News

Thursday October 23, 2008


SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail Print ArticlePrint



California Elementary School Parents Blindsided by Homosexual “Coming Out Day”

Discovery of homosexual event at school lends steam to pro-marriage Proposition 8 campaign

By Tim Waggoner

SACRAMENTO, October 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Parents of students attending an elementary school in Hayward, California, are in a frenzy after learning the school allegedly made no effort to inform them their children were to participate in today’s homosexual “Coming Out Day” school event, reports the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), a legal firm specializing in the defense of religious freedoms and parental rights.

Parents of children at Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science were shocked to see a poster announcing the homosexual event, as they had not received any previous notification. In fact, according PJI, the school specifically decided not to inform parents ahead of time.

Brad Dacus, president of PJI, commented on the issue, attributing the existence of such an event in a school in part to the legalization of same-sex “marriages” in California.

“Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?” he asked. “Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools.”

The discovery of the planned “Coming Out Day” at Ringgold School has come at an opportune time for advocates of true marriage in California – in the final weeks leading up to election day, when Californians will vote whether or not to protect marriage in the state. Much of the battle over the true marriage ballot initiative, Proposition 8, has focused on California’s schools, with supporters of Prop. 8 saying if homosexual “marriage” is legal, it is only a matter of time before teaching acceptance of homosexuality is mandated in schools. Opponents of Prop. 8 have vociferously denied the claim, saying that homosexual “marriage” has nothing to do with schools.

The recent development at the elementary school, however, has provided powerful anecdotal fodder for the Yes on 8 campaign.

“Coming Out Day” is far from the first time children as young as five at Faith Ringgold have been indoctrinated with the pro-homosexual agenda. The school is in the midst of celebrating “Ally Week” as part of “Gay and Lesbian History Month.”

When one mother asked her daughter earlier this week what she was learning in kindergarten at the school, the 5-year-old replied, “We’re learning to be allies.” The mother also learned that her daughter’s kindergarten classroom is regularly used during lunchtime for meetings of a Gay Straight Alliance club.

LifeSiteNews.com attempted to contact the school board regarding the issue. There was no answer, however, and the board’s phone mailbox was full. A representative at Faith Ringgold at first claimed she knew nothing about the “Coming Out Day,” but then said that only the principal, Diana Levy, could answer questions about the event.

Principal Levy is also the acting principal at an adjacent school, Markham Elementary. A representative at that school did confirm that “Coming Out Day” was indeed being celebrated at Faith Ringgold, but the principal was unavailable for comment due to the fact that she was in a meeting regarding the controversial event.

Faith Ringgold seems to have set the promotion of the homosexual agenda as a priority on its 2008 calendar, as several other pro-homosexual events are slated in the coming weeks.

For instance, several parents have noticed numerous posters around the school promoting talks on the family scheduled for later this week; all of the posters, however, depict only homosexual “families.” As well, On November 20, the school will host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, where students will hear adapted tales such as “Jane and the Beanstalk.”

Contact:

Principal Diana Levy of the Faith Ringold School of Arts and Science

Phone: 510-889-7399

Or

Email: [email protected]

The Hayward Unified School District at 510-784-2600


Australian “Baby Bonus” Loophole Awards $5000 for Late-Term Abortions

By Kathleen Gilbert

CANBERRA, Australia, October 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Thanks to a legal loophole, Australian mothers who abort their child in late pregnancy can collect a $5,000 bonus designed to turn around the country’s plummeting birthrate, reports Australia Associated Press (AAP).

The law allows the payment – normally reserved for mothers who successfully give birth – to be awarded on compassionate grounds to women whose baby is stillborn. But because late-term abortions are registered as stillbirths, the “compassionate” payment is available to women who choose to abort as well.

The Australian parliament recently stated it would be “too expensive” to fix the loophole this year. According to AAP, policy manager for the Department of Families Mark Warburton said the government would put off fixing its forms until January, despite evidence that some women routinely conceive and abort children in order to obtain the bonus money.

“There is horrific evidence given on radio by one lady who rang in and said she knows someone who has done this three times to claim the baby bonus,” Liberal senator Cory Bernardi told the parliament hearing.

On the Liberal Party website, Bernardi expressed frustration that the government is continuing to put off the fix. Bernardi says that nothing has been done since Bernardi found the loophole in August, despite reassurances from Families Minister Jenny Macklin that they would “follow up immediately” upon any evidence that the bonus was being abused.

“When questioned about the progress of fixing the loophole, I was met with blank stares from the Centrelink representatives,” Sen, Bernardi said.

“I raised this issue with genuine concern and determination to have the loophole fixed. Now, because of the Minister’s inaction, an attempt to fix a wrong has turned into a farce.

“The Minister is now knowingly allowing the system to be abused. It is sickening and someone must step up and fix the problem immediately,” said Bernardi.


Advertising Nothing: London Buses to Sport Atheist Message, “There’s Probably No God”

By Kathleen Gilbert

LONDON, UK, October 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a strangely counter-intuitive use of advertising, the famous atheist professor Richard Dawkins and fellow non-believers have joined forces to plaster messages on London buses that proclaim … nothing.

“There’s probably no God,” the ads will read. “Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

According to atheist comedienne and campaign organizer, Ariane Sherine, besides the slogans “the adverts will feature the URLs of secular, humanist and atheist websites, so that readers can find out more about atheism as a positive and liberating alternative to religion.”

Dawkins decided to raise money for the 30-bus campaign in retaliation for a number of Christian messages recently displayed on London buses. The Oxford University biologist contributed $9,000 of his own money to the fast-growing pool of donations.

Dawkins, the modern atheist poster boy and author of the bestselling book, “The God Delusion,” said he wanted atheists to fight the vestiges of religiosity that remain in English culture. “Bishops sit in the House of Lords automatically,” he complained. “Religious leaders get preferential treatment on all sorts of commissions.

“This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion,” he told Fox News.

Prof. Dawkins told Fox that he “wasn’t wild” about the ad’s statement that there is only “probably” not a God. Sherine, however, explained that the word was included in order not to breach transit advertising regulations, which require that messages not be offensive to religious people.

Although atheists have already surpassed the campaign’s goal, with $113,000 in donations, some commentators argue that the ads will do little to change minds, and may even wind up sending the opposite message.

Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote that Dawkins “seems to risk becoming a parody of himself” by launching the ads.

Especially considering the ads’ equivocating use of words, he said, “I cannot imagine that these signs would prompt a wholesale resurgence of atheism.”

According to Fox, the religious think tank Theos even donated $82, saying that the campaign was so bad it would likely attract people to God.

“It tells people to ‘stop worrying,’ which is hardly going to be a great comfort for those who are concerned about losing jobs or homes in the recession,” said Theos director Paul Woolley.

“Stunts like this demonstrate how militant atheists are often great adverts for Christianity.”


MA Parents Warn Floridians of Effects of Same-Sex “Marriage” on Public Education

TALLAHASSEE, FL, October 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – With large images of the homosexualist books “King and King,” and “Heather has Two Mommies” in the background, Massachusetts’s parents Robb and Robin Wirthlin warned Floridians about the detrimental effects of same sex marriage on public education and religious liberty at the Florida Press Center in Tallahassee yesterday.

Florida is one of three states in the upcoming election that are considering marriage amendments that would protect true marriage. The ballot title for the Florida initiative, titled Amendment 2, says, “In as much as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

The Wirthlins related how their seven year old son, Joey, came home from second grade public school one day to tell them his teacher had read the class a book about a prince who married another prince and the two men went on to become, King and King. The book includes a scene of the two male princes kissing each other and the prince rejecting other female princesses who were either too short, had long arms and one who had dark colored skin.

“We were absolutely shocked. We felt extremely violated. Our son was just a little boy and not at the age we were planning on discussing sexual topics with him,” Robin Wirthlin said. “Our son needs to learn to read and write and do math. Second grade is no place to be promoting homosexuality – a highly charged social issue. And this book was hardly value neutral. It was completely one-sided. It was loaded with values that were contrary to our own and amounted to an assault on our family, our values and our marriage. It was an attack on the conscience of our child.”

When the Wirthlins contacted school officials to complain about homosexual “marriage” being forced on young children in the Massachusetts public school, they were told they had no right to control the curriculum, no right to be notified when gay marriage might be taught in school, and no right to pull their child from class.

“As a teacher, I am saddened and appalled with the fact that I may have to teach my students about same sex relationships if Amendment 2 doesn’t pass” Tampa teacher James W. Pope said after listening to the Wirthlins’ testimony. “I want to teach my students social studies. As a parent I am furious that my children could face the same type of trauma that the Wirthlins son experienced.”

Attorney Anita Staver warned attendees that what happened in Massachusetts public schools could eventually happen in Florida public schools if Amendment 2 does not pass.

“If Amendment 2 fails, same sex marriage proponents will file a barrage of lawsuits, like they did from 2004 to 2005, seeking to find activist judges willing to redefine marriage with the stroke of a pen,” Staver said. “Since 2004, the state Supreme Courts of Massachusetts, California and most recently, Connecticut have voted to redefine marriage by a slim 4-3 margin. The courts replaced the state constitutions with their own personal ideology. They ignored the people and the children who will be affected by their rash decisions.”

Marriage amendments are on the ballot in Florida, California and Arizona.

“In less than two weeks, the American people will face a highly significant battle. United States citizens will have the opportunity to make a statement about traditional marriage that will affect the course of our nation for generations to come,” said David Buegler, Vice President of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. The Lutheran Church has endorsed and supported all three states in their efforts to protect marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

John Stemberger who is chairman of Yes2Marriage.org also participated in yesterday’s event. He said that while homosexual-identified men and women “should be afforded every single dignity and respect and right … they do not have the right, and by God’s grace they will not have the right, to fundamentally redefine this basic, human institution that has served us since the beginning of time.”

Yes2Marriage.org is the official campaign of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, Amendment 2 which will appear on the general election ballot on Nov. 4. Yes2Marriage.org (formerly Florida4Marriage.org) is a coalition of hundreds of thousands of families, churches, seniors, organizations, community leaders and elected officials who have come together from around the state to protect the definition of marriage in Florida between one man and one woman.

For more information on Voting Yes on Amendment 2 visit Yes2Marriage.org.


Gibbons Shouldn’t Have Been Sent to Mental Health Court: Judge

Homosexual activist Michael Leshner serves as Crown attorney at hearing

By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO, October 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – During a hearing yesterday in downtown Toronto a judge remarked that Linda Gibbons shouldn’t have been sent to the Mental Health Court in the first place to determine her psychological fitness to stand trial. The longtime pro-life demonstrator had been sent to the court during a bail hearing the day before by a justice of the peace, who had construed her failure to speak as evidence of a possible mental disorder.

The judge promptly sent her right back to where she came from – Room 507 at the Ontario Court of Justice at College Park, for the continuation of the bail hearing, scheduled for 10 a.m. this morning, regarding a charge of disobeying a court order. She has been held in custody at the Vanier Centre for Women in Milton after her arrest outside the Scott “Clinic” abortion site in downtown Toronto on Oct. 8.

Gibbons has made it a practice not to speak during court hearings out of solidarity with voiceless preborn human beings. That has resulted in her referral to the Mental Health Court on other occasions during her 14-year history of challenging court injunctions forbidding pro-life activity within specified zones around certain Toronto abortion sites.

Looking very haggard after about six hours in holding cells that she has in the past described as dirty and noisy, Gibbons took her seat in the prisoner’s box to the exclamation of Crown attorney Michael Leshner that she has “been before the courts for year and years on abortion-related issues.” That remark drew a stern rebuke from the judge, who chided Leshner for inappropriately putting on the official record past history that had no bearing on the issue at hand and may have had the effect of creating bias in the court.

Interestingly, Crown attorney Michael Leshner constitutes one half of “the two Michaels,” who in 2003 entered into the first civil same-sex “marriage” in Canada. Leshner was later heard characterizing arguments against same-sex “marriage” by churchmen such as Calgary Catholic bishop Fred Henry as “religious intolerance” and added, “I think the bishop has eaten too much mad cow … the Charter of Rights trumps the Bible.”

Gibbons, not represented by a lawyer, remained silent when consulted by the duty counsel lawyer assigned to the court. A psychiatrist then came forth to explain that Gibbons has told her on several occasions that her silence is actually elective and part of a strategy of protest. That was when the judge remanded her to the Thursday morning appearance.


Landmark Study Demonstrates Natural IVF Alternative Effective in Helping Infertile Couples Conceive

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

LONDON, UK, October 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Researchers from the International Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine have published a study in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine which confirms that natural procreative technology, called NaProTechnology or NPT – a non-invasive fertility-care based medical approach to the treatment of infertility – provided live birth rates comparable or superior to more invasive treatments, including assisted reproductive technology (ART) and in vitro fertilization (IVF).

NPT was developed from thirty years of scientific research in the study of the normal and abnormal states of the menstrual and fertility cycles by Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers. Dr. Hilgers is the director of the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction and the National Center for Women’s Health in Omaha, Nebraska. He is currently a senior medical consultant in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive medicine and surgery at the Pope Paul VI Institute and a clinical professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Creighton University School of Medicine.

The study was conducted in Ireland and involved 1072 couples who had who sought medical help because of difficulty conceiving or carrying a pregnancy to term.

Dr. Phil Boyle, one of the study authors and director of the Galway NaProTechnology Medical Centre, explained that NPT can often resolve infertility or miscarriages by detecting and correcting problems overlooked by standard approaches.

“Nearly half the patients we see have been told they have unexplained infertility,” said Dr. Boyle. “After NPT investigations, 2/3 of the patients had a hormone abnormality and more than 1/4 were diagnosed with cervical mucus dysfunction, a critical factor for sperm survival and transport. Once these and other problems were identified and treated, NPT enabled the couples to conceive using a natural act of intercourse.”

Overall, 52.8% of patients completing treatment could expect to have a successful live birth, which rivals previously published results for expensive in vitro fertilization (IVF), which may require patients to endure multiple invasive treatments to achieve a similar success rate.

The NPT result is even more remarkable given that a third of these patients had already failed IVF, were older and had tried longer to have a baby. For patients who hadn’t tried IVF, the live birth rate rose to 61.5%.

Professor Joseph Stanford, the paper’s lead author states: “This study represents a landmark publication that demonstrates that NPT is a safe and highly effective alternative to existing treatment options, even for patients who have unsuccessfully tried other reproductive treatments. GPs and Obstetricians who were previously not aware of NPT will now be able to inform patients that they have other viable and effective choices to help them have a baby.”

According to Dr. John B. Shea, medical consultant for LifeSiteNews.com, NPT has not been accepted by the majority of the medical profession because “in reference to female infertility, NPT competes against a well financed option, in vitro fertilization [IVF], that is already deeply entrenched in the marketplace and in political circles.”

“Furthermore, physicians who might be interested in NPT experience a lot of peer pressure to view NPT as an oddball kind of medical care simply because they had not heard of it in medical school,” Dr. Shea explained.

The full text of the study is available at: https://www.jabfm.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/375

Read related LifeSiteNews.com articles:

Fertility Treatment is Hugely Successful but Largely Ignored by Medicine
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08031707.html

Study Finds Common Infertility Treatments Are Unlikely To Improve Fertility
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08080801.html


Sarah Palin Speaks with Dr. Dobson about Faith and Life Issues

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

DENVER, October 23, 2008 (LifeSIteNews.com) – In an interview on Monday with Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin spoke about how her Christian beliefs guide both her personal and public life and the impact her faith has had on the current election campaign.

Governor Palin has not focused on her faith during the campaign, but is nevertheless unequivocal about publicly and openly expressing her position on faith, life and family issues.

When Dr. Dobson inquired about the importance of faith in her life, Governor Palin said, “It is my foundation, yes, my Christian faith is.”

Dr. Dobson asked her to explain how she discerned God’s will in the birth of her youngest child Trig, born with Down syndrome: “I was about 13 weeks along when I found out that Trig would be born with Downs Syndrome. To be honest with you, it scared me though, and I knew it would be a challenge and I had to really be on my knees for the entire rest of the pregnancy asking that God would prepare my heart. And just the second he was born it was absolute confirmation that that prayer was answered.”

Gov. Palin added, “I’ve always had near and dear to my heart the mission of protecting the sanctity of life and being pro-life, a hardcore pro-lifer, but I think this opportunity for me to really be walking the walk and not just talking the talk. …

“I feel so privileged and blessed to have been, I guess, chosen to have Trig enter our lives because I do want it to help us in our cause here in allowing America to be a more welcoming nation for all of our children.”

The discussion then turned to the Republican platform on life issues, which Dr. Dobson said is the “the strongest pro-life, pro-family document to come out of a political party, even more so than the platforms during the campaigns of Ronald Reagan.”

“Dr. Dobson thank you so much for recognizing that,” Gov. Palin responded.

“This is a strong platform [built] around the planks in this platform that respect life and respect the entrepreneurial spirit of this great country and those things, back to the social issues that are what Republicans, at least in the past, had articulated and tried to stand on. They’re there, they’re solid, we stand on them and again I believe that it is the right agenda for the country at this time.”

When Dr. Dobson asked Gov. Palin whether she thinks Sen. McCain “also strongly supports those views” on life and family issues and “will implement it,” she said, “I do, from the bottom of my heart. I am such a strong believer that McCain believes in those strong planks and we do have good conversations about some of the details too of the different planks and what they represent.”

“It’s most important … that Americans know that John McCain is solidly there on those solid planks in our platform that build the right agenda for America.”

Gov. Palin mentioned what she called the “Mainstream Media Filter,” the agenda-driven media bias she believe is prevalent in journalism.

“You can’t pick a fight with those who buy ink by the barrelful … this is where my faith becomes even more important to me. I have to have faith that our message will get out to the American people minus the filter of the mainstream media. … We can’t get that message through the mainstream media. … I have to have that faith that God’s going to help us get that message out there.”

Dr. Dobson asked whether Gov. Palin was discouraged by polls showing the Republicans behind the Democrats.

“I am not discouraged at all, even hearing those poll numbers,” Gov. Palin replied. “To me, it motivates us, makes us work that much harder and it also strengthens my faith because I’m going to know at the end of the day, putting this in God’s hands, that the right thing for America will be done, the end of the day on November 4th. “

Listen to the entire interview here: https://www.citizenlink.org/clspecialalert/A000008476.cfm


Arizona’s Pro-Marriage Prop. 102 Campaign Showing Strong Momentum

By Jonquil Frankham

ARIZONA, October 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Recently the New Haven chapter of the Knights of Columbus donated $100,000 to yesformarriage.com, the group campaigning in support of Arizona’s Proposition 102 – the latest in a series of generous donations that have significantly bolstered the chances that marriage will be protected in the state come Nov. 4.

Proposition 102 is a motion to write the true definition of marriage into the state constitution. Same-sex “marriage” is already illegal under Arizona state law, but a constitutional amendment would prevent the possibility that it will be made legal at any point in the future. In particular, such an action would prevent activist judges from arbitrarily redefining marriage – as has happened in the three other states where same-sex “marriage” is currently legal.

Proposition 102 is worded: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

So far, the campaign promoting the proposition has received over $6,000,000 in donations, while “Arizona Together,” the official campaign against the proposition, has raised just $600,000, reports the Phoenix Business Journal. Yes for Marriage uses its funds for advertising, which has consisted both of television ads and street signs reading “Yes on 102.”

A statewide poll in September found 49% in favor of the proposition, with 42% opposed and 9% undecided.

Proposition 102 is a less stringent form of a measure that was voted down two years ago. Proposition 107 was put forward in 2006, and would have prohibited recognition of civil unions as well as same-sex “marriage” in the state. The motion was defeated 51.8% – 48.2%.

Opponents of Prop. 102 have largely argued that because same-sex “marriage” is already technically illegal in the state, the measure is unnecessary. “Prop. 102 is an unnecessary distraction from more pressing issues that face Arizona,” Arizona Together spokeswoman Cynthia Leigh Lewis has said about the measure.

In an advertisement for Yes for Marriage, Phoenix’ bishop, the Most Reverend Thomas J. Olmsted, however, calls the “definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman” a “non-negotiable” issue. In the ad the bishop highlights the manner in which same-sex “marriage” was legalized in California by the Californian Supreme Court last May, saying that the passage of Proposition 8 will prevent judges and legislators from circumventing the will of the people in Arizona as they did in California.

In 2000, Californians adopted Proposition 22 to protect marriage and maintain its definition as a union between one man and one woman. But in May 2008, California judges redefined marriage to include same-sex couples against the wishes of the public.


Massachusetts Pro-family Activist Warns What Allowing Same-Sex “Marriage” Brings to Society

“This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force”

By Kathleen Gilbert

BOSTON, MA, October 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As California, Florida and Arizona voters consider ballot initiatives to protect true marriage, a Massachusetts pro-family activist has issued a warning that describes from his own and other Massachusetts residents’ first-hand experience how public education and other aspects of society are radically altered when same-sex “marriage” is legalized.

“Anyone who thinks that same-sex ‘marriage’ is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts,” said Brian Camenker in his Mass Resistance report. “It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.”

Camenker chronicled the spread of homosexual indoctrination in public schools, erupting first in high schools less than a month after the November 2003 court decision to allow same-sex “marriages.” Within the following year, elementary schools followed suit, installing often-pornographic homosexual literature in public school libraries, and teaching same-sex “equality” as early as the kindergarten level. A Massachusetts parent made national headlines for insisting that parents at least be told when homosexual curriculum would be taught, a request the school repeatedly denied. (https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08100812.html)

Camenker cited the words of an 8th-grade Massachusetts teacher, who told National Public radio that homosexuality’s new legal status changed her approach to teaching, giving her the confidence that she can teach homosexualist values with impunity.

“In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.’ If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, `Give me a break. It’s legal now,’” she told NPR, relating how she can discuss homosexual sex without fear of limitation. For example, the Brookline teacher said she tells her students how lesbians have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

In the realm of public health, Camenker laments that the forced acceptance of homosexuality has become a distinct public health threat, and cites the rise of HIV/AIDS in Massachusetts since the legislation.

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health, headed by a homosexual man, has helped produce “The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century,” which Camenker calls “a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives ‘tips’ to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to ‘safely’ have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.”

Businesses are also forced to “tolerate” homosexuals, says Camenker, especially the wedding industry – members of which can be arrested for discrimination if they do not acquiesce to a homosexual couple’s request for services.

Homosexual couples in MA can now legally force adoption agencies to treat them on a par with heterosexual couples seeking children, even against the wishes of the birth baby’s parents.

Also, while homosexual “marriages” are not even technically legal in Massachusetts, says Camenker, nonetheless Governor Mitt Romney gave Justices of the Peace the ultimatum of either performing homosexual “marriages” or losing their jobs.

“It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other,” said Camenker.

“This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise.

“To the rest of America: You’ve been forewarned.”

See related LifeSiteNews.com articles:

California’s Proposition 8 Under Threat: Opponents Pull Far Ahead in Fundraising Race
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102207.html

Mandatory Homosexual Indoctrination in Grade School Survives after Supreme Court Turns Down Case
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08100812.html


Man Claiming to Be a Woman Sues Maltese Authorities for Refusing Same-sex “Marriage”

By Tim Waggoner

VALLETTA, Malta, October 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Maltese man who has undergone “gender reassignment surgery” is taking Maltese authorities to court in an attempt to force them to issue him and his partner marriage banns.

The homosexual news source, Pink News, reports that Joanne Cassar is claiming his fundamental human rights are being compromised by the Public Registry’s decision not to allow the two men to “marry.”

In 2007, shortly after Cassar obtained the court order instructing the Public Registry to change his name from Joseph to Joanne and his gender from male to female on his birth certificate, Cassar also obtained another court order instructing Public Registry director Anthony Geraldi to issue the marriage banns.

Geraldi, however, went to the appeals court which overturned the original court ruling, upholding the director’s claim that Cassar’s birth certificate changes were only permitted to protect his privacy and that his surgery was cosmetic.

Given this ruling and the fact that homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” are illegal in Malta, Cassar was denied the marriage banns.

Despite the court’s decision, Cassar still feels his fundamental human rights have been breached and is going to court again over the matter. According to di-ve.com, Cassar claims he has been subjected to inhumane treatment because of Malta’s lack of laws addressing the “right” of a “new sex” to “marry.”

While Malta is the smallest country in the EU in terms of both population and land size, it has continually and vigorously defied pressure from the EU and other homosexualist groups in favor of upholding its strong Roman Catholic values and tradition.


Nicaragua Pressured on Abortion by the UN Human Rights Committee

By Piero A. Tozzi

NEW YORK, NY, October 23, 2008 (C-FAM) – In Geneva last week Nicaragua came under fire for its laws protecting the unborn. Members of the Human Rights Committee (HRC) – the treaty body that monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – repeatedly grilled the Central American nation for outlawing abortion as Nicaragua presented its third periodic report detailing progress in implementing the treaty.

Nicaragua banned all abortion in 2006 and rejected a “therapeutic” abortion amendment last year. In advance of the hearing, the HRC sent Nicaragua questions concerning its abortion law and rates of maternal mortality, which Nicaragua addressed in its report. “Experts” on the Committee also had the opportunity to pose questions.

Among the queries was how, if Nicaragua were a “secular state,” a ban on abortion could be reconciled with secularity. The delegation responded by pointing out that though the state is secular, the “social reality” is that 90 per cent of the country’s 5.6 million people profess Christianity, implying that the laws reflected the value choices of a majority of Nicaraguans. The delegates added that if there came a time when a majority desired to change the country’s abortion laws, they could do so via the political process.

The ICCPR, like all major global human rights treaties, is silent on abortion. When signed in 1966, most nations had laws proscribing or otherwise restricting the practice. Critics of the United Nations (UN) treaty bodies like HRC note that by reading a right to abortion into the ICCPR, the HRC has overstepped its mandate.

When Nicaragua strengthened its legislation protecting the unborn, it came under unprecedented pressure. A letter signed by government officials from Canada, the five Scandinavian countries, and several UN agencies – including the Population Fund (UNFPA) and the Children’s Fund (UNICEF) – accused Nicaragua of violating rights set forth in various international documents such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW.

More than a letter-writing exercise, the Swedish government severed aid last year to Nicaragua and three other pro-life Latin American nations, and Finland earlier this year linked a continuation of aid to changes in Nicaragua’s abortion law.

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega was a proponent of abortion when the revolutionary Sandinistas first came to power in the late 1970s. Since winning the presidency via democratic election in 2006, however, he has consistently defended Nicaragua’s pro-life position against foreign critics. Some have attributed his change of heart to his re-embrace of his baptismal Catholic faith.

Even more outspoken has been the First Lady of Nicaragua, Rosario Murillo. This past September, she made a fiery speech denouncing proponents of abortion from the Global North who engage in cultural imperialism by seeking to impose the values of a soulless society where adults “prefer to raise pets instead of children.”

The Geneva-based HRC meets three times a year to review countries’ progress in implementing the ICCPR, with every third session held in New York. Among the nations slated to appear before the treaty monitoring body in New York in March 2009 are Chad, Croatia and Sweden.

(This article reprinted with permission from https://www.c-fam.org)


UN Committee on CEDAW Oversteps Mandate, Grills Member States on Abortion

By Samantha Singson

NEW YORK, NY, October 23, 2008 (C-FAM) – The committee that monitors states compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) opened its latest session in Geneva this week to review the reports of 12 states. Even prior to the arrival of country delegations in Geneva, the committee had already begun questioning states on abortion, even though the treaty itself is silent on the subject.

At this session, the CEDAW committee will review the reports of Belgium, Canada, Ecuador, Uruguay, Kyrgyzstan, Slovenia, Mongolia, Bahrain, El Salvador, Madagascar, Myanmar and Portugal on how those countries are implementing their obligations under CEDAW. A glance at the list of pre-sessional questions sent to the states reveals that all but four were questioned on abortion.

In the pre-sessional documents, the committee asked El Salvador for information on how the government was implementing a previous recommendation that urged the government to allow abortion. The committee asked Myanmar to explain whether “women have a right to terminate a pregnancy resulting from sexual violence.” The committee also criticized Uruguay’s law criminalizing abortion, which the committee says “has not helped reduce secret and unsafe abortions,” and asked for detailed information on how Portugal is implementing its new law which permits government-funded therapeutic abortions during the first 10 weeks.

States will be expected to answer these concerns when they come face-to-face with the committee during the session. At the end of the session, the CEDAW committee will issue its recommendations for each country. While these recommendations are non-binding, abortion activists have brought litigation throughout the world citing the ruling of United Nations human rights treaty bodies, like the CEDAW Committee, in challenging laws against abortion. Such arguments helped convince Colombia’s constitutional court to liberalize that country’s restrictions on the practice.

CEDAW critics have become increasingly concerned about the work and composition of the committee. In recent years CEDAW committee members have pressured more than 60 nations on their abortion legislation.

According to guidelines, the 23 members of the CEDAW committee should be “independent” and “of high moral standing and competence.” A recent survey of the committee revealed, however, that half of the CEDAW committee members are direct employees of such radical non-governmental organizations as the Latin America and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women’s Rights (known by its Spanish acronym CLADEM), the International Council of Women, and the Global Fund for Women.

At the current session, CLADEM submitted alternative country reviews for both El Salvador and Uruguay. CLADEM declared that Uruguay “must de-penalize the interruption of pregnancy…in accordance with CEDAW” and demanded that El Salvador “reform abortion legislation” and “consider exceptions to general abortion prohibitions in therapeutic abortion cases.” Silvia Pimental, a sitting CEDAW committee member, is a founding member of CLADEM and is still listed on CLADEM’s website as a member of its honorary consulting council.

The next CEDAW committee session is scheduled to take place next January in Geneva. Recently, the UN formally empowered the committee to meet three times annually starting it 2010, which it had already been doing as an “extraordinary” measure.

(This article reprinted with permission from https://www.c-fam.org)


SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail Print ArticlePrint


0 Comments

    Loading...