|NEWS OF INTEREST|
’08 Democratic candidates gung
The entire field of Democratic candidates seeking the 2008 nomination for president have publicly stated their unflinching support for the homosexual agenda with same-sex marriage the only exception.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which describes itself as the nation’s largest gay civil rights group, sent questionnaires to all eight Democratic presidential contenders. The Democratic field consists of Sens. Joe Biden (DE), Hillary Clinton (NY), Chris Dodd (CT), Barack Obama (IL), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH), Gov. Bill Richardson (NM) and former senators John Edwards (NC) and Mike Gravel (AK).
All the candidates said they support the following gay agenda goals: passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; passage of a federal hate crimes law that includes sexual orientation; legalizing gay adoption; repeal of the ban on homosexuals in the military; increased funding for HIV/AIDS research; and comprehensive sex education in schools, including information about homosexual acts.
While only two of the candidates – Gravel and Kucinich – said they are in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, the entire field of contenders answered the HRC survey and said they support a host of gay activist demands that would legitimize homosexual relationships.
First and foremost, the candidates said they favor overriding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 law passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. DOMA says that, for federal purposes, “The word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
Beyond the gutting of DOMA, the entire Democratic field said they support civil unions for same-sex couples; federal benefits for gay couples; equal tax treatment for same-sex couples, putting them on the same legal footing as married couples; domestic partner benefits for federal employees; and expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover homosexual partners and their children.
“For the first time ever, all of the announced Democratic candidates stated their support for extending federal benefits and equal tax treatment, currently only available to heterosexual married couples, to same-sex couples who are parties to a union legally recognized by their state,” the HRC said in a press release. “Additionally, the candidates express unanimous support for extending federal benefits for same-sex couples and their children.”
HRC called the questionnaire answers from the Democratic candidates “groundbreaking.”
Pro-family groups have seen this “perfect storm” of Democratic support for the gay agenda coming for months. In February, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Howard Dean pledged his party’s support for major legislation that has long been demanded by activists.
“… I absolutely am going to do everything in my power to ask Congress to take up, finally, and pass ENDA,” Dean told a gathering of homosexuals at the DNC’s annual winter meeting in Washington, D.C.
According to an article in the Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper, Dean also promised the Democratic Party’s gay caucus that Congress would act to pass a law adding sexual orientation to the federal hate crimes statute.
Dean further promised that Democrats would hold a hearing on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the Clinton-era policy that bars homosexuals from openly serving in the U.S. military.
“If there was ever any doubt that the Democratic Party is the party of the homosexual movement in this country, the HRC’s questionnaire removed it,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “When it comes to supporting immorality, the Democrats appear enthusiastic in leading our nation over the cliff.”
www.hrc.org, 6/2/07; washingtonblade.com, 2/9/07
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams, senior vice president of corporate communications, told Fortune magazine, “We are not currently planning corporate-level contributions to GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] groups.”
According to the magazine, individual stores are still allowed to donate to homosexual groups if they choose to do so.
Williams said the company-wide decision mirrors a policy posted on its Web site last fall, which stated that Wal-Mart would not make corporate contributions “to support or oppose highly controversial issues unless they are directly related to the company’s ability to serve its customers.”
Reactions from conservative and homosexual rights groups were varied. Some members of Wal-Mart Pride, a network of homosexual employees, expressed disappointment, according to Fortune, and even thought of it as backpedaling.
Several homosexual rights groups, including Out & Equal and the Human Rights Campaign, expressed a desire to still work with the retailer on its workplace policies.
Williams said the move did not signal less support for Wal-Mart Pride or other homosexual employees, and is not a “retrenchment.”
Last year AFA, along with former Wal-Mart employees and a cross-section of other pro-family and Christian groups across the country, initiated a Thanksgiving weekend boycott of Wal-Mart after the company joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and began to financially support homosexual organizations.
After the recent policy clarification was announced by Wal-Mart, AFA released a statement which said, in part: “Wal-Mart clearly defined its grant eligibility criteria last fall to include a neutrality position in cases of highly controversial issues. … The AFA agrees with this policy.”
www.money.cnn.com, 6/22/07; OneNewsNow.com, 6/25/07
One reported the findings of a major national study conducted by Dr. Stan Weed of the Institute for Research and Evaluation in Salt Lake City, Utah. Weed based his research on multiple studies that examined the education and behavior of over 400,000 youth from 30 different states spanning 15 years.
His final report is titled “Abstinence” or “Comprehensive” Sex Education? and exposes the major errors in a national study on abstinence released by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. He found that the study, which implied that abstinence education was ineffective, did not represent American sex education.
In contrast, Weed explained to LifeSiteNews.com: “Within the United States, sexual activity rates have been going down among teenagers for about the last 12 or 13 years, and that coincides with when the abstinence education started. Abortion, pregnancies and out- of-wedlock birth rates have also been going down among teens during that same time period. However, pregnancy, abortion and out-of-wedlock births have been rising for the older age group, between 19-25, a group that has not been targeted by abstinence programs.”
Weed also highlighted the problems sexually active teens face and how comprehensive sex education is not a remedy for these. According to researchers from the Utah Institute who examined previous significant studies on the topic, comprehensive sex-ed programs have “had little impact on the behavior of teens during their education and no long-term effects whatsoever,” as reported by LifeSiteNews.com.
According to CitizenLink, a two-year government study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Administration for Children and Families also found abstinence-ed programs to be almost 100% accurate, while some comprehensive sex-ed curricula being used in the nation’s schools have almost no impact on behavior.
The HHS report criticized the comprehensive curricula as being narrow in scope based on their “balanced” lessons mentioning condoms seven times as often as abstinence.
“It was found that there was virtually no effect on delaying sexual debut in children using these sex-education curricula, and no long-term effects,” said Linda Klepacki, sexual health analyst for Focus on the Family Action. “In other words, they don’t work.”
“They’re condom promotion and contraceptive promotion programs,” added Angela Griffiths, executive director of Await & Find, a California-based organization that promotes youth health.
Not only that, the HHS report also found that the way comprehensive sex-ed programs present information is amoral and explicit.
Leslie Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, likened the content to pornography. “What is going to happen if people do not stand up,” Unruh explained, “is they will get this kind of radical sex ed in all the schools in America.”
LifeSiteNews.com, 6/13/07; CitizenLink, 6/13/07, 6/15/07
After tests of 1,714 women and 1,218 men, ages 18 to 27, researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found that Mycoplasma genitalium “has surpassed gonorrhea in prevalence among sexually active young adults in the United States.”
The prevalence of M. genitalium infection was found to be “11 times higher among respondents who reported living with a sexual partner” and “7 times higher among Blacks.”
Infection rates were “4 times higher among those who used condoms during their last vaginal intercourse.”
Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America, said the study revealed the flaw in promoting condoms as the “safer sex” answer.
“By pressing upon children that [a] condom is a fail proof safety net … they are encouraging kids to walk a paper thin latex light rope,” he said. “The only way we know to guarantee that you’re not going to catch all these kinds of diseases is by abstinence.”
Barber also noted that increased sexual promiscuity resulting in one out of every four Americans having an STD is the national result after 40 years of sex ed.
M. genitalium can lead to inflammation, infertility, neonatal disease and reactive arthritis.
The Culture and Media Institute (CMI) has published a report called The Media Assault on American Values: The conflict between the media, personal responsibility, and respect for religion. The report found that 68% of Americans said they believed the media have a negative impact on moral values in this country, and 73% said the entertainment industry is having a negative impact.
At an event in Washington to unveil the report, CMI director Bob Knight argued the more a person watches television, the less likely he is to accept personal responsibility for his actions.
“We believe that the figures show clearly that the more TV you watch, the more you want to depend on the government,” Knight explained. “The people who are heavy TV viewers, by 63%, think government should be primarily responsible for our health care. Sixty-four percent believe government should be primarily responsible for retirement. That’s a good deal higher than the light TV viewers and the overall findings.”
According to the report, “heavy television viewers” watch four or more hours each evening; “light” viewers, one hour or less.
The report also showed the more a person watches TV, the less likely he is to value religious principles and obedience to God.
According to the CMI report, “Most Americans believe the nation’s morality is slipping. These people name the media as the second greatest factor in the moral decline, exceeded only by the [collapse of the] family.”
The Media Assault on American Values report is available online at the CMI Web site, www.cultureandmediainstitute.org.
www.cultureandmediainstitute.org, 6/7/07; OneNewsNow.com, 6/8/07
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals accused the FCC of leveling “arbitrary and capricious” fines against the Fox network for airing profanities during awards shows. During the Billboard Music Awards broadcasts in 2002 and 2003, two profanities – the “F-word” and “S-word” – were aired. The court said the use of those words was not indecent.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin disagreed. “I find it hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that [the two profanities] are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience,” he said.
Martin said members of Congress were planning to introduce the Family Choice Act, a bill designed to help parents protect their children from indecent and violent material on television through programming options, often characterized as an “a la carte” approach.
“If ever there was an appropriate time for Commission action, this was it. If we can’t restrict the use of [those words] during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want,” Martin said.
USA Today, 6/5/07; OneNewsNow.com, 6/14/07
Coburn’s 115-page report, “CDC Off Center,” documented the distribution of the agency’s money to local and regional organizations that have sponsored, among other things: conferences featuring prostitutes and beach parties; a presentation on syphilis prevention made by a porn star; a transgender beauty pageant; and a $200,000 fitness center with zero-gravity chairs and “mood-enhancing lightshows.”
Coburn’s office asserted that the CDC “has wasted and continues to waste hundreds of millions of tax dollars, but keeps asking taxpayers for more.”
CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said his agency has communicated with Coburn’s office. Skinner contended that the CDC does care about proper use of taxpayer money, and regularly investigates any alleged violation of agency rules in use of various program funds.
The request by CDC officials for an additional $1 billion above its annual $10 billion budget was what caused Coburn and other lawmakers to examine how budget dollars were being spent.
Coburn says the goal in releasing the report is to help the CDC make better funding decisions toward fulfilling its primary mission of preventing, fighting, and controlling disease and public safety threats.