Will Hawaiian churches be forced to worship homosexuality at their altars?

One News Now reports: 

A court in Hawaii has refused to exempt churches from being forced to allow their property to be used for civil union ceremonies.

 Protection for clergy, but not for churches  

The Emmanuel Temple and the Lighthouse Outreach Center Assembly of God requested a restraining order to block a law that permits same-sex couples to enter civil unions. It exempts clergy from performing the ceremonies, which are the equivalent of marriage, but there is no provision to protect church property. They argued that they would face civil penalties and fines if they refused to rent their property for same-sex civil unions, but U.S. District Judge Michael Seabright denied the request.

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel Action expounded on this clash between government and freedom of religion. 

Chilling

"It's unfortunate that this judge has refused to grant injunctive relief here to protect freedom of religious expression," Barber laments, "and this will indeed create a chilling effect on the free exercise of religion in the state of Hawaii -- and it sets a very bad example for the rest of the country."

Expert says costs outweigh benefits in same-sex marriage

 The cost of segregating genders in marriage outweighs the benefits according to Douglas Allen, Canadian expert on the economics of social institutions.  Allen states, “From an economic point of view, same sex marriage should not be allowed.  The costs exceed the benefits.”

Much more than a contract, marriage is an institution that affects all of society, especially children.  Allen points out that the benefits of gay marriage are minimal since gays and lesbians only make up “3/4 of 1 percent of the population.”

Also, since gender-segregated couples must outsource fertility to obtain children, “they produce very few children.” This impacts their lifestyle choices.

From MercatorNet:

"Because they have fewer children in their households, gays and lesbians partake in behaviors that are not complementary to children. They consume more alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes than heterosexuals. For both gay men and lesbians, they are more likely to have multiple sex partners, both as singles and couples."

The lack of procreation also affects their choice of partners.  For example, genetic traits are not as important since they won’t be passed down to children.  Heterosexuals look for long-term relationships to share in childrearing, however, this is not as important to people in unigender relationships.  The result is that gender-segregated unions are “less stable than opposite sexed ones.”

“One study done in Norway and Sweden found that lesbians were six times more likely to divorce compared to heterosexuals, and gays were three times more likely to divorce."

Just as parents influence children, offspring, even the lack of them, impact adults. 

"The absence of children means that gays and lesbians are generally getting something out of their relationships that is different (eg, companionship).
There's no particular reason why one should have the same companion or sex partner for life once children are out of the picture.”

California forces LGBT propaganda on kids while New Hampshire supports parents right to opt out

California passed a law promoting homosexuals in public schools.  The ironically titled FAIR Act mandates incorporating achievements of people with same-sex attraction across the curricula including English, history, and science classes.  Teachers and textbooks can only say positive things about the LGBT community.  Any Christians, Jews, Muslims, or other religious groups that believe homosexual behavior is unhealthy or immoral are silenced.  In effect, the state is sponsoring the state woship of homosexuality on all, even those with religious objections to it.

Meanwhile, on the east coast, New Hampshire voted for HB 542, which gives parents the right to opt their children out of curricula they oppose.  The veto override vote to respect parents and their religious rights has outraged the liberal establishment.

The NH Democratic Party promptly condemned the bill:

"HB542 does serious damage to the quality of education in New Hampshire. It will allow children to be removed from any lessons their parents find objectionable, algebra, English language arts, American history, the civil or women's rights movements, science education, absolutely anything."

 Notice they list algebra first.  As if their biggest fear is a mass withdrawal of kids from algebra classes.  Right.  Math is the most objective class taught; that’s why it’s least likely to be objected to by parents.

Aren’t sex education and health classes the most subjective?  They are replete with cultural, gender, religious, and ethical differences.  Why don’t Democrats mention sexuality or health in their press release?  It’s as if they don’t want New Hampshire parents to know they now have the power to opt their children out of homosexual propaganda inserted into any of their classes:  English, history, science, civil rights movement, “absolutely anything.”

Right back at ya.

New Hampshire votes to support parents’ rights in educating children while California forces LGBT propaganda

While California mandates LGBT propaganda on schoolchildren with no opt out provision, New Hampshire voted to allow parents the right to object to lesson plans and pay for new ones.

Per Huffington Post:

The state House voted 255-112 and Senate 17-5 to enact H.B. 542, which will allow parents to request an alternative school curriculum for any subject to which they register an objection.

 Schools have extensive experience tailoring curricula to meet Individualized Education Programs (IEP) for students.  And with an IEP, parents are considered full and equal members of the team.  Yet liberals are outraged that education will be tailored to meet the unique needs of other students and that parents will have a voice in their own child’s education.

The NH Democratic Party denounced the bill, "HB 542 does serious damage to the quality of education in New Hampshire."

Who has the primary right to educate children: parents or the state?  Historically parents taught their children or selected schools that would teach them.  Now that the teachers union is the most powerful in the land and public schools so expensive, it is difficult for many families to choose a private school.  How many families send their children to the public school simply because they can’t afford an alternative?  Could it be 99%

HB 542 is a step in favor of parents’ rights, freedom of religion, and school choice.  To take it further, New Hampshire could pass a private school choice program.  This would give parents more educational choices, rather than tinkering with curricula class by class.

Top two GOP presidential candidates defend gender-integrated marriage

ABC News reports first and second place winners Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are separated by only 8 Iowans.  Romney and Santorum each garnered 25% of the Iowa Caucus votes which had the largest voter turnout in history.  Both GOP presidential hopefuls have signed the marriage pledge to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which upholds gender-integration in marriage.

In contrast, the Obama administration instructed the Justice Department not to defend DOMA, the federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  Obama supports segregating genders in marriage.

'Gay is the new black'?

An article on the Huffington Post claims, "It's official:  Gay is the new black.”

Really?

One big difference between blacks and people with same-sex attraction is that blacks can be targeted and aborted by Planned Parenthood.  Abortion clinics can’t do that to gays  because they don’t know how to target them.  No one has found a gay gene.

Does this video look gay to you?

Gay isn’t the new black; it’s the new pity card

On Huffington Post, Monique Ruffin claims, “Gay is the new black.”  She urges her brothers and sisters to “stand courageously with gays as we stood for ourselves decades ago.”

Ruffin believes that because blacks and gays have both been victimized, gay is the new black.  It’s like playing a race card but without a monopoly on a beautiful race.

As for blacks who oppose homosexual behavior, she claims, “they are oppressed people who are also practicing the oppression of others.”

Ruffin, if you’re going to play the victim card, why not start with your sisters?  Despite the sensational Sandusky scandal, females are abused more often than males or gays.

How about a victim that can’t even speak for himself?  What about the genocide of black babies still occurring in our country?  You advise:  “Above all things, love.”  Shouldn’t we love black babies?

Besides, there are crucial differences between being black and being gay.  Being black is not an orientation or behavior.  It is genetic.  Being gay is a sexual orientation or behavior.  Although gay rights activists claim they were born that way, scientists have not found a gay gene.

Some homosexuals have successfully changed their sexual orientation.  There are support groups for this explicit purpose.  If being gay were genetic like race, how could they change?  That would be like transforming the color of your skin through talk therapy.

Gay rights activists can’t prove that having two moms is better than having a mother and a father.  They don’t know how to argue against gender-integrated marriage so they talk about civil rights and marriage “equality” (code for gender-segregated marriage.)

Being gay is not the new black.  Activists just want to play the pity card on us because that’s their best argument.

Rather than pity them, we can love gays by treating them with dignity and truth.  

Does stripping gender from toys and marriage really make sense?

London’s famous toy store Hamleys is going the gender-neutral route by getting rid of the “pink is for girls and blue is for boys” schema and formatting their store with bold red and white signs.  Meanwhile, the Lego company is catering to gender diversity by launching their "Friends" collection, specifically geared towards girls with pastel Heartlake City blocks.  The company explains their new toys are based on anthropological research proving that genders play differently. 

So, what’s best for kids?  Are gender-specific toys bad for girls and boys?  Should we embrace gender differences, or strive for a gender-neutral society?  

An interesting opinion piece in the New York Times wonders: 

“At issue, then, is not nature or nurture but how nurture becomes nature: the environment in which children play and grow can encourage a range of aptitudes or foreclose them . . . And promoting, without forcing, cross-sex friendships as well as a breadth of play styles may be more beneficial. There is even evidence that children who have opposite-sex friendships during their early years have healthier romantic relationships as teenagers.”

 If opposite-sex friends are so important to youngsters, what will be the impact of gender segregation in marriages?  If a child grows up with two moms and no dad, how will that environment mold their paradigm of gender and diversity?

“According Lise Eliot, a neuroscientist and the author of ‘Pink Brain, Blue Brain,’ [the preschool stage is] the age when their brains are most malleable, most open to influence on the abilities and roles that traditionally go with their sex.”

What impact will same-sex marriage have on children?  If gender-specific toys and cross-sex friendships affect their development, how much more profound is the impact of cross-sex parents?

The New York Times questions whether stripping gender from toys makes sense.  The more important question is:  does stripping gender diversity from marriage make sense for children? 

Or is gender-integrated marriage inherently better for raising children?

Guess who says jobs are more important than gender-segregated marriage?

A woman with same-sex attraction explains to the world why she is conservative:  she cares more about her job and the economy than how the state views her marital status.

Hotair posted her reasoning:

"We have to cut the debt. We need our own energy that pays for itself. We need law and order and fairness under those laws for everyone. And my liberal friends don’t get that.” 

 The woman in a same-sex relationship wrote: “But I DO have concerns about our country when it comes to public policy, and most of my friends who are seriously engaged in politics over marriage push a whole bunch of policies which seem to me to be destructive.”

 “And just because I think some of my friends should be able to get married if they want to, it doesn’t mean I should vote for idiots if they agree on that one thing.”

I hope President Obama is listening.