'MARRIAGE' In The NEWS- November 2008: The REAL Proposal For Marriage magazine

On Thanksgiving Eve, Obama family hands out food to the needy at a Chicago church

On Thanksgiving Eve, Obama Family Hands Out Food to the Needy ABC News, By Matt Jaffe, November 26, 2008
On Thanksgiving Eve, President-elect Barack Obama, his wife Michelle, and his daughters Malia and Sasha, all bundled up in winter coats and hats, dished out chickens to the needy at a Chicago church, leaving some overcome with emotion. "The number of people who are getting food this year is up 33 percent," Obama said of the crowds who gathered at the Windy City's St. Columbanus Church. "And I think it gives a sense -- times are tough. And I think that on Thanksgiving, it's important for us to remember people in need, but it's important not just during Thanksgiving." "These folks were already often times having a tough time and it gets tougher now," he added. "So we want to make sure that people that can give, that are able to contribute to the food depository, volunteer, participate. This is part of what Thanksgiving should be all about." Obama, who noted this was his third year at his hometown food bank, was asked why he had brought his two daughters with him. "I want them to learn the importance of how fortunate they are and make sure they are giving back," he responded. . . . . ."I just want you to know that what I'm thankful for is my family and my friends and my community," he concluded. "That's the most important things." As he departed, the kids serenaded him with chants of "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!" Their hour-long visit over, Obama and his family returned to their Hyde Park home just past noon local time, where they will spend the rest of the day and tomorrow's holiday. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gleaners descend on Colorado farm One News Now- AP, November 28, 2008
People who've studied their Bible or who paid attention during Sunday school are familiar with gleaning. That is the ancient practice of picking up leftover food in farm fields. One Colorado farm couple got a huge surprise when they opened their fields to anyone who wanted to pick up free vegetables left after the harvest -- 40,000 people showed up. On Saturday, the fields were picked so clean that a second day of gleaning was canceled. Joe and Chris Miller say they opened the farm to the free public harvest for the first time this year, after hearing reports of food being stolen from churches. Miller says they had a profitable year and could have made a little more on the potatoes but decided to let those in need have the food. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Some share the bounty this bleak Thanksgiving San Francisco Chronicle, By Todd Lewan, November 26, 2008
A Thanksgiving ago, many of us were fretting over delays at the airport, our holiday season shopping lists, even things like whether to get another Botox injection or a new set of wheels. Now we worry about keeping gas in the car. Or just keeping the car. This Thanksgiving, a slumping economy is making many Americans more fearful than thankful. And yet, as grim as these days are, millions of Americans are still preparing to turn a meal into a celebration — to find joy in the midst of growing hardship. You could see glimmers of it everywhere. . . . . "People need to stop being so worried about me, me, me, my bills, my life," he says. "You stop worrying, and look what happens?". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Thanksgiving food program helps thousands of local families The Times Tribune-Scranton, By Borys Krawczeniuk, November 26, 2008
The line of need stretched out of the Scranton Cultural Center, up North Washington Avenue, then around the corner and halfway up the block to the Children’s Library. Stephen Lee lined up in the autumn cold Wednesday with faith that the slumping economy won’t always be this bad. As he waited to receive a free turkey and other goods from the annual Family to Family Thanksgiving food giveaway, the 55-year-old unemployed construction worker said he’s surviving. “Barely, but I’m doing okay,” Mr. Lee said. “This is like a safety key for everybody, not just for me, but for the community ... It’s a blessing. It’s a real blessing.” . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The First Lady who found she couldn't have it all - a new biography on Michelle Obama reveals her cruel awakening The Daily Mail- UK, By Liza Mundy, November 27, 2008
She's the boss; gotta check with the boss, is Barack Obama's standard comment, reinforcing his wife's image as the coolly impressive power behind the new U.S. President-elect. Indeed, some say Michelle Obama is even smarter than her husband. Well organised and a formidable list-maker, she can be forceful and at times intimidating. Former colleagues describe her as a better boss than an employee. Barack and Michelle's united ambition has taken them to the pinnacle of power. But as she oversees the packing for the move to Washington, Michelle surely cannot help but reflect that had her husband been prepared to do as she had once demanded, his career in politics would have been over before it had even begun. Less than ten years ago, Michelle was decidedly hostile about her husband's political ambitions. . . . . . .She was also unfazed by another inevitable aspect of her husband's rising profile - female competition. 'I never worry about things I can't affect, and with fidelity... that is between Barack and me, and if somebody can come between us, we didn't have much to begin with.' Valerie Jarrett, one of Michelle's oldest friends, puts it a little more vividly. 'He knows that if he messes up, she'll leave him. She'll kill him first - and then she'll leave him. And I think there is a subtle element of fear on his part, which is good.'. . .

Power struggle complicates NY bid for same-sex marriage

Power struggle complicates NY bid for gay marriage Reuters, By Edith Honan, November 26, 2008
- New York is close to becoming the first state to pass legislation making gay marriage legal but, like many political issues in the state capital Albany, it has fallen victim to a power struggle. Democrats won a majority in the upper house Senate for the first time in more than 40 years in the November 4 election, but three Democratic senators refuse to back fellow Democratic Sen. Malcolm Smith as majority leader without concessions. The Republicans could regain their power in the Senate if the three Democratic senators, who include longtime gay marriage opponent Sen. Ruben Diaz, opt to vote with them. "I will not give my vote to a leader that will bring gay marriage to the state," Diaz, a Pentecostal minister, said in an interview. "Have a voter referendum. Let the people decide." Connecticut and Massachusetts are the only states that allow same-sex marriage as a result of court rulings. No state legislature has instituted gay marriage into law. After Californian voters passed Prop 8 on November 4 reversing the state's Supreme Court decision in May to allow same-sex marriage, the next battleground state for gay marriage is expected to be New York. The New York Assembly passed a marriage bill in June 2007 but the Senate has yet to act. The Senate power struggle has delayed appointment of a majority leader until January and upset gay rights activists who believed gay marriage would be legalized once Democrats took control of the Senate. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts: It's far worse than most people realize MassResistance.org, By Brian Camenker, October 20, 2008
Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone ImpactApologetics.com
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Using sound reasoning and evidence—not religion—award-winning author Frank Turek shows that everyone will be hurt including children, the nation, and even homosexuals themselves. Turek provides concise answers to objections about equal rights, discrimination, and being born a certain way, and he exposes the real reason gay activists are trying to impose same-sex marriage on the country without a single vote from the people. Turek’s message is direct but respectful. It is correct, not politically correct. And it is a message that we must not ignore. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Preposterous Premise for Gay Marriage Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, November 26, 2008
After the passage of Prop 8 in California, homosexuals are still howling that they don’t have “equal rights.” Hopefully, the California Supreme Court will respect the equal rights of voters by affirming Prop 8 because the howls of homosexuals are false. The truth is every person in America already has equal marriage rights! We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry. Homosexuals want the court to believe that because of their sexual desires they are a special class of persons that is being discriminated against. In other words, they think that sexual desires guarantee people special legal rights. That’s a preposterous premise! . . . . Gay complaints of “discrimination” are bogus as well. Marriage laws do not discriminate against persons, they discriminate against behavior. That’s true of most laws. . . . The nonsensical comparisons to interracial marriage don’t work either. Race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is essential to it. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Born Gay or a Gay Basher? No Excuse Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, November 1, 2008
This “born that way” argument is fueling the case for same-sex marriage in California. Is it a good argument? I know this is a difficult and emotional issue for many people, but I think the reasonable answer is no. Not only is the evidence for being “born that way” questionable, even if it were true, it should have no impact on our marriage laws. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It’s Bad Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, May 26, 2008
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated. . .

China's forced abortion policy challenged by mother of three OneNewsNow, By Charlie Butts, November 26, 2008
Chinese officials have caved to international pressure and will now release a woman who is pregnant with her third child. The woman was being held in a hospital in order to undergo a forced abortion. China has a strict one child policy, although two children are permitted under certain circumstances. Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute is thankful that officials have released the woman, but says now is not the time to forget her situation. "She's been released now because the world is watching," he points out. "But as soon as the world blinks I'm afraid this woman could be rearrested and…[the child] forcibly aborted. She is by no means out of the woods." According to Mosher, if she does have the baby, it will have to be in a government hospital because it is illegal to deliver a baby elsewhere. "And when she goes to the hospital to give birth they may very well take that baby and give it a lethal injection while it's being born," he warns. "That happens all the time in China." If she gave birth privately, she would still not be free said Mosher. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Uyghur Woman Faces Forced Abortion: An ethnic Uyghur woman faces an imminent abortion of her third child. Radio Free Asia, November 13, 2008
. . .Their experience sheds rare light on how China's one-child policy is enforced in remote parts of the country, through fines, financial incentives, and heavy-handed coercion by zealous local officials eager to meet population targets set by cadres higher up. . .

China's forced abortion policy challenged by mother of three

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Forced Abortions Persist in China Time magazine, By Simon Elegant, April 30, 2007
The fact these cases continue to surface is a troubling reminder of what activists say is the schizophrenic approach of the central government towards its own one-child policy: On the one hand, the authorities are loosening up, well aware that the scheme, which restricts couples to one child and imposes fines and other sanctions on violators, has largely outlived its usefulness. First implemented in 1978, the one-child policy has been so successful in checking China's population growth that the country now confronts the prospect of the rapid aging of its total population in the next two decades. The reaction of many Chinese demographers, not surprisingly, has been to call for the abolition of the one-child policy, which they say has served its purpose. Other critics point out that India has achieved broadly similar declines in fertility without state coercion or occasional brutality. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Forced Abortion Still A Reality in China Says New Amnesty Report LifeSiteNews.com, May 27, 2005
Amnesty International, the well known human rights group, has issued its 2005 Amnesty International report which again shows China's continuing abuse of women due to the one-child policy. Successive reports indicating such abuses have, however, failed to convince the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to abandon its relationship with the Chinese population control program. They have also evidently failed to convince Canada and other nations to follow the lead of the United States and refuse funding to UNFPA based on their complicity with China's coercive abortion regime. . .

Yemeni child bride, Nujood Ali, 10, hailed as hero (Click for Related Video)

Yemeni Child Bride Hailed As Hero
Married Off As A 9-Year-Old, This Girl Fought Back CBS Evening News, November 25, 2008
Nujood Ali is anything but your typical kid in a candy store. In fact, there's nothing typical about the 10-year-old Yemeni girl, CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller reports. At Carnegie Hall, Nujood became one of Glamour magazine's Women of the Year - their youngest ever. And at the United Nations, she told her story to representatives from a dozen or so U.N. agencies. She went on to meet Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. But she's also recently spent time in her native Yemen, where just last February, when she was only 9 years old, she was forced into marriage by her father. "Did you know what marriage was when your parents told you you were going to get married?" Miller asked her through a translator. "No, I did not know what marriage meant," Nujood said through a translator. It's not uncommon for children to be married in Yemen, but it is unusual and unlawful for those marriages to be consummated before the bride turns 15. But that's what happened to Nujood. "I was really scared and I cried a lot every night," she said. "In the morning and in the night." But she didn't cry for long. Two weeks into the marriage, Nujood said "enough." She went - all by herself - to court and asked for a divorce. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Glamour magazine's Women of the Year 2008 Glamour.com

RELATED VIDEO: Women of the Year 2008 Highlights Glamour.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Women of the Year 2008: Nujood Ali & Shada Nasser: The Voices For Children Glamour magazine, By Carla Power
Poverty often leads to child marriage since a typical Yemeni earns about $900 a year, and marrying off girls means fewer mouths to feed. Then there is a question of honor. One of Nujood’s sisters had been raped, another kidnapped. When her father heard the kidnapper was eyeing Nujood, he thought marriage would save her. Instead, she says, she was beaten by in-laws, and nights were a hellish game of tag, with Nujood running from room to room to escape sex with her husband; he raped her anyway. Nujood begged for help. “I was sad and angry,” her mother, Shuaieh, says, “but I still felt [her marriage] was the thing to do.” It was Nujood’s “auntie”—her father’s other wife, a beggar who lives in one room with her five children—who told the girl she might look for justice in court. . .

RELATED INFO: Donate to the Women of the Year Fund initiative Glamour.com
So what can American women do to help child brides? Most advocates say that schools are crucial—that educating girls is the best way to change the culture. “When you promote education, you create new roles for women,” says Gabool al-Mutawakel, general manager of the Girls World Communication Center (GWCC) in Sana’a, which offers courses in English, computers and family planning to impoverished girls. In honor of Nujood and Nasser, Glamour has chosen the GWCC to be the recipient of money raised through the 2008 Glamour Women of the Year Fund initiative; donations that readers make will help child brides and girls at risk of early marriage finish school. “Yemeni people are receptive to educated women in the workforce,” al-Mutawakel says. “When a woman can contribute, they’re encouraging.”. . .

RELATED BLOG: A Tiny Girl With A Brave Heart And A Bold Proclamation CBS News, Posted by Michelle Miller, November 25, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Forced to marry 28-year-old who beat her for sex: Yemen annuls 8-year-old girl's forced marriage Al Arabiya News Channel, April 16, 2008
A Yemeni court on Tuesday granted a divorce to an eight-year-old girl on the grounds that she had not yet reached puberty after her unemployed father forced her into an arranged marriage this year. The girl's lawyer and human rights activist Shatha Nasser said the minor had filed a suit in April asking for a divorce and told the court that her husband had been physically abusing her and forcing her to have "sex with him after hitting her". . .

FLORIDA: Activist Miami Judge Defies Court Precedent and Rules against Homosexual Adoption Ban LifeSiteNews.com, November 25, 2008
- Today, a Miami State Court Judge ruled that a 1977 Florida law that bans homosexual adoption is unconstitutional. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman claims that the law violates equal protection rights for homosexuals and that there is no valid reason to consider sexual orientation when approving adoption. The state has already filed an appeal. Liberty Counsel in the past successfully defended the same law at the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which upheld the law banning homosexual adoption against a constitutional challenge. The law has also been ruled to be constitutional by state courts of appeal. Although the decisions by the appeals courts are binding on the circuit judge, Judge Lederman disregarded these legal precedents. . . . . . Most states ban homosexual adoption through legislation, regulation, or court precedent. They do so due to the fact that the best interest of children is served by placing them in homes with a mom and a dad or where there is a likelihood of a mom and a dad. A homosexual home automatically excludes one gender. Only a handful of states currently permit homosexual adoption. Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "In the short term, this ruling by an activist judge is a tempest in a teapot. In the long-term it will be overturned on appeal. . .

Activist Miami Judge Defies Court Precedent and Rules Against Homosexual Adoption Ban (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Judge Rules Against Florida Gay Adoption Ban Associated Press, November 25, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Adult children speak out about same-sex parents TownHall.com, By Maggie Gallagher, July 7, 2007
It was the TV pictures that first got to Bronagh Cassidy. Same-sex couples marrying in San Francisco: "They were so proud of themselves. And then they had these little children with them." Cassidy, a 27-year-old married mother of two, sighs. "Something inside of me wants to be able to help those kids, because I know they are going to have problems." Sound ignorant, maybe even bigoted? This week, as the Senate is expected to begin debate on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, many voices will try to convince you that people like Cassidy are, as Cheryl Jacque, head of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, put it in a recent letter, "hate-filled people who will stop at nothing to achieve their discriminatory, offensive goals." But Cassidy knows better: She is one of the first generation of "gayby boom" babies, raised by two moms. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Two Mommies Is One Too Many Time magazine, By JAMES C. DOBSON, December 10, 2006
The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy--any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl. The voices that argue otherwise tell us more about our politically correct culture than they do about what children really need. The fact remains that gender matters--perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing. The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because "fathers do not mother.". . . . . . Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences. Other researchers have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of "maleness." They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers. But set aside the scientific findings for a minute. Isn't there something in our hearts that tells us, intuitively, that children need a mother and a father?

RELATED ARTICLE: The Revolution in Parenthood: The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and Children's Needs AmericanValues.org
A new report from the country’s leading family experts finds that worldwide trends in law and reproductive technologies are redefining parenthood in ways that put the interests of adults before the needs of children. “The two-person mother-father model of parenthood is being changed to meet adults’ rights to children rather than children’s needs to know and be raised, whenever possible, by their mother and father,” according to the report.

LDS Church Investigated by State for Defending True Marriage

LDS Church Investigated by State for Defending True Marriage
The implications of this complaint should be a cause for serious concern to all those who are dedicated to the defense of true marriage. Catholic Online, By Deacon Keith Fournier, November 26, 2008
The State of California is investigating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because they helped to defend true marriage as between one man and one woman. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) was created by the Political Reform Act of 1974, itself a ballot initiative passed by California voters as Proposition 9. It is now being used as a tool to persecute those who defend marriage, wielded by a savvy ex political consultant who does not like the position taken by the Church or the results of the latest Proposition 8 initiative. . . . . The group which triggered this investigation by this Commission entrusted with the authority of the State of California calls itself “Californians against Hate”. On its web site it states its mission as follows: “Californians Against Hate was established in July 2008 to draw attention to the major donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. These contributors spent $36 million to amend the California Constitution to take away the right of same-sex couples to marry.” In addition to serving as a propaganda arm of the effort to force Californians to grant legal equivalency in the law between homosexual paramours and married people, the group has created what amounts to a “black list”, a kind of enemies list. It lists the businesses, church groups, interest groups and associations which gave funds to defend the institution of marriage against the effort to redefine it. . . . . The implications of this complaint should be a cause for serious concern to all those who are dedicated to the defense of true marriage. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Above the Hate Townhall.com, By Maggie Gallagher, November 25, 2008
Judging from their unwillingless to speak out, leaders of the gay marriage movement (including powerful politicians like Mayor Newsom) apparently believe that the new politics of payback works for them. Something new and very ugly has entered American politics. Right now, the politics of hate may be centered on marriage, but if these tactics are permitted to work uncriticized, I promise you one thing: They won't end there.

RELATED ARTICLE: Political bullying works Jewish World Review, By Cal Thomas, April 5, 2001
Gay rights groups are experienced intimidators. Add to that the effective infiltration of the media, academia, religion and psychiatry by gay rights activists and their sympathizers and you see how this issue has been turned around in a single generation.

RELATED SITE: Above the Hate
Please sign the petition below to join us as we stand together to say "Enough!" to the campaign of hate and intimidation being waged against the LDS Church and other supporters of California's Proposition 8. Now is the time to stand together to protect the rights of minority religious communities to participate in the political process without fear of violence, intimidation, or vandalism.

RELATED ARTICLE: California's Epic Battle for Marriage and Religious LIberty Townhall.com, By Maggie Gallagher, May 21, 2008
There are religious liberty defenses under the U.S. Constitution for youth ministers, but not for Christian schools, physicians, social workers, teachers, attorneys, psychiatrists, counselors or tax-exempt charities. The First Amendment will not protect us if our own governments (through the courts) decide that, for example, my Catholic faith is in itself a form of bigotry. If gay rights advocates don't really mean this to happen, why don't they stop asking courts to rule in this way?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex “Marriage,” “Hate Crimes,” and the New Totalitarianism LifeSite Special Report, By Michael D. O’Brien, February 28, 2005
Is it so far-fetched to consider the possibility that we are in a downward slide toward totalitarianism? Few people would go so far as to maintain that we are living in the early phase of an Orwellian 1984 or alternatively a softer form of totalitarian government such as Huxley’s Brave New World, yet the elements of State-enforced social reconstruction are now in operation. We should also consider the fact that in just over one generation we have been shifted from a society in which homosexual acts were a crime under the then existing law, to a society in which homosexual acts have become a government-protected and fostered activity, while voicing criticism of it “publicly” has become the crime. Call it by any name you like, but this is Thought Crime. As Orwell predicted, we have arrived at a situation in which “some of us are more equal than others.” . . .

When Science Points To God, what will atheists do?

When Science Points To God Townhall.com, By Dinesh D'Souza, November 24, 2008
Contemporary atheism marches behind the banner of science. It is perhaps no surprise that several leading atheists—from biologist Richard Dawkins to cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker to physicist Victor Stenger—are also leading scientists. The central argument of these scientific atheists is that modern science has refuted traditional religious conceptions of a divine creator. But of late atheism seems to be losing its scientific confidence. One sign of this is the public advertisements that are appearing in billboards from London to Washington DC. Dawkins helped pay for a London campaign to put signs on city buses saying, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Humanist groups in America have launched a similar campaign in the nation’s capital. “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake.” And in Colorado atheists are sporting billboards apparently inspired by John Lennon: “Imagine…no religion.” What is striking about these slogans is the philosophy behind them. There is no claim here that God fails to satisfy some criterion of scientific validation. We hear nothing about how evolution has undermined the traditional “argument from design.” There’s not even a whisper about how science is based on reason while Christianity is based on faith. Instead, we are given the simple assertion that there is probably no God, followed by the counsel to go ahead and enjoy life. In other words, let’s not let God and his commandments spoil all the fun. “Be good for goodness sake” is true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far. The question remains: what is the source of these standards of goodness that seem to be shared by religious and non-religious people alike? . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory. Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many. Discover magazine.com, By Tim Folger, November 10, 2008
Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. The main scientific explanation for this is that there are a multitude of universes, and ours just happens to be livable. But "if there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse," says cosmologist Bernard Carr.

RELATED ARTICLE: Atheist evangelising? It's likely that the vast majority of people will be as sceptical about being sold atheism as they are about being sold belief The Guardian- UK, By Simon Barrow, October 21, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: All aboard the atheist bus campaign. It's real, it's happening: you can sponsor the first atheist advert on a bus – and Richard Dawkins will match your money The Guardian- UK, By Ariane Sherine, October 21, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Atheists – gimme five: Since when is it OK to spread the fear of God from the side of a bus? Let's get together and distribute reassurance The Guardian- UK, By Ariane Sherine, June 20, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Dawkin 'bout a revolution: Join me on the atheist bus, Cif readers. You have nothing to lose but your fear of hell The Guardian- UK, By Ariane Sherine, August 6, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Moral Absolutes: Judeo-Christian Values Townhall.com, By Dennis Prager, May 3, 2005
Nothing more separates Judeo-Christian values from secular values than the question of whether morality -- what is good or evil -- is absolute or relative. In other words, is there an objective right or wrong, or is right or wrong a matter of personal opinion? In the Judeo-Christian value system, God is the source of moral values and therefore what is moral and immoral transcends personal or societal opinion. Without God, each society or individual makes up its or his/her moral standards. But once individuals or societies become the source of right and wrong, right and wrong, good and evil, are merely adjectives describing one's preferences. This is known as moral relativism, and it is the dominant attitude toward morality in modern secular society.

RELATED RESOURCE: Answers in Genesis

I'm not the archangel Gabriel - but I'm not the devil incarnate either says 'swinging vicar.'
Drunken sermons, nudist holidays, claims of wife-swapping... How in heaven's name did the 'swinging vicar' get her dog collar? In her first interview - and hallelujah, with some regrets - she gives her side of the story The Daily Mail- UK, By Antonia Hoyle, November 23, 2008
Ever since Dawn French burst on to television as the larger-than-life Vicar of Dibley, Church of England congregations have slowly become used to the idea of a new breed of women priests with a markedly different – and some would say commendably less stuffy – approach to the ministry. But few can have anticipated a priest quite as unconventional as the Reverend Teresa Davies. It wasn’t so much the 37-year-old vicar’s love of motorcycles that scandalised the congregation, nor her penchant for attending parish meetings wearing plunging dresses that left little of her generous embonpoint to the imagination. Her parishioners in Welton, Northamptonshire, were even prepared to make Christian allowance for the fact that she could be late for services and sometimes appeared so tipsy she had trouble standing unaided. One evensong ended in chaos after the choir fell apart under her direction. What really ended the Rev Mrs Davies’s brief career were her boasts to two fellow clergymen over a pub Christmas dinner that she and her husband Michael enjoyed an ‘open marriage’. Not only that, but they had enjoyed holidays at Cap d’Agde, a notorious swingers’ resort in the south of France where couples swap sexual partners. Given that one of Teresa’s duties was to preach the sanctity of marriage, it is not surprising that tongues started to wag in her parish. She was suspended from her post – part of the Daventry team ministry – and summoned to appear before a disciplinary tribunal. . .

I'm not the archangel Gabriel - but I'm not the devil incarnate either says 'swinging vicar' Teresa Davies

Defending marriage The Gleaner— Jamaica, By Peter Espeut, November 24, 2008
All 10 of the state's largest newspapers editorialised against Proposition 8, including the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee. A coalition of Silicon Valley executives urged a 'no' vote on Proposition 8, Google officially opposed Proposition 8 "as an issue of equality", Apple Inc also opposed Proposition 8 as a "fundamental" civil rights issue, and donated $100,000 to the 'no' campaign. Many members of the entertainment industry were opposed to Proposition 8. The non-partisan League of Women Voters of California opposed Proposition 8 because "no person or group should suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination". It sounds like a reasonable - even ethical - position, until you look at it closely. Just because a group supporting a particular type of behaviour exists, does not mean that the behaviour they advocate should be allowed. Using argumentum ad absurdum, would the League of Women Voters of California support the league of rapists, paedophiles and perverts? Would the supporters of same-sex marriages also support defining marriage to include unions between humans and donkeys or dogs because we need to be inclusive? Support for any position, like gay marriage, must be based on the correctness of the position, not just because people have a right to hold a position, which they indisputably do. And, morality is not a matter of populism; when something is wrong, it remains wrong even if millions of people - even influential people and movie stars - powerful private-sector corporations and dozens of newspapers support it. I do not believe that homosexuality should be a crime as long as fornication and adultery are not crimes; also I do not believe that homosexuality should be elevated to the status of an 'alternative life style' equal to heterosexuality; and I do not believe that same-sex unions should be given the same status as 'marriage' which has always meant the union between a man and a woman. In our rush to support the human rights of minorities (which we must do) - even of those who do bad things - we must be careful not to condone their bad behaviour in the name of equal rights. In that scenario, everything goes!. . .

RELATED BROADCAST: Preserving Marriage Foundation- Part 1 Focus on the Family.org
Radio talk show host Dennis Prager discusses the biblical foundation of marriage and offers a thoughtful examination of how that foundation is being undermined in American culture. Part 2

RELATED ARTICLE: Elton John Solves Gay Marriage Controversy Townhall.com Blog, By Michael Medved, November 20, 2008
One of the world’s most prominent gay entertainers offered some rare common sense on the explosive issue of same sex marriage. In New York City for a gala AIDS benefit, rock legend Sir Elton John appeared with his long-time partner, David Furnish. “We’re not married,” he told the press, “Let’s get that straight. We have a civil partnership…I don’t want to be married! I’m very happy with a civil partnership. The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships”. If more people on all sides of this issue embraced the simple, irrefutable logic of this clear-thinking superstar, a vastly divisive, unnecessary controversy could reach a successful and amicable solution. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Yes! Yes! and Yes! on California, Arizona and Florida Propositions 8, 102, and 2! The Real Proposal magazine, October 22, 2008
Who knew that we would ever see the day when it became necessary to define what marriage is in America... or the world for that matter? That said, no one could follow, for any length of time, our continuing coverage on this very critical sociopolitical issue without realizing that, whether we like it or not, the on-going and increasingly aggressive battle to redefine marriage is the next civil rights frontier in America! Most people do not fully comprehend how we got to this place. Many have a distorted perspective on the issues based on what is being fed to us by the mainstream media, who are largely complicit with the homosexual agenda and follow their playbook and manifesto quite diligently in the effort to convert straight America into accepting homosexuality as anything but deviant behavior. Therefore, we urge you to spend some time going through our coverage on the issue. For, without a doubt, the blinders will fall away and it will become clear that there is a very careful, very deliberate, very well financed and orchestrated marketing strategy being executed by radical homosexual activists to normalize same-sex relationships in this country. And you will likely be outraged that somewhere along the way — while most of us who believe in traditional marriage were enjoying our precious freedoms, taking kids to soccer, ordering pizza and watching our favorite shows — we were being manipulated and vilified as society's new "haters," "bigots," and "homophobes."

Homosexual high school nixed until next year OneNewsNow, By Pete Chagnon, November 21, 2008
The proposal for a homosexual school in Chicago has been withdrawn, but a pro-family advocate believes it will be submitted again next year. Social Justice Solidarity High School was supposed to be a safe haven for homosexual youth and would have featured homosexual-friendly curriculum, but the school ran into opposition from both sides. Pro-family advocates opposed the use of taxpayer money to fund the school, while some homosexual groups opposed the school because they claimed it amounted to segregation. Laurie Higgins, director of school advocacy at the Illinois Family Institute, says proponents of the school had watered down the proposal to focus on all so-called "disenfranchised" students. "Some of the people on the design committee were unhappy with the watering down of the proposal, and they hope to finalize some plans and resubmit them with a stronger proposal, which I think means more affirmation of homosexuality," she explains. "That was a very disturbing report.". . . .

Homosexual high school nixed until next year

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF): The Non-Factsheet NARTH.com, By Dale O'Leary, Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Richard Fitzgibbons, M.D.

RELATED ARTICLE: Windy City proposes 'gay'-friendly school OneNewsNow, By Pete Chagnon and Charlie Butts, October 14, 2008
A battleground is forming in Chicago over a proposed "gay"-friendly high school for homosexual, lesbian, and transgendered students, or any other students who want to attend. According to reports, taxpayer money would be used to fund the school. The school would be called the Pride Campus of Social Justice High School, and plans are under way to possibly open its doors in 2010. Advocates of the school say it is needed in order to combat the bullying, dropout, and depression rate among homosexual students.The Chicago Sun-Times quotes a member of the school's design team who says students at the school would be taught about "gay and lesbian historical figures" so those students "have heroes.". . . . . "The task is to combat harassment and abuse and bullying, while not affirming disordered thinking and immoral behavior," [Laurie] Higgins [of the Illinois Family Institute] explains. And while she acknowledges that some homosexual students are bullied, Higgins' experience in public education reveals another group that she feels suffers more. "I can say with assurance that the kids who are very conservative Christians are probably the ones who are the most ridiculed or made fun of," she states. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Time Magazine: The Battle With the Facts Over Gay Teens in America NewsBusters.org, By Stacy L. Harp, October 6, 2005
Time Magazine’s cover story for this week is called The Battle Over Gay Teens, however when one takes a few moments to examine the contents of this verbose six-page article the author, John Cloud, really is talking about the promotion and acceptance of gay teens in America.The unbelievable bias for the promotion of gay teens is absolutely amazing despite the fact that Cloud attempts to cite a few conservative or Christian viewpoints. Here are a few blatant examples of bias that Cloud cites. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Ex-Homosexual Blasts Time's Teen Homosexuality Article as 'Pro-Gay Puff Piece' Agape Press, By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker, October 6, 2005
- A former homosexual turned Christian activist is denouncing a new Time Magazine article on homosexual teens. The Time cover story "The Battle Over Gay Teens" reports that kids are disclosing their homosexuality with unprecedented regularity, and they are doing so much younger. Evangelist and recording artist Stephen Bennett, who spent 11 years in a homosexual lifestyle before becoming a Christian, believes the Time piece written by homosexual John Cloud derides Christians and former homosexuals. Meanwhile, Bennett contends, the article propagates false information and functions as a "major pro-gay puff piece.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Battle Over Gay Teens Time magazine, By John Cloud, October 2, 2005
In May, David Steward, a former president of TV Guide, and his partner Pierre Friedrichs, a caterer, hosted an uncomfortably crowded cocktail party at their Manhattan apartment. It was a typical gay fund raiser--there were lemony vodka drinks with mint sprigs; there were gift bags with Calvin Klein sunglasses; Friedrichs prepared little blackened-tuna-with-mango-chutney hors d'oeuvres that were served by uniformed waiters. Billionaire philanthropist Edgar Bronfman Sr. was there; David Mixner, a gay activist and longtime friend of Bill Clinton's, was holding court with Jason Moore, director of the musical Avenue Q. But the odd thing was that the gay (and gay-friendly) élite had gathered to raise money not for one of its established charities--the Human Rights Campaign, say, or the Democratic National Committee--but for an obscure organization that has quietly become one of the fastest-growing gay groups in the nation, the Point Foundation. Launched in 2001, Point gives lavish (often full-ride) scholarships to gay students. It is one of the few national groups conceived explicitly to help gay kids, and it is a leading example of how the gay movement is responding to the emergence this decade of hundreds of thousands of openly gay youths. . .

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF): The Non-Factsheet NARTH.com, By Dale O'Leary, Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Richard Fitzgibbons, M.D.
The APA and the other 12 organizations that comprise the Just the Facts Coalition recently published a new edition of Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel. The Coalition has mailed copies of the factsheet to all 16,000 public school superintendents in the United States. It is important that parents understand the threat this document poses and are able to respond to the so-call “facts.” The factsheet claims to present accurate scientific information, which will help schools protect at-risk students, and prevent violations of the separation of Church and state. The factsheet fails to accomplish any of these objectives.
1) It is not a factsheet, but a political statement.
2) It puts youth at risk – particularly adolescent males experiencing SSA.
3) It violates separation of church and state.
What are the facts?. . . .

Dr.Phil Gets In On The Same-Sex Marriage Debate (Click for Related Video)

Dr. Phil's same-sex marriage [show] revealed! San Francisco Chronicle Blog, Posted by Erin Allday, November 21, 2008
If you forgot to set your DVR for today's Dr. Phil show, well, too bad for you: it's actually a surprisingly thoughtful debate on same-sex marriage. Phil McGraw is, of course, the psychologist, author and friend of Oprah whose TV show typically focuses on titillating topics such as, say, what to do when mom and daughter are in love with the same guy. . . . . In addition to Newsom, his pro-same-sex marriage guests include celebrity attorney Gloria Allred and equal rights advocate Joe Solmonese. On the other side are San Diego pastor Jim Garlow, Proposition 8 campaign manager Jeff Flint, and Margaret Gallagher, president of the National Organization of Marriage. Dr. Phil opens the episode by saying he wants to host a fair and balanced debate, and he personally doesn't want to influence anyone's opinions. (The opinion of this blogger is that he leans a bit in favor of same-sex marriage.) He announces that the audience itself has been split evenly between same-sex opponents and supporters, which becomes obvious later when we get some fun cheers and boos and hisses. . . .Things get a little heated when Dr. Phil brings up some of the less-than-savory tactics both sides of the Prop. 8 campaigns used, along with the post-election behaviors, especially protests targeting religious groups. . .

RELATED SHOW: Dr. Phil.com: Same-Sex Marriage: The Prop 8 Debate
It’s a hot-button topic in California and around the country: The passage of Proposition 8, which reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage. Supporters of this initiative voted to preserve the sanctity of marriage solely between a man and a woman. Opponents of Prop 8 say it violates the constitutional rights of the gay community and that America’s laws should treat everyone equally. Since Election Day, numerous protests and rallies have been organized to overturn the law, and the debates are getting heated regarding this highly personal and controversial topic. Is same-sex marriage right or wrong? Is it a corruption of morality and the definition of marriage, or is it a sacred union between two people, same as a man and a woman? Is banning same-sex marriage a form of discrimination against a minority group's equal rights? What are the values driving this debate? Is it about democracy, civil rights, religion? Is there a blurring of church and state?

RELATED VIDEO: Dr. Phil.com: Same-sex Marriage: The Prop 8 Debate

RELATED ARTICLE: A Vote Against Gay Marriage is a Vote FOR Tolerance Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, October 26, 2008
Twenty years ago, a group of prominent homosexuals got together in Warrentown, Virginia to map out their plan to get homosexuality accepted by the general public. In the book [After the Ball] that resulted from their meeting, they revealed a strategy that achieves its effect "without reference to facts, logic or proof . . . the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not." In other words, their strategy was pure propaganda. That propaganda campaign has many people today believing that denying same-sex marriage involves denying rights to a victimized minority. That belief could not be further from the truth. In fact, let me suggest what the same-sex marriage debate is not about. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex Marriage — Challenges & Responses Townhall.com, By Gregory Koukl, February 11, 2007
A few years ago, the L.A. Times quoted a homosexual mayor in New York State dismissing the cultural significance of same-sex marriage. “I’ve never heard of anyone’s life being destroyed because someone got married,” he sniffed. Reading this assertion charitably (he couldn’t have meant no one’s life was ever destroyed by marriage), I take it this government official was mystified by the idea that anything bad could come of men marrying men or women marrying women. I immediately knew I was listening to a man who didn’t understand a simple truth: Ideas have consequences. In the case of same-sex marriage, the consequences will be massive. . . . . Unfortunately, addressing this issue requires refined distinctions and careful thinking that are easily overwhelmed by sound-byte rhetoric and broad, indiscriminate appeals to “rights.” What follows is a point-by-point reply to those who are demanding this revision of civilization. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Intolerance of Tolerance Townhall.com, By Gregory Koukl, December 14, 2006
Probably no concept has more currency in our politically-correct culture than the notion of tolerance. Unfortunately, one of America's noblest virtues has been so distorted it's become a vice. There's one word that can stop you in your tracks. That word is "intolerant." . . . . The tolerant person allegedly occupies neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where each person is permitted to decide for himself. No judgments allowed. No "forcing" personal views. That all views are equally valid is one of the most entrenched assumptions of a society committed to relativism. And it's a myth. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay "Marriage" Townhall.com, By Thomas Sowell, August 15, 2006
The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions. . . . Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval. . .

Ellen Brookes: My husband dropped a bombshell - he was gay (Click for Related Video)

My husband dropped a bombshell - he was gay': How one woman coped with a shock confession after five years of marriage The Daily Mail- UK, By Charlotte Kemp , November 21, 2008
A few nights after her husband made his devastating confession, Ellen Brookes found herself frantically sifting through old photographs of their wedding. In her despair, the 34-year-old health care manager, who lived with her husband Dominic and young son Laurence in Derbyshire, was hoping to find some clues from the past. 'I was on a mission,' she says. 'Dominic had just dropped a bombshell - that he was gay and wanted to end our marriage - so I was torturing myself that I should have known the truth all along.' That evening she spent hours obsessively studying every photo taken that day, hoping to find some clues behind the jubilant smiles. 'But all I could see was smiling faces, our arms entwined, and that was so much worse,' she says. 'It made me think that, for him, the whole of our life together must have been an act - that I was merely a stand-in until he could have the life he really wanted. 'How could he suddenly spring this on me when we had always been so happy together?' Ellen remains bewildered by that question - the betrayal all the more incomprehensible, coming as it did on the eve of the couple's fifth wedding anniversary. . . . 'For months, I pretended to the outside world that we had just grown apart. It's one thing to confide that your husband has had an affair, but quite another to say he is leaving you for a man. 'Eventually, our close friends guessed and I had to face the truth. Some people even tried to console me by suggesting maybe this was easier to deal with than discovering my husband had gone off with another woman. 'But I disagree. When the man you love stands there and tells you he thinks he is homosexual, you can't compete. It's a fait accompli that leaves you reeling. 'And the question on everyone's lips, including your own, is how could you not have known?' . . .

RELATED VIDEO: Homosexual Activist Says There’s No "Gay Gene" CitizenLink.org, August 7, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Homosexuality: it isn’t natural: Ignore those researchers who claim to have discovered a ‘gay gene’, says Peter Tatchell: gay desire is not genetically determined Spiked.com, By Peter Tatchell, June 24, 2008
There is a major problem with gay gene theory, and with all theories that posit the biological programming of sexual orientation. If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined (and therefore mutually exclusive and unchangeable), how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can’t.
[Editor's note: Peter Tatchell is a human rights campaigner, and a member of the queer rights group OutRage! and the left wing of the UK Green Party.]

RELATED ARTICLE: My gay husband: why it took so long for me to leave him Times Online, By Gail Fielding , April 3, 2008
In a 1988 article that appeared in The Times, a reader revealed her anguish at discovering that her husband was gay. She has remained in the marriage since then. Now, in an open letter to her spouse, she explains why she is ending it:. . .

RELATED LETTER: My gay husband: why it took so long for me to leave him Times Online, By Gail Fielding , April 3, 2008
Here is the article written by Gail Fielding and published in The Times in 1988: About eight years ago, while holding me close, my husband told me that he was gay. For days after this revelation I wrestled with its implications, trying to recall looks or observations that should have sparked more than a suspicion. Our three children involved us, our sex life continued, and my husband seemed unaltered: no horns or cloven hoofs. But one cannot always bury a timebomb of this magnitude for ever, although I am told there are “hundreds and hundreds” of gay husbands whose wives do not know of, or will not acknowledge, their husbands' homosexuality. . .

Actress Reese Witherspoon: I have great hope for love Parade magazine, By Dotson Rader, November 23, 2008
'Do I need men?” actress Reese Witherspoon asks. “I don’t think it’s about needing men. It’s about love.” Sitting in a quiet corner of a Beverly Hills hotel lounge overlooking a garden, Reese wears a chic black dress, black open-toe pumps, and gold dangle earrings. An Oscar-winner for 2005’s Walk the Line, Reese, 32, is reportedly the world’s highest-paid actress. She is also astonishingly beautiful. Her new movie, Four Christmases, a comedy about family ties co-starring Vince Vaughn, opens this month. “Everybody needs love,” she tells me. “Everyone deserves it.” The great love of Reese’s life was once actor Ryan Phillippe, 34. They met at her 21st birthday party in 1997 and married two years later. She admits that in some respects she was naïve to believe that her marriage would last forever. “I wasn’t good about protecting myself,” she explains. “I spent a lot of my 20s just trying to make other people happy, rather than trying to figure out if doing that made me happy.” Three months after they wed, their daughter Ava, now 8, was born. A son, Deacon, arrived in 2003. Then, a year ago, she and Ryan divorced. “There are things in my life that are hard to reconcile, like divorce,” she says. “Sometimes it is very difficult to make sense of how it could possibly happen. Laying blame is so easy. I don’t have time for hate or negativity in my life. There’s no room for it. When you make wrong choices, you have to take responsibility for them: ‘What part of this do I own?’”. . . . . .Reese became a movie star by choosing to play tough, single-minded careerists or conniving, manipulative social climbers in films like Election, Legally Blonde, and Vanity Fair. However, in person, she is nothing like the movie roles that made her famous. Instead, vulnerability underlies her finishing-school poise. “I want to be understood,” she says. “Even as a child, I didn’t feel like I was. I still see that part of myself that wants approval, and that’s a constant need.”. . .

Actress Reese Witherspoon: I have great hope for love (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Reese Witherspoon Vogue.com
She talked to us about her upcoming movie (Four Christmases with Vince Vaughn), the pressure of being a working mom, and her recent collaboration with Nina Ricci.

RELATED ARTICLE: Innocence Abroad: With a new look, a new man, and newfound happiness, Reese Witherspoon lives out a fashion fantasy in the City of Light. Vogue magazine, By Robert Sullivan, November 2008 Issue
These days, Reese's own star is in alignment, in part because of her range as an actress. After last year's thriller Rendition, she's returned to romantic comedy in Four Christmases, costarring with Vince Vaughn in a role that reminds us that Reese Witherspoon is the kind of star we like to think of as being just like us. . . . . In the meantime, a romantic comedy about the children of divorce appeals to her for other reasons, related to her own life: She recently finalized her divorce from Ryan Phillippe, whom she met during the filming of Cruel Intentions in 1999. "There are so many dynamics that people deal with all the time, and you don't really see it in movies very much," Reese says. "You don't see the blended-family Christmas very much. And it really is a complication in a lot of people's lives now. How do you see your mother and your father and not hurt anyone's feelings? You know, I didn't grow up like that. I mean, my parents are still married, and my grandparents stayed married, but it's a situation my own children will have to deal with, so it was of interest to me.". . .

"Marriage in the News" is not a representation of The Real Proposal magazine...