations about the content of his message. The conversation with police officers was caught on tape.
The Andy Robertson incident in the UK was not the first occurrence and likely not the last of Christians being targeted because of their faith based views on homosexuality.
Miguel Hayworth, 2008
A Christian street preacher in Manchester was silenced, taken into the back of a police van, questioned and detained for over an hour following a complaint of ‘homophobia’.
Miguel Hayworth had been publicly reading from the Bible, from Romans 1:17-32, when a member of the public complained. The officers later released Mr Hayworth and he was permitted to continue preaching.
Stephen Green, 2006
Stephen Green, a Christian campaigner, was arrested for handing out evangelistic tracts at a gay pride festival in Cardiff. Police admitted that he had not behaved in a violent or aggressive manner, but confirmed that officers arrested him because the leaflets contained biblical quotes about homosexuality.
Mr Green was held at a police station for four hours, questioned, charged and eventually committed for trial. The case against Mr Green was subsequently dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Lynette Burrows, 2005
Lynette Burrows, an author and family-values campaigner, took part in a radio talk show about civil partnerships for homosexuals. Mrs Burrows said she did not believe that adoption by two gay men would be best for a child. Subsequently, a policewoman telephoned Mrs Burrows to speak to her about her comments.
The police officer said a ‘homophobic incident’ had been reported against her and that record of it would be kept by police. Mrs Burrows felt that the policewoman was pressurising her even though she had committed no crime.
Joe and Helen Roberts, 2005
Christian pensioners, Joe and Helen Roberts, were interrogated by police in 2005 because they had expressed their opposition to their local council spending public money on ‘gay rights’ projects.
After launching legal action, the couple eventually won an apology and damages from Lancashire Police and Wyre Borough Council. The police and the council also changed their procedures to avoid making the same mistake again.
Christians in the US may soon find themselves in the same boat.
Missing the Point on the Hate Crimes Bill
FactCheck.org recently posted an article that proposes to “answer” some questions about the impact of the Hate Crimes Bill, currently pending in the Senate as S.909…but perhaps they ought to check their facts.
The article summarily dismisses claims that the Hate Crimes Bill would muzzle pastors and churches and states, “In reality, there is nothing in the bill that says pastors must zip their lips rather than denounce homosexuality….” FactCheck points to the existence of the First Amendment and some “constitutional protection” language in the bill and concludes, “What the bill would not do is prohibit anyone’s pastor, rabbi or imam from speaking disapprovingly about homosexuality.”
The article misses the point entirely. As Scottish philosopher David Hume once said, “It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once.” The fact that the Hate Crimes Bill does not specifically say that pastors may not speak biblical truth about homosexual behavior does not mean that it is not a threat to religious liberty. In fact, it is often the subtle erosion of religious liberty that poses the gravest threat. Like the proverbial frog in the pot of water, the Hate Crimes Bill serves to turn up the heat on pastors and churches. How? Glad you asked. Read the rest>>
Thanks to the leftist public education system’s curriculum of indoctrination, parental rights are systemically being ripped away from parents of young schoolchildren. This is not about teaching diversity and tolerance. That is their cover. Take my word. As with anything that falls under the umbrella of the LGBT agenda. No longer are parents in charge of their children’s sex education. The public school system has taken over. Why? Because of the intense push from LGBT activists and their leftist political allies. They want full unquestioned acceptance of their lifestyle. To become mainstream, to be seen as practitioners of a normal lifestyle choice. Which is one thing, but when it comes down to forcing LGBT sexuality upon young children that is where the line should be drawn.
God forbid a parent whose personal wishes are in opposition of the LGBT agenda try to fight back against the indoctrinational tide.
They’ll face being labeled as hateful bigots. And or will be told they have no say in the matter. Even through the court system. A parents personal and religious views are inconsequential to secular progressives and their anything goes societal outlook.
The latest travesty: Alameda Unified School District Adopts Lesbian, Gay, Transgender Education for Students as Young as Five Years Old
Five years old! Light years away from the age parents normally teach their children about sex. Many of the children in the Alameda Unified School District will learn about the homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyle BEFORE they learn of heterosexual behavior. They want to get their claws in them while they are still young and highly impressionable. And shape their minds and mold them into someone who would never question immorality of any sort. Regardless of what parents are trying to instill in them at home. This is a full frontal assault on the moral fabric of America, traditional family values and religious beliefs.
Providing yet another example of the threat that gay marriage and the gay agenda provides to school children and parental authority, the Alameda Unified School District last evening adopted a new curriculum, over the objections of hundreds of parents who testified at the board hearings. The newly adopted curriculum specifically elevates respect for gay, lesbian and bisexual students and their families over respect for diverse racial and religious backgrounds. “This is another wake-up call to every parent with children in the public school system,” said Ron Prentice, chairman, ProtectMarriage.com — Yes on 8. “Elementary school children will be instructed about homosexuality without their parents’ knowledge.” Prentice noted that the curriculum does not provide parents with any sort of opt-out right for their students, and will take affect in the form of six 45-minute lessons, one per year from kindergarten through fifth grade. “This is exactly what we warned voters about during the Proposition 8 campaign,” Prentice said. “While pro-homosexual activists deny any impact on children, local school boards and the State Legislature press for formal instruction in concert with the gay agenda. Opponents of Prop 8 claim we won the campaign based on lies and deceit, but just imagine how much worse these curricula would be if Prop. 8 failed and gay marriage was still legal.”
Course materials are also up for debate. Among those considered to be added to the curriculum, according to media accounts, is And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell. The children’s book is about two gay male penguins creating a family and raising a female penguin, Tango. “The job of raising children belongs to parents and guardians,” said Prentice. “It is a parent’s responsibility to protect their children from inappropriate and biased content. With the Alameda School District’s decision to adopt pro-homosexual instructional materials, a parent’s job has become that much more difficult.” said Prentice. “By the school board’s decree, many public school children will be trained in beliefs that contradict those of the home. It is no wonder that home schooling and private education continues to grow in California.”
But at least the parents can chose to opt their children out of the discussions. Right? WRONG. The school district does NOT give them a choice.
“I believe these children are far too young to be learning about what these issues mean,” said Alaina Stewart, who has three children who attend elementary school in Alameda. “These are adult issues and they are being thrust upon the children.”
But the school board says otherwise, and its attorneys say that if the curriculum is adopted, the parents will have no legal right to remove their children from class when the lessons are being taught.
“By not allowing kids to opt out,” says David Kirwin, who has two children in the system, “the school district is violating a First Amendment right for those who have a religion that doesn’t support homosexuality.”
[snip]
“Under law, there are five categories of protected classes when it comes to discrimination,” explained Karen England, a spokeswoman for the Capitol Resource Institute, an organization that advocates conservative policy on social issues.
“The curriculum focuses on only one subgroup protected under anti-discrimination laws: sexual orientation.”
England said she believes Alameda’s curriculum committee has purposely excluded religion, even though it is one of the protected classes. “This indicates an agenda is being pushed, as opposed to an altruistic attempt to teach tolerance,” she said.[...]
How is it they get away without having to notify parents? Most school districts have to notify parents if their child may be involved in sex ed classes. So what is the problem? The LGBT lifestyle boils down to sex, right? Sure you may say it is not all about sex. Of course it is not. Many factors are involved. Although I disagree with their lifestyle, I am sure many in the LGBT community are decent loving people. BUT it is their sexuality by which they define themselves. They wear it on their sleeve. Their sexuality is the reason they may face bias. The reasoning behind the LGBT curriculum has placed in school systems in the first damn place.
Why do they get away with out notifying parents of a LGBT curriculum? This will show you how they have crafted a sneaky way around parental notification. Remember what I said about the supposed teaching of diversity and tolerances and how it is their cover? Be prepared to be astonished. Believe it or not, they claim any LGBT issues that are discussed in the classroom are not about sex. It is about tolerance. Unbelievable! Take away the sexual aspect from LGBT and what do you have? How can you teach on the topic of LGBT without sex being involved?! Impossible! LGBT – lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender describe various sexual identities.
In many school districts, there are guidelines about what classroom activities require parent/guardian notification. Most school districts do not have a requirement for notifying parents and guardians for lessons about respect and diversity. In fact, many districts require schools to be proactive in addressing bias and prejudice and ensuring students safety. Discussions related to sexuality and reproduction are examples of topics that often require parental permission.
But these topics are not a part of the curriculum advocated in It’s Elementary-Talking About Gay Issues In School. The focus of LGBT-inclusive education is to create respectful and welcoming learning environments for all children by communicating that LGBT people are part of our communities and that anti-LGBT discrimination is harmful to everyone.
Talking about LGBT issues is a discussion about people and families present in our communities, a struggle for civil rights and addressing bias-based bulling. None of these include talking about sex or human reproduction. Many educators once feared that the two were inseparable, and schools in the 1990s typically limited discussions about LGBT people to high school health classes. However, with the rapid growth of LGBT-headed families and the increasing visibility of LGBT issues in the media, children are learning about LGBT people at an increasingly younger age. It’s Elementary illustrates the use of age-appropriate vocabulary to talk with young people about LGBT issues, without talking about sex. By incorporating LGBT issues in the context of lessons about families, current events, literature and civil rights we can help prevent the stereotypes and misunderstandings that often develop.
You tell me how can a teacher possibly teach anti-discrimination of LGBT’s without the topic of sex coming up? Since their very existence is wrapped around their sexual orientation?
Equality For All Children provides talking points for those in opposition to this radical curriculum:
Schools should be safe for all children, including those with traditional views on sexuality, families, and marriage.
· There is an important difference between correcting bad behavior, such as bullying, and telling students that only one belief system about LGBT issues is accepted in school.
· California law guarantees equal protections to every LGBT student, every religious student, and so forth. Yet this curriculum focuses on two protected subgroups (sexual orientation and gender identity) — and it entirely excludes protections for religious children who disagree.
· The California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 (AB 537) added sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected characteristics in public education. Alameda Unified also has policies that explicitly prohibit harassment against LGBT students.
· AB 537 specifically says that “nothing” in this act “requires the inclusion of any curriculum, textbook, presentation, or other material in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution.”
· Alameda Unified needs to enforce the clear legal protections against harassment, which are found in state law and district policies. If enforcing the law requires additional training for teachers, the district should train them.
· The proposed LGBT curriculum is not necessary or mandated by the California Department of Education. None of the books in the proposed lesson plans is found in the state-approved California Reading Lists for kindergarten through fifth grade students.
· The proposed second grade textbook, And Tango Makes Three, was the most challenged book in 2008, 2007, and 2006, according to the American Library Association. Why is Alameda trying to mandate this book for all second grade children in the district?
· The LGBT curriculum teaches only one view — complete agreement — on controversial sexual issues. These are issues that most elementary aged children are not ready to deal with. Nor should they be forced to deal with them, especially without parental involvement.
· The district would refuse to respect the rights of parents, if the curriculum is passed, by not offering an opt-out. Schools do not own young children; parents have final responsibility and care for them. Parental decision making should be respected in Alameda classrooms.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Curriculum Talking Points
Why was the curriculum introduced?
Alameda Unified School District Hot Topic LGBT Lesson Plans -Supplemental Adoption of Safe Schools Curriculum Addressing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Proponents argue the curriculum is designed to prevent bullying and promote tolerance. However, noticeably absent from the curriculum is any references to the primary reasons for most bullying: race and physical appearance. Instead, the curriculum focuses almost solely on homosexuality. In fact, the AUSD web site refers to the curriculum as “LGBT Lesson Plans.”
As it is referred to on the Alameda Unified School District website: **Supplemental Adoption of Safe Schools Curriculum Addressing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity** Their words.
Does the curriculum address bullying?
Although the curriculum is being sold as a bullying-prevention course, there is no mention of bullying. Instead, the course features books such as Who’s in a Family and That’s a Family, which tell students they should agree with the homosexual lifestyle.
No famous minorities, no famous handicapped people, and no famous religious figures. Period. Who may have been the target of discrimination, intolerance and bullying during their lifetime yet persevered and became highly successful (famous) individuals.
ONLY Famous Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People.
I rest my case.
Update:
Capitol Resource Institute’s Karen England released a statement condemning the program and accusing the district of violating federal law. She said the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment governs any survey, analysis or evaluation given to students.
Under the regulation, parents must be notified and given an opportunity to opt-out, if the evaluation addresses topics such as:
* Political affiliations or beliefs of the student or the student’s parent;
* sex behavior or attitudes;
* religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or student’s parent, etc.
Contact information for the three members of the Alameda County Board of Education who voted for the LGBT curriculum is as follows:
Vice President Ron Mooney:e-mailor fax: (510) 522-6926
Trustee Tracy Jensen:e-mail, phone(510) 865-6350 or fax: (510) 522-6926
Concerned individuals may also call the U.S. Department of Education at (202) 260-3887 and ask officials to enforce the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment in Alameda Unified School District.
Conservative girl next door. I am a pissed off red head.
Fear my wrath, or come along for the ride. Choose your side.
Free will, truth and the freedom of speech are my weapons of choice.
"...But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy."
- Flemming Rose
"lan astaslem"
I will not submit.
I will not surrender.
A Refresher Course...For Those In Denial
"Above all, the devil cannot stand to be mocked" - C.S.Lewis
Entries (RSS)