Same-sex parents always 'have something absent at its heart, the complementarity of the sexes'

 "Objection to gay marriage isn’t about religion at all and the letter that the bishops are sending to Catholic churches does, to do them credit, make that clear."

London journalist Melanie McDonagh confirms the meaning of marriage in regards to natural law, or as she calls it “human nature.”  She says marriage should be "child-centred" and even though same-gender couples can use modern technology and surrogate mothers to generate a child, this family is "always going to have something absent at its heart, the complementarity of the sexes."

From the UK Spectator:

"Plainly gay partnerships can be committed and loving, and civil partnerships recognise the commitment. And on the margins, post-IVF, gay men can now father children by surrogate mothers and raise them with their own partners, and gay women can use surrogate gametes to do the same. But that parental relationship is always going to have something absent at its heart, the complementarity of the sexes, which means that sons and daughters learn about gender from how it’s lived out in their own family. And a relationship cannot be a marriage, as traditionally and everywhere understood, where children cannot naturally be part of the equation. 

What I’m saying, and what the bishops are saying, is that marriage is child-centred, even though children may be involuntarily absent from good marriages. We cut that anchor at our peril. For the optimal environment for raising children you need a stable environment with parents of either gender. And even in a reluctantly childless marriage, the complementarily of the sexes, the very fact of sexual difference, gives the institution its nature, its charge. To say as much isn’t to advance a religious argument. It’s to work from nature, from history, from human experience. The very definition of a marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Let’s leave it like that."

'People You May Know' on Facebook leads to bigamy charges

"About the only danger he would pose is marrying a third woman.”

Considered a low risk, corrections officer Alan L. O’Neill is charged with bigamy and must appear in court later this month, but right now he’s free to visit wife No. 1 or wife No. 2.  Not sure if either wife would welcome him now that he’s been found out.

Fox News reports:

 According to charging documents filed Thursday, O'Neill married a woman in 2001, moved out in 2009, changed his name and remarried without divorcing her. The first wife first noticed O'Neill had moved on to another woman when Facebook suggested the friendship connection to wife No. 2 under the "People You May Know" feature. 

Neither O'Neill nor his first wife had filed for divorce, according to charging documents. The name change came in December, and later that month he married his second wife. 

O'Neill allegedly told Wife No. 1 not to tell anybody about his dual marriages, that he would fix it, the documents state. But wife No. 1 alerted authorities. 

"Facebook is now a place where people discover things about each other they end up reporting to law enforcement," Lindquist said.O'Neill, 41, was previously known as Alan Fulk.

 No doubt O'Neill and his wife now have even more issues to discuss:

O'Neill and his first wife had issues that went back to 2009. In 2010, his first wife was arrested after an altercation with the woman who later became the second wife.

If the push to eliminate the gender requirement in marriage is successful, will the number of spouses be next to change?  Will we legalize bigamy?  

Word of advice, O'Neill.  Don't hold your breath.

'I Wanna Love You Tender' video with epic choreography

I saw this on Awkward Family Photos.  Thank you Armi & Danny and your epic back up dancers!

Vive la difference!

Pope defends ‘sexual differences’ in marriage, calls Church teaching ‘countercultural

 “Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage.”

The Pope spoke to visiting U.S. bishops encouraging them to stand strong against “powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage,” and to pass on the faith “countercultural” as it may seem, especially to youth.

The Washington Post reports:

“Bishops have been at the forefront of the campaign against same-sex marriage, with at least five U.S. states scheduling ballot measures on the issue in coming months. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the head of the U.S. conference of bishops and archbishop of New York, unsuccessfully lobbied against the legalization of gay marriage in his state. 

The entire Christian community, he said, must recover an appreciation of the virtue of chastity. 

“Young people need to encounter the church’s teaching in all its integrity, challenging and countercultural as that teaching may be; more importantly they need to see it embodied by faithful married couples who bear convincing witness to truth,” he said.

The Guardian accuses Cardinal O’Brien of ‘blustering hyperbole’ and ‘getting completely carried away’

"Cardinal O'Brien is, however, getting completely carried away when he speaks of gay marriage as an attempt to 'redefine reality.'" 

An editorial from The Guardian titled "Gay marriage:  torn asunder from reality" claims that same-gender marriage doesn’t threaten pro-gender marriage.  “The argument that gay marriage undermines straight marriage is as unconvincing as it is insulting – as if the currency of marriage is devalued by extension to those who find love with members of the same sex.”

Would the currency of “liberalism” be devalued were it to be extended to those who seek to outlaw abortion and birth control?  Would the currency of “England” be devalued if it included folks from Greece and Italy? 

The Guardian editor accuses President of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, Cardinal O’Brien of “blustering hyperbole” in his passionate defense of pro-gender marriage.  O’Brien’s letter, posted at The Telegraph, quoted international documents: “In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women.”  He explained that this movement is not about “rights,” since civil unions already cover that.  Rather this is the goal of the gay agenda to “redefine marriage for the whole of society.”

O’Brien also cited evidence from the United States that same-sex marriage laws led to homosexual propaganda in schools: 

"In November 2003, after a court decision in Massachusetts to legalise gay marriage, school libraries were required to stock same-sex literature; primary schoolchildren were given homosexual fairy stories such as King & King. Some high school students were even given an explicit manual of homosexual advocacy entitled The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century. Education suddenly had to comply with what was now deemed “normal”.  

Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs?"

 This is not blustering hyperbole.  This is the everyday reality for Americans who live in states that legalized gender-segregated marriage. 

The homosexual indoctrination advocated by gay rights activists appears to be working.  Huffington Post reports “that more and more youngsters are self-identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) at younger ages.”

The United States has formed organizations such as the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance specifically to support people facing discrimination for the crime of believing marriage refers to one man and one woman.

Cardinal O’Brien has it right.  In their zealous fight to redefine marriage, gay rights activists are also redefining society, what schools teach, what bigotry means, why you get fired, and the importance of motherhood and fatherhood itself.  Oh yeah, and the meaning of “blustering hyperbole.” 

Will President Obama finish 'evolving' on same-sex marriage after the election?

President Obama is in a sticky situation.  He wants votes from gay marriage advocates, but not their voices.  Not yet.

CNN’s Political ticker reports:

 “The president's campaign is counting on wealthy gay donors to help fuel their fundraising drive. Gay and lesbian donors contributed nearly $1.5 million at just one recent fundraiser. During that event, the president seemed to hint he's prepared to do more for this constituency in a second term but wouldn't specify if that means supporting a federal law for same-sex marriage.”

 Looks like Obama is signaling to the gay voting bloc to keep quiet until after the November election.  At a recent fundraiser Obama explained:

“There's still areas where fairness is not the rule,” he told the crowd of gay and lesbian donors in Washington, D.C. on February 9th. "And we're going to have to keep on pushing in the same way - persistently, politely, listening to folks who don't always agree with us, but sticking to our guns in terms of what our values are all about."

(Is "sticking to guns" the same as clinging to guns?)

Many Democrats are pushing to add same-sex marriage on their party platform, which is problematic for Obama who wants to buy more time—about nine months.

Convention Chair [Los Angeles Mayor Antonio] Villaraigosa brought the party debate into public view during a Washington DC event when Politico's Mike Allen asked if be believes the Democratic Convention should include a marriage equality plank. "I do," Villaraigosa replied, "… The delegates will make the decision on the platform but I do support it and certainly have for a long time."

But President Obama doesn’t want to evolve that fast.  If he comes out in favor of gender-segregated marriage, would he lose the election?  He wants to play it safe and wait until after he wins a second term.  Then he’ll be free to evolve into a same-sex marriage activist. 

In the meantime, he wants those wealthy liberals to open up their coffers, donate to his campaign, and keep their mouths shut on gay marriage. 

Kids in heterosexual families teased as much as kids from lesbian-mother families

A national think tank at UCLA Law reports that half of 17-year-old children raised by lesbians were teased and stigmatized.  And so were kids who grew up in heterosexual families. 

The Williams Institute:

"Fifty percent of 17-year-olds who grew up in lesbian-headed families in the United States indicated they had experienced stigmatization, but nearly 2/3 employed effective coping strategies. A key part of the study reveals that the overall rates of teasing experienced in lesbian-mother families do not differ from those reported in heterosexual families, which is consistent with previous research in this area."

Bottom line:  kids get teased. 

Since the rates of stigmatization “do not differ,” anti-bullying measures should protect all students rather than be designed specifically toward homosexual-related children.  In spite of this research, gay rights advocates such as the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network continue to gear anti-bullying measures towards their favorite victims:  homosexuals.  To protect children with same-sex attractions, GLSEN wrote it 's own book, an anti-bullying toolkit for teachers called Ready, Set, Respect!

The Williams Institute was founded to advance “sexual orientation and gender identity law” and disseminate it to “judges, legislators, policymakers, media and the public.”

Kirk Cameron backlash: 'Is life and sexuality sacred?' plus 'Monumental' trailer

In a recent interview with Piers Morgan, Kirk Cameron was pressed to give his opinion about homosexuality.  Calling it “unnatural,” Cameron said it was “detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”  Such as the institution of marriage which is currently being redefined by gay rights activists in several states and countries.

This opinion launched a backlash as gay rights activists slammed Cameron for his views, calling him “anti-gay.” The New York Daily News reported Herndon Graddick of GLAAD responded: “Obviously Cameron has the right to recite his anti-gay talking points, just like fair-minded Americans have the right to tell him that his views are harmful and have no place in modern America."

In an effort to move beyond soundbites and engage in a debate without being called names, producer and actor Cameron clarified his opinion about homosexuality beginning with the question:  “Is life and sexuality sacred or not?”  This is an interesting question indeed, worth asking gay rights activists.

HLN posted the letter Cameron sent clarifying his views:

 "In a recent interview about my film, Monumental, I was asked to share my views on homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion. I spoke as honestly as I could, but some people believe my responses were not loving toward those in the gay community. That is not true. I can assuredly say that it's my life's mission to love all people. 

The only way to properly answer these kind of questions is to begin the discussion with another question: Is life and sexuality sacred or are they not? If they are, then God has something to say about these things. If not, then everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter.
 
I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand-in-hand in America. I should be able to express moral views on social issues–especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years–without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach "tolerance" that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square. 

In any society that is governed by the rule of law, some form of morality is always imposed. It's inescapable. But it is also a complicated subject, and that is why I believe we need to learn how to debate these things with greater love and respect. 

I’ve been encouraged by the support of many friends (including gay friends, incidentally). Thank you! I look forward to those who will join me as I seek to show you our true “National Treasure,” at the live, nationwide viewing of “Monumental” on Tuesday, March 27th (www.MonumentalMovie.com)."

How ironic it would be if the anti-Cameron campaign by gay rights activists generates more interest in his movie.  See trailer:

What's your opinion?  Is life and sexuality sacred or not?

Do business owners have the right to refuse services to same-sex couples?

People risk losing their jobs and livelihoods when they turn away same-sex couples.  And they make themselves vulnerable to expensive and stressful lawsuits.  For example, a Catholic couple in Vermont was sued for refusing to host a wedding reception for a same-gender couple. 

Question:  Should religious business owners have the right to refuse services to a same-sex couple?  And vice versa, do same-sex couples have the right to turn away gender-integrated couples? 

The Blaze posted a poll with thought-provoking questions such as:

“Should religious business owners be legally permitted to turn away gay customers?”

“Should business owners be allowed to decline service to customers based on ideological differences?”

“Should a gay business owner be able to refuse service to customers who oppose homosexuality?”

From The Blaze:

"Remember Victoria Childress, the baker in Des Moines, Iowa, who refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple’s wedding? 

There was a great deal of debate surrounding the story, with supporters claiming that it was her right as a Christian business owner to decline the service; opponents, though, called her stance discriminatory and decried it. 

The story certainly had strong emotion on both sides of the debate, but what would happen if the roles were reversed? Let’s say the business owner is a gay male or female who refuses to serve an individual who is opposed to same-sex marriage. Does that change the way in which people view it? 

Last month, The Blaze reported on a story encompassing this very scenario, as hairstylist Antonio Darden publicly refusal to style New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez’s hair, citing her opposition to gay marriage in his reasoning. While same-sex unions aren’t recognized in the state, Darden is apparently so turned off by the governor’s opinion on the matter that he refuses to cut and style her hair."

What do you think?  What rights do business owners have?  Can they act according to their faith?  What if government regulations interfere with their religious beliefs? 

Gay rights activist says Catholic Church on 'anti-LGBT witch hunt' for withdrawing support for Dr. Isasi-Diaz speech

"An esteemed Hispanic theologian is the latest victim of the American Catholic Church's apparent campaign to shame and marginalize LGBT people and silence the voices of those who support them.”

Director of Communications and Development of Truth Wins Out, John Becker is outraged that Christian Brothers University withdrew its invitation for Dr. Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz to speak at its campus.  Dr. Isasi-Diaz differs from Catholic teaching on two main points:  she advocates for women priests and same-sex marriage.

On his Huffington Post articled titled:  “Another Day, Another Catholic Assault on LGBT People and Allies,” Becker claims the Church has “widened the scope of its anti-LGBT witch hunt,” and calls this “only the latest in a string of high-profile salvos fired by the Catholic Church in its crusade against loving LGBT relationships.”

If the Catholic Church hates homosexuals, why have they consistently been at the forefront for treating AIDS patients?  If they hate them, why do Catholic theologians persist in calling them “persons with same-sex attraction” rather than boxing them in as “gay”?  Or reducing them to an initial:  LGBT?  Why do they offer healing and support to people with same-sex attraction who seek an organic and healthy sexual orientation?

There’s a difference between silencing someone and declining to have them speak for you.  Silencing is when the government fined a Canadian pastor $7,000 and ordered him to stop expressing his views about homosexuality in “newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet.”  Silencing is what gay rights activists did recently when they shouted down and glitter bombed Rick Santorum. 

Declining a speaker is different.  UVM uninvited Ben Stein because of his views on evolution; they opted for Howard Dean instead. Would it be intolerant for the Democratic National Party not to ask Sarah Palin to be their keynote speaker?  And who would we expect Planned Parenthood to choose to honor with a speaking engagement?  Rush Limbaugh or Sandra Fluke?

Dr. Isasi-Diaz has the free will to speak her mind and the Catholic Church is not silencing her. But her theology differs from Catholic teaching, and upon learning this, the CBU administration had every right to decide not to have her speak as an expert on Catholic theology.  After all, wouldn’t that be confusing or downright deceitful?  

Lying is not a "loving" act.  Science tells us that two men are different from a man and a woman biologically, chemically, organically.  Pretending they are exactly equivalent when it comes to marriage when you know they aren’t is hypocritical.  Shouldn’t the Church practice what it preaches?  Dr. Isasi-Diaz preaches a different theology, hence the decision not to have her speak at CBU.

Would it be more loving if the Catholic Church did what gay activists do?  Wait for Isasi-Diaz to speak, then shout her down and glitter bomb her? 

Lady Gaga first to attract 20 million twitter followers

Lady Gaga wasn’t born that way.  In fact, twitter didn’t even exist when she was born.  Becoming the Queen of Twitter took talent, initiative, hard work and shock.  Remember the meat dress (see video below).  The egg?

Mashable reports:

"Lady Gaga has become the first person to attract 20 million followers on Twitter, blasting through that landmark number on Saturday. 

Gaga topped fellow pop icon Britney Spears in August of 2010 to become the most-followed person on Twitter. Currently, Spears has 13.5 million Twitter followers — roughly 6.5 million less than Gaga. 

While Spears occasionally posts personal tweets, her account is largely maintained by her management team. Gaga has claimed to personally maintain her Twitter account and regularly uses it to interact with fans, share original pictures and make announcements. After passing Spears, Gaga then dubbed herself the 'Queen of Twitter,' and has retained the title ever since."

The other top twitterers are Justin Bieber who has 18 million followers and Katy Perry with15.7 million.

Followers have long noted Lady Gaga promoting a gay agenda and same-sex marriage.  The Gothamist reported Lay Gaga’s tweet:  "I feel the denial of gay marriage sends a prejudice message. Our youth deserve a fair+hopeful future with government that values us equally."

And she called New York Senator Tom Duane directly to encourage him to vote for SSM, “not realizing that Duane is a long-time sponsor of the gay marriage bill, as well as the lone openly-gay member of the Senate.” Duane’s staff didn’t recognize her given name: Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta.

Gaga’s influence extends all the way to the White House.  From the National Memo's article headlined,  "President Obama Quotes Lady Gaga Instead of Endorsing Gay Marriage" 

The president quoted pop icon and prominent LGBT activist Lady Gaga -- "I had no choice ... I was born that way," he said in reference to discrimination he experienced growing up.

Our president takes his cues from pop stars?  

Although Lady Gaga claims she was Born That Way, there is no such thing as a gay gene.

One thing is sure, the Queen of Twitter sure knows how to work the web and her followers.

Michele Bachmann says it's 'rude' of Piers Morgan to call her 'judgmental'

Piers Morgan calls congresswoman Michele Bachmann "judgmental."  Bachmann replies, "That's rude."

The interview:

Bachmann:  I am not here as anybody's judge.
Morgan:  Well, you've been pretty judgmental in the past, c'mon...your view...
Bachmann:  Me?
Morgan:  Yes, you.
Bachmann:  Hardly, hardly, hardly--
Morgan:  Most judgmental people in American politics.
Bachmann:  Well, that's rude.  That's absolutely rude.  I'm not a judgmental person.
Morgan:  Really?
Bachmann:  No.
Morgan:  I'm not being rude.  But you've been very, very outspoken.
Bachmann:   I believe in traditional values.  I believe in marriage between a man and a woman.
Morgan:  Excuse me, I'm not being rude.  If I read you--
Bachmann:  I don't think that's bigoted.
Morgan:  Well, let me read what you said in 2004, that "being gay leads to the personal enslavement of individuals 'cause you're involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle.  It's bondage, personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement.  That's why it's so dangerous."  It's thoroughly judgmental, isn't it?  I'm not being rude.
Bachmann:  I'm not here as anybody's judge.  Quite honestly I'm here as a member of Congress and a former candidate who ran for the presidency of the United States.  And I believe very firmly that we have got to get the nation back on the right track.

Will Florida same-sex custody battle lead to right to redefine motherhood?

Who is the real mother?  The one who gave birth or the one who donated her egg?  What would King Solomon say?

A Florida custody battle continues for an 8-year-old girl who was conceived through artificial means.  One woman’s egg was fertilized and inserted into her partner’s uterus.  No longer together, the two women are fighting over custody.  

No word on the dad.

Huffington Post reports:

"A custody battle in Florida between two lesbians could fuel the growing national debate over the definition of motherhood. 

It also might force state lawmakers to reconsider a 19-year-old law regarding the rights of sperm and egg donors. 

The women, now in their 30s and known in court papers only by their initials, were both law enforcement officers in Florida. One partner donated an egg that was fertilized and implanted in the other. That woman gave birth in 2004, nine years into their relationship. 

But the Brevard County couple separated two years later, and the birth mother eventually left Florida with the child without telling her former lover. The woman who donated the egg and calls herself the biological mother finally tracked them down in Australia with the help of a private detective. 

Their fight over the now 8-year-old girl is before the state Supreme Court, which has not announced whether it will consider the case. A trial judge ruled for the birth mother and said the biological mother has no parental rights under state law, adding he hoped his decision would be overturned."

Marriage inequality among different education brackets

“The problem with the growing marriage divide in America is that children -- and men -- often pay a big price.”

The institution of marriage is not equal among the different education brackets in America.  Director of the National Marriage Project, W. Bradford Wilcox reports that marriage is getting stronger for highly educated Americans, but weaker for those without a college degree.  Author of “When Marriage Disappears:  The New Middle America,” Wilcox cites research showing the beneficial effects of marriage, especially for children and men.  Unfortunately, less educated families experience fewer intact families which makes them more at-risk for depression, drug abuse, incarceration, and teenage pregnancy.

From CNN:

"For Americans with a college degree, divorce is down, marital quality is stable, and family stability is up since the divorce revolution of the 1970s and early 1980s, according to research I have conducted.

 However, marriage is in trouble not only in poor communities but also increasingly in Middle America -- communities where most people have a high school degree but not a four-year college degree. For Americans without a college degree, divorce remains high, marital quality is falling, and nonmarital childbearing is surging. 

The problem with the growing marriage divide in America is that children -- and men -- often pay a big price. 

 For instance, research indicates that boys who are reared outside of marriage are about twice as likely to end up in prison by the time they turn 30, compared with boys raised in an intact, married home. Similarly, studies show that girls raised in fatherless homes are at least twice as likely to end up pregnant, compared with girls raised in intact, married homes with their fathers."

How can our culture promote the benefits of marriage equally to people without a college degree?  Through education of course:

“Accordingly, policymakers should consider a public health campaign to educate people, especially those in poor and working-class communities, about the value of marriage and fatherhood, much like they have educated the public about the dangers of smoking and drunken driving. Such a campaign may seem quixotic, but the evidence suggests such campaigns can drive behavioral changes.”

Video: Kirk Cameron defends pro-gender marriage to Piers Morgan

Kirk Cameron explained why he supports pro-gender marriage in an interview with Piers Morgan who pressed him to explain what he would say if his son was gay.

Morgan called Cameron "brave" for having the guts to speak his mind about homosexuality.  Even liberals acknowledge it takes courage to disagree with the gay agenda.

Cameron:  I believe that marriage was defined by God a long time ago.  Marriage is almost as old as dirt and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Even:  one man, one woman for life 'til death do you part.  So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage.  And I don't think anyone else should either.  So, do I support the idea of gay marriage?  No, I don't.

Morgan:  Do you think homosexuality is a sin?

Cameron:  I think that it's unnatural.  I think that it's detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.

Morgan:  So what do you do?  If one of your 6 kids says, "Dad, bad news.  I'm gay."

Cameron:  I'd sit down and I'd have a heart-to-heart with him.  Just like you would with your kids.

Morgan:  If one of my sons said that, I'd say, "That's great son, as long as you're happy."  What would you say?

Cameron:  Well, I wouldn't say, "That's great, son, as long as you're happy."  I'd say there's all sorts of issues that we need to wrestle through in our life and just because you feel one way doesn't mean we should act on everything we feel.

Morgan:  Some people would say that telling kids that being gay is a sin or getting married is a sin or whatever, that in itself is incredibly destructive and damaging in a country with seven states now that have legalized it.

Cameron:  Yes, but you have to also understand that you yourself are using a standard of morality to say that telling people such and such of a behavior is sinful.  You're using a standard of morality to make that statement, that that is terribly destructive.  Everyone is going to have a standard against which they--

Morgan:  No, no.  Listen, listen.  I'm not an American.  I'm making the point that seven states in America have now legalized gay marriage.

Cameron:  Well, Piers, you're speaking to a man who is a Christian and I believe that all of us are sinful.  I could stand at the top of the list and say that I need a savior and I need an overhaul of the heart more than anyone.  And so that's what I teach my kids.  I teach them the values that I hold dear.  I treasure the God that loves me and forgives me of my sin.  And I would teach that to my children, as well as having a wonderful relationship with them that my wife and I work on every day.  So your value system, my value system:  we're all going to pick a standard against which we judge behavior morally.  All of our laws ultimately at their core are going to be based on a moral evaluation.