14-year-old Maryland girl threatened online for defending pro-gender marriage

“If I ever see this girl, I will kill her. That’s a promise.”

Lifesitenews reports: 

A 14-year-old homeschooler who testified before the Maryland state senate against a bill redefining marriage has been the subject of cyberbullying, vicious name-calling, and death threats.

Let’s play Spot the Hate.  Here’s part of the testimony the teen gave:

Sarah Crank, 14, told the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee last month she believes children need a mother and a father. “ I really feel bad for the kids who have two parents of the same gender,” she told the senators. “Even though some kids think it’s fine, they have no idea what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on.”

 Compare that testimony with comments the young girl received:

• Her parents should be exterminated
• Kill this child and his [sic] parent, for my 11 birthday would be a wonderful gift, thanks.
• And now everyone knows her name, so hopefully she will feel what its like to be harassed and bullied…
• I hope you get raped by your married parents.—madisonen
• Stupid bi**h - I hope you die on your Bday!!!!!—geminiboi007
•  A dumb way for a dumb bi**h to do dumb things. Stop talking nonsense that your Christian, Anti-Gay parents are force-feeding you through a thin straw, and learn to accept other people. Now shut up bi**h, before I smack you.—123adbnvcs

 Can you feel the love?  How about the tolerance? 

The side that promotes gender segregation in the name of “equality” and “tolerance” is the side that issues death threats and foul language to a young girl in favor of gender-integration in marriage?

Love.  Tolerance.  Diversity.  Anti-bullying.  Are these just buzz words to promote the homosexual lifestyle and the segregation of genders in marriage?  

Do TV characters influence gender and orientation in children?

“He became obsessed with the children's TV character Dora the Explorer and started dressing in female clothing.”

Zach Avery is one of the youngest in the United Kingdom to be diagnosed with gender identity disorder.  He used to be a “normal” little boy who enjoyed the TV show Thomas the Tank Engine.  But then he saw Dora the Explorer.  Now age 5, the boy has spent the last year as a girl.

You are what you watch?

 And then there’s the case of the 7 year-old-boy who, after a prolonged “crush” on a gay TV character, claimed he was gay: “Considering that my son has a longstanding crush on Glee's Blaine and regularly refers to him as ‘my boyfriend,’ I thought there was a fair chance that he would someday say, ‘I'm gay.’”  

How much influence does TV have on children's gender identity and sexual orientation?

Parents, be mindful of consequences when you choose role models, real or virtual, for your children.

Minnesota for Marriage says gay marriage will confuse children, trigger litigation, treat pro-gender people like bigots

Kalley Yanta from Minnesota for Marriage spells out the danger of redefining marriage.  Kalley Yanta answers the question gay rights activists like to pose:  "How would redefining marriage to accommodate gay marriage impact your own marriage?"

The answer is that segregating genders in marriage will:

• confuse children
• trigger lawsuits
• create genderless union
• treat pro-gender folks as bigots 
• affect everyone

"Redefining marriage will impact all of Minnesota society because it will change the definition of marriage for everyone.  If gay marriage activists get their way, marriage in Minnesota will effectively become genderless.  Gay marriage won't exist alongside traditional marriage.  Our traditional understanding of marriage will be stripped from the law and will be replaced with this new genderless definition of marriage. 

The law will allow no room for those people, a strong majority of Minnesotans, who for personal, ethnic, moral, or religious reasons cannot agree with the new definition.  Legal experts on both sides of the issue say there will be an immense volume of litigation against individuals, small businesses, and religious organizations.  Churches and religious organizations can lose their tax exemption status.  They can be forced to either abandon their core moral principles or abandon their social ministry.  Individuals, small businesses, and groups will be subjected to lawsuits and regulatory actions if they refuse to condone the new understanding of marriage. 

Perhaps most shockingly, children at a very young age, as early as kindergarten, will be taught in school that marriage is between any two adults, no matter what they have been taught at home, in church, or in their ethnic traditions. 

Under that kind of law, those who believe otherwise will be treated the same as racists and bigots. 

Redefining marriage affects everyone."

Hairstylist refuses to cut hair for NM Governor Susana Martinez for supporting pro-gender marriage

Huffington Post reports:

"On Tuesday, Governor Susana Martinez (R-N.M.) lost a hairstylist who refused to clip her locks out of disgust with her opposition to marriage equality. Antonio Darden, who had cut Martinez's hair on three occasions and runs Antonio's Hair Studio in Santa Fe, N.M., re-crafted the notion of civil disobedience when he declined to accept an appointment."

To all the people cheering on Darden, do you believe defendants getting sued for refusing services to gender-segregated couples should get the same “civil disobedience” pass? 

Or do you believe in double standards? 

What about lawsuit equality?  Should Martinez sue? 

Why did number of children seeking sex-change treatment quadruple?

"If you open the doors, these are the kids who come. They're out there. They're in your practices."

Dr. Norman Spack is talking about children seeking sex-change treatments.  The director of the gender identity medical clinic at Children’s Hospital Boston, Spack says the number of kids coming for treatment for gender identity issues has quadrupled.

From My Way:

“Guidelines from the Endocrine Society endorse transgender hormone treatment but say it should not be given before puberty begins. At that point, the guidelines recommend puberty-blocking drugs until age 16, then lifelong sex-changing hormones with monitoring for potential health risks.”

 Blame YouTube?

  

Why have the numbers increased so dramatically?  Spack said guidelines from the Endocrine Society “along with YouTube videos by sex-changing teens and other media attention, have helped raise awareness about treatment and led more families to seek help.”

Why does this matter?  Because: 

“Offering sex-changing treatment to kids younger than 18 raises ethical concerns, and their parents' motives need to be closely examined, said Dr. Margaret Moon, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics' bioethics committee.”   

Dr. Paul McHugh referred to these hormone treatments as "child abuse."  He said, "It's like performing liposuction on an anorexic."


And will these controversial treatments on children be covered by the new federal healthcare law?  If YouTube videos have increased the number of kids seeking sex-changes, will the numbers increase even more if the treatment is covered by Obamacare?  Should our mandated insurance fees (taxes) support these “lifelong sex-changing hormones”? 

What’s wrong with gender?  Aren’t we born that way?

If a child is uncomfortable with his gender at 18 months, shouldn’t that be considered a mental health issue, not a physical problem to be solved with lifelong drug use?

‘Husband’ and ‘wife’ redefined to ‘parties to a marriage’?

 What happens when you redefine important words such as “marriage"?  You get anti-gender activists working to neuter gender-specific words such as “husband” and “wife.” 

Lifesitenews reports:

"Last week, the UK’s most powerful homosexualist lobby group, Stonewall, presented legislation to Parliament that proposes five steps to resolve the legal complexities involved in introducing same-sex “marriage.” Among the suggested legal changes, Stonewall’s draft bill would amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to remove the terms “husband” and “wife” and replace with “parties to a marriage.”

At the end of a wedding ceremony the officiant can proclaim, “The party to the marriage may now kiss the other party to the marriage!”

Is this true love or true confusion?

Obama’s spin on religious liberty: from lip service to quip service

The battle between freedom of religion and free condoms continues in the story of the HHS mandate.  Liberals pay lip service to religious liberty, then promote sexual liberty in sound bites for the online spin machine. 

LifeNews explains: 

"The [Obama] administration’s continued fumbling of statements about this controversy illustrate the inherent danger of combining a bloated bureaucracy with an attempt to govern by Facebook status updates and Twitter feeds. The key to understanding why the “explanations” of attacks on religious freedom evolve every time someone puts a microphone in front of an administration official hangs on one simple legal fact: all the President’s “compromises” are purely imaginary."

The Obama administration has not actually changed the HHS mandate forcing employers to cover sterilization, abortion-drugs, and condoms in their health insurance policies; they just want you to think it has changed.

Feigning transparency, the president’s mantra is, “Let me be clear.”  But then he hides his actions with a sleight of words.  Like a magician, he engages your attention,  “Hey, look over here, it’s a compromise!”  While you’re focused on his “accommodation” he yanks freedom of religion out of Obamacare.

No more red states and blue states.  Thanks to the Wizard of Ob, we will have sterilized states, full of condoms, stripped of freedom.

Lord Carey calls gay marriage ‘one of the greatest political power grabs in history’

England's former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey said the government's proposal to legalize gay marriage is “one of the greatest political power grabs in history.”  

The Telegraph quotes Carey:

''The state does not 'own' the institution of marriage. Nor does the church.  The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.''

Gender-integrated marriage is vital for society since it produces future citizens.  Nevertheless, gay rights advocate Peter Tatchell called the ban prohibiting segregating genders in marriage “homophobic and discrimination.”  

Gay rights activists encourage people to discriminate against gender, but not against sexual orientation.  In other words, discrimination is fine, as long as it adheres to their creed.