Marriage in Maine: Why We’d Better Fight

Marriage in Maine: Why We’d Better Fight
Sandy Rios
Friday, October 30, 2009

Now that we know what President Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings means by “safe,” we’d better start putting the pieces together on homosexual activism and fight back.

The beautiful old state of Maine faces a battle that will affect us all. Will they vote “yes” to maintain traditional marriage on November 3rd or will they not? Homosexual advocates are pouring in millions, while defenders are operating on a shoestring. This is a battle where gay activists are strong and sure and some opponents too clever by half. One thing is sure: If we believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, we’d better mobilize. But marriage is just one piece of this puzzle. Let me tell you why.

Much has been reported about the “Safe Schools Czar,” not the least of which is his desire to “Queer Elementary Education.” That is the creepy title of the book for which he wrote the forward along with no-longer-underground-Bill Ayers. And the title actually means what you think it means. The book is filled with child-adult sex, including the story of a lesbian mom and her daughter lusting for the same girl in the playground. Homosexual activists have your kids in their sights. The next generation is very important to them—and not only for the purposes of propaganda.

Homosexual activists want your children in every way. In order to achieve that, it is necessary to mainstream homosexuality so that anyone opposing it is severely ostracized or punished as a result. But, of course, we’re there. Matt Barber, while working for All State Insurance, wrote—on his own time—an article opposing homosexuality and was subsequently fired. Crystal Dixon, African American Vice President for Human Resources at University of Toledo met the same fate for writing an op-ed in a newspaper expressing her religious views on the subject. Corporations are targeted and punished for not supporting homosexuality. Years ago, United Airlines was among the first to cave in—and the rest of corporate America has fallen like dominoes. Corporate America now spends money, posts rainbows, celebrates “pride”—but they dare not give money in support of traditional marriage or pro-family causes for fear of retribution.

Only positive examples of “gayness” have been presented in television, movies and media in order to normalize and de-stigmatize homosexuality. Young Americans can hardly remember when or why homosexuality was once taboo. After the famous Britney Spears/Madonna kiss there was an epidemic of teenage girls experimenting with lesbianism, kissing in public, emulating their idols for all to see. Through Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs, established by Safe Schools Czar Jennings and his former organization GLSEN, children—even in grade school—have been encouraged to “come out.” Questionnaires in health classes ask how students know they are straight if they haven’t tried sex with a same-sex partner.

How did this happen? Gay activists had a plan which they laid out in great detail in a 1989 book called “After the Ball.” And they had help in high places. For over 20 years, the National Education Association has been aggressively pushing homosexuality. Propaganda films like “That’s Elementary” were produced and force fed to dissenting teachers who were silenced and shamed. Games were introduced into the classroom like “Tolerance Circle” where children with moral opposition to homosexuality were placed in the middle and ridiculed for their traditional beliefs. Homosexuality was introduced in every area of the curriculum with American history rewritten to accommodate a “gay” Abraham Lincoln and literature and reading assignments filled with stories of graphic homosexual sex. After serving for years as president of the NEA, President Robert Chase stepped down and “came out” leaving a legacy of mainstreaming homosexuality in American public schools. The teachers were had, or they were silent and the children unprotected and ripe for the picking.

But there were other allies too. Mothers went soft, refusing to believe their own schools were presenting such outrageous materials, while at the same time believing they were being compassionate to the gay community. It was all part of the strategy, after all, helped greatly by presenting sympathetic characters and stories of bullying and brutality to canonize homosexuals as victims in order to get the sympathy of women, who naturally want justice. Matthew Shepard’s death worked beautifully for this and, though tragic, it was based on the false premise that he was murdered for being gay. No matter … Matthew became a cause célèbre and mothers turned their heads from the sexualization of their own children in order to show empathy with gay relatives and friends.

The strategy looks something like this: Sexual orientation laws (protecting homosexuality as equal to race and religion) lead to hate crimes law (giving uber law enforcement protection to gays, lesbians and transgendered persons) which lead to hate speech laws that eventually silence free speech—even the preaching of pastors in churches. Using the Bible to teach God’s design for sex expressed only in the union between one man and one woman for a lifetime has become a criminal act in countries where hate crimes and speech laws have been enacted.

In 1996 Michelangelo Signorile wrote in OUT Magazine:

It (gay marriage) is a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.

And that brings us to the marriage debate. It is not unconnected. Homosexual activists don’t want marriage. They want the total breakdown of traditional family relationships. In 1972, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the “repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit: and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.” Achieving homosexual marriage is merely a stepping stone to the complete deconstruction of the natural family. But many Americans are so naïve, they have been handily manipulated into believing they’re showing great tolerance when, in reality, they have proved to be merely sheep.

Even some opponents of homosexual marriage have fallen for the deception. Afraid to tackle the deeper problems of the homosexual political agenda, they too are seduced by the need to show “tolerance” and are willing to settle for the half measure of protecting a word (marriage). They have criticized others who continue to fight on principle, and have (by and large) used their muscle to achieve something that means almost nothing in the long run. This is what has been happening in Maine. Groups deeply trusted by Protestant Christians and Catholics and conservatives have convinced themselves that somehow the word “marriage” is the object of the game. It is not. There is nothing sacred about the word “marriage.” The concept means simply leaving father and mother and joining in a sexual relationship to establish a home recognized by the state. It could have been translated “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships.” It matters not a whit. Their straining at this particular gnat is emasculating righteous indignation, further confusing an already confused culture and presenting the homosexual community with the prize that will—by any name—have the same dangerous effect: the sexualization of our children and the continued deconstruction of our civilization.
________________________________________________
US: Mass. can't force gay marriage benefits
AP News
Friday, October 30, 2009

States that allow gay marriage can't force the federal government to provide benefits to those couples, the Obama administration argued Friday in court papers in a lawsuit by Massachusetts.

The Justice Department is at odds with Massachusetts _ the first state to allow gay marriage _ over a 1996 federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Massachusetts sued in July, saying that law is discriminatory and deprives gay couples in the state of some federal spousal benefits.

The Obama administration agrees the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is discriminatory and wants it repealed, but says it has an obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress while they are on the books and can be reasonably defended.

The law "does not prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying, nor does it prohibit the states from acknowledging same-sex marriages," according to the court filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.

Massachusetts, the filing continues, is trying to claim individuals have a right to federal benefits based on marital status.

"There is, however, no fundamental right to marriage-based federal benefits," according to the 36-page filing.

The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Massachusetts is the first state to sue the government over the DOMA law. Some gay couples have filed their own lawsuits challenging the law, but this case is unique in pitting a state against the federal government over the issue.

Justice Dept. spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said any state "can allow gay and lesbian citizens to marry and can make its own decisions about how to treat married couples when it comes to state benefits."

"Massachusetts is not being denied the right to provide benefits to same-sex couples and, in fact, has enacted a law to provide equal health benefits to same-sex spouses," she said.

In earlier filings, the government has sought to dismiss the DOMA lawsuits brought by individuals.

The Massachusetts case could also have implications for Democratic Party politics. The Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, is trying to win the Senate seat of the late Edward Kennedy, at the same time her office is leading the lawsuit against the Democratic administration on the issue of gay rights.

The lawsuit brought by Massachusetts says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married since the state allowed it in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.

Those benefits include federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans' cemetery.

Besides Massachusetts, five other states _ Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa _ have legalized gay marriage.