Union leaders line up behind same-sex ‘marriage,’ Obama
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 19, 2012, ( >LifeSiteNews) – Although their membership is evenly split, 90 percent of all union contributions go to the Democratic Party. Now, as it has become a wedge issue in the 2012 presidential campaign, a number of the nation’s largest unions have endorsed same-sex “marriage.”
The UAW, AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFSCME, and other top unions have issued statements supporting same-sex “marriage.” Many state-level unions have followed suit, particularly in states like Maryland, where the issue is on the ballot this November.
While some unions have backed gay nuptials for a few years, others, such as the UAW, announced their support only after President Barack Obama announced his position had changed on the issue.
Obama, who had previously opposed redefining marriage, changed his views in May in response to mounting pressure from the homosexual lobby and, in his words, the role of religion and conversations with his teenage daughters about the issue. Since then, same-sex “marriage” has become a major part of the Democratic Party platform.
Historically, more than 90 percent of all union political spending – which totaled a staggering $4.4 billion between 2005 and 2011, according to the Wall Street Journal – has been in support of Democratic candidates for office.
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
This is one reason why groups like the National Right to Work Committee argue against compulsory unionism laws that force many workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. While virtually all union political spending goes to support Democrats, the rank-and-file union members who finance that support are about evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, just like the rest of the country. Yet many have no choice about where the union spends their money.
Up until recently, that coerced financial support for Democrats had been largely based on economic and workplace concerns. Democrats favor a higher minimum wage, taxpayer-funded healthcare, and other measures that union officials claim benefit the workers they’re paid to represent.
The same-sex “marriage” issue is not related to workplace concerns, nor is it something most working families support. A CNN exit poll taken during Ohio’s 2004 battle to ban same-sex “marriage” showed that 64 percent of union members and 63 percent of those living in union households voted in favor of the ban in defiance of the AFL-CIO’s public opposition.
Former union negotiator Phil Burress was one of them. He chaired the campaign to protect traditional marriage, and was appalled at what he saw as union officials’ betrayal of their members’ values. Burress told CNS News that he considered the AFL-CIO’s backing of the homosexual and transgender agendas to be “a stealth campaign.”
“I know union workers,” he said, “and on these social issues—especially dealing with marriage—the AFL-CIO does not represent the rank-and-file workers.”
Union bosses, he added, “certainly talk with workers when it comes to negotiating contracts, but when it comes to taking public policy stances, they don’t talk to the membership at all.”
Similarly, when Michigan, a labor union stronghold, voted to amend the state constitution to block gay “marriage” and “civil unions,” a Detroit News poll showed two-thirds of union members voted for the amendment. Meanwhile, AFL-CIO and MEA teachers union officials campaigned against the marriage amendment. Because it was an issue, not a candidate they were campaigning against, they were able to do so with union treasury dues, not PAC money.
After passage, the Michigan ACLU filed suit to limit the marriage amendment’s enforcement. The plaintiff in the case? “Pride at Work,” the homosexual activist arm of the AFL-CIO.
Even though union members overwhelmingly supported the ban on gay “marriage,” their dues money was spent fighting it, both before and after the vote.
Mike Goschka, then a Michigan state senator and a member of the United Steelworkers Union, was angry. He told Focus on the Family he thought the issue was as bad for society as legalized abortion.
“I was 19 years old and abortion was made legal,” Goschka said. “I didn’t have a clue back then, but this is on our watch. We simply cannot stand idly by and watch the demise of the culture.”
“Polling data show that the American people continue to be closely divided on the issue of ‘gay marriages,’” Stanley Greer, Senior Research Associate at NILRR wrote on his blog. “And in the dozens of states that have held ballot measures or referenda on the particular question of whether public policy should recognize and encourage same-sex unions, majorities have voted ‘No’ every time, most recently in North Carolina this spring.”
“Rank-and-file union members have disparate views on this controversial issue, just as other Americans do,” continued Greer. “With evident contempt for the views of millions of rank-and-file unionists, AFL-CIO czar Richard Trumka and other union bosses are using their forced dues-funded empires to assist a controversial political agenda.”
Same-sex “marriage” legislation is on the ballot this year in Maryland, Maine, Washington and Minnesota.
Please, enough with the cult of pop stars. Our kids need real heroes.
April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Two things happen each time a significant pop culture figure dies: Christians attempt to dredge up some moderately conservative or traditional thing that figure said at some point during his long career, and mainstream media attempts to convince a society thoroughly bored with such things that the person in question was a ground-breaking radical. The two most recent examples are the androgynous David Bowie—a cringe-worthy and possibly blasphemous video of him dropping to his knees during a rock performance and uttering the Lord’s Prayer circulated just following his death--and the pop star Prince.
I’ve had to suppress my gag reflexes many times as I saw my Facebook newsfeed fill up with memes sporting quotes from Prince about his faith and articles announcing that the musician who “embraced gender fluidity before his time,” according to Slate and “will always be a gay icon” according to The Atlantic, was against gay marriage. Sure, maybe he was. But only a Christian community so shell-shocked by the rapid spread of the rainbow blitzkrieg and the catastrophic erosion of religious liberty would find this remarkable. After all, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said the same thing barely one election cycle ago. As one obituary celebrating Prince’s paradigm-smashing sexual performances written by Dodai Stewart put it:
Dig, if you will, a picture: The year is 1980. Many states still have sodomy laws. The radio is playing feel-good ear candy like Captain and Tennille and KC and the Sunshine Band. TV hits include the sunny, toothy blond shows Three’s Company and Happy Days. There’s no real word for “gender non-conforming.” But here’s what you see: A man. Clearly a man. Hairy, mostly naked body…a satiny bikini bottom. But those eyes. Rimmed in black, like a fantasy belly dancer. The full, pouty lips of a pin-up girl. Long hair. A tiny, svelte thing. Ethnically ambiguous, radiating lust. What is this? A man. Clearly a man. No. Not just a man. A Prince.
Right. So let’s not get too carried away, shall we? I know Christians are desperate to justify their addictions to the pop culture trash that did so much to sweep away Christian values in the first place and I know that latching on to the occasional stray conservative belief that may manifest itself in pop culture figures makes many feel as if perhaps we are not so weird and countercultural, but this bad habit we have of claiming these figures upon their passing is downright damaging.
After all, parents should be teaching their children about real heroes, titans of the faith who changed the world. Heroes of the early church who stood down tyrants, halted gladiatorial combat, and crusaded against injustice in a world where death was all the rage. These men and women were real rebels who stood for real values. If we want to point our children to people they should emulate, we should be handing them books like Seven Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness by the brilliant writer Eric Metaxas rather than the pop albums Purple Rain or Lovesexy by Prince. If parents spend their time glorifying the predecessors of Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus instead of highlighting heroes like William Wilberforce, they can hardly be surprised when their children choose to emulate the former rather than the latter.
The mainstream media’s adulation of these pop stars is equally irritating. The unspoken truth of these obituaries is that the flamboyant antics of Prince and the rest of the so-called rebellious drag queens populating the rock n’ roll scene have been mainstream for a long time already. Want to see dozens of bizarre body piercings? Weird hairdos? Purple mohawks? Dudes with nail polish? Strange tattoos? Easy. Just go onto any university campus, or any public high school without a dress code. With headphones wedged firmly in their ear canals, they can pump the cleverly commercialized “counterculture” straight into their skulls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
More than that, some of these courageous rebels have actually sued their employers to ensure that they can let their establishment-smashing freak flag fly at work, too. An Edmonton woman with 22 visible body piercings complained that her employer was unfair because apparently she was being discriminated against “based on body modifications.” Yeah! The Man must be told, after all. And if he doesn’t agree, we will lawyer up. I wonder what the shrieking rebels of the early days would think about the snivelling children of the current grievance culture.
So these days, the media’s eulogizing about aging culture warriors who went mainstream a long time ago rings a bit hollow. After all, most rock n’ roll stars these days look tame compared to what shows up in the children’s section at Pride Week. Freaky is normal now. Normal is radical. Welcome to 2016.
When Christians are posting nostalgic tributes to the rebels who helped inoculate their children against the radical views of Christianity in the first place, you know that the victories of the counterculture are complete and Stockholm syndrome has set in.
Target boycott climbs to over 1 million
April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Over 1 million people have signed a pledge to boycott Target over its new policy allowing men to access women’s bathrooms.
The American Family Association’s Boycott Target petition gained traction immediately, reaching the one million mark in only nine days.
“Corporate America must stop bullying people who disagree with the radical left agenda to remake society into their progressive image,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “#BoycottTarget has resonated with Americans. Target’s harmful policy poses a danger to women and children; nearly everyone has a mother, wife, daughter or friend who is put in jeopardy by this policy. Predators and voyeurs would take advantage of the policy to prey on those who are vulnerable. And it’s clear now that over one million customers agree.”
Target defended its policy in a statement saying that it believes everyone “deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally” and earlier this week, a Target spokeswoman defended the policy as “inclusive.”
The AFA said that unisex bathrooms are a common-sense alternative to allowing men unfettered access to women’s bathrooms.
“Target should keep separate facilities for men and women, but for the trans community and for those who simply like using the bathroom alone, a single occupancy unisex option should be provided,” the petition says.
The AFA warned that Target’s new policy benefits sexual predators and poses a danger to women and children.
“With Target publicly boasting that men can enter women's bathrooms, where do you think predators are going to go?” the petition asked.
There have been numerous instances of predatory men accessing women’s bathrooms and intimate facilities in the wake of “transgender” bathroom policies allowing them to do so.
“We want to make it very clear that AFA does not believe the transgender community poses this danger to the wider public,” said Wildmon. “Rather, this misguided and reckless policy provides a possible gateway for predators who are out there.”
Amazing new video captures the flash of light the moment life begins
CHICAGO, April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Life begins with a spark – literally.
Researchers at Northwestern University have documented the striking event in a new video that accompanies a study published this week.
At the moment of conception, the egg releases massive amounts of zinc, which creates a spark that can be seen with the aid of a microscope.
“It was remarkable,” said Teresa Woodruff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University's medical school. “To see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking.”
The research team had noted the zinc sparks before in mice eggs but had never observed the process in human beings.
“All of biology starts at the time of fertilization,” Woodruff said, “yet we know next to nothing about the events that occur in the human.”
One of the researchers, Northwestern chemistry professor Thomas O'Halloran, explained the science behind the process in 2014.
“The egg first has to stockpile zinc and then must release some of the zinc to successfully navigate maturation, fertilization and the start of embryogenesis,” he said. “On cue, at the time of fertilization, we see the egg release thousands of packages, each dumping a million zinc atoms, and then it's quiet.”
“Each egg has four or five of these periodic sparks,” O'Halloran said. “It is beautiful to see, orchestrated much like a symphony.”
Since the amount of zinc in an egg correlates with successful implantation and birth, the Northwestern researchers are highlighting that their research may be used to assist in vitro fertilization.
But that raises concerns given the grave moral issues with IVF, which involves creating numerous embryos that are either killed or frozen. Moral theologians also emphasize that IVF is an injustice even for the children who are born as a result, as they are created in a lab rather than in the union of man and woman.
The study may have far-reaching consequences the research team did not intend, such as strengthening public belief in the longstanding scientific consensus that life begins at the moment of conception/fertilization.
Many of those who saw the Northwestern video said it testifies to the beauty of life and the shallow lies that buttress the argument of abortion-on-demand.
“I saw this, and I was blown away by it,” said Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated radio program Thursday afternoon. “For anybody in the mainstream media to openly admit that life begins at conception” defies arguments that an unborn child is only “tissue mass.”
Researchers released a separate video of the zinc spark taking place in a mammalian egg more than a year ago:
The paper, which is entitled “The Zinc Spark is an Inorganic Signature of Human Egg Activation,” was published by Scientific Reports on April 26.