Our local newspaper has an editorial today about Prop 8 in California, which is an attempt by the people of California to keep marriage as marriage and not redefine it to include other types of relationships. Since our local newspaper is pretty lefty, the editorial throws in the necessary references to "theocratic bullies" and "homophobic bigots." (Read the whole thing here.) But the main gist of the opinion piece questions the ad campaign of the Prop 8 supporters, which has brought up protection of children as an ancillary issue to this vote.
The author dismisses this tactic, but are the Prop 8 supporters so off base? In Massachusetts, so-called homosexual marriage was also "legalized" by judicial fiat. Have the kids there been affected, and are Californians right to be concerned about their children's safety if they don't stop the redefinition of marriage in their own state? Based on the information contained at this website the answer is emphatically "Yes!" Warning, the information contained at this site is extremely disturbing and I advise you to "click" with caution.
In Massachusetts, parents are not allowed to "opt out" of pro-homosexuality lessons, children in kindergarten are being indoctrinated, instructions about how to perform various sex acts that are really obscene have been disseminated, and teenage boys have been given information sheets about where the gay bars are so they can be picked up by adult predators. Absolutely disgusting. Is there any real doubt that the educrats in California won't be pulling these same stunts if Prop 8 doesn't pass?
Ultimately, the writer of the opinion piece is right. Who wouldn't vote for protecting children?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Sarah,
I did a post a few months back, citing the platforms for a recuring "Gay Rights" march from the 70's on. At first they specifically called for the elimination of the age of consent. But as that riled up some folks, the last copy of it I have says a "graduated age of consent. They're consistant in trying to water down or eliminate laws that protec from homosexual predation.
They also, in the 70s called for the legalization of prostitution. Now they use the phrase "decriminalization of all private consensual acts", which would of course, legalize tricking.
They don't give up, and have cloaked themselves with the victim cloak so well that if you object to homosexual advances, you can be disciplined at work as a homophobe--saw that at work.
Who wouldn't vote for protecting children?
Liberals, of course.
I've sincerely enjoyed reading your blog and have left an award for you on mine. Thanks.
Post a Comment