Action Item - Marriage - 2

Action Item – Marriage – 2
cinops be gone Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Traditional marriage is the defining issue in this presidential campaign. One party is for it; the other party is for same-sex marriage. The Catholic-in-name-only politicians like Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Claire McCaskill of Missouri must realize this. There is no neutrality. The same can be said for all Catholic-in-name only politicians in Orange County, California, U.S.A.

(Continued from yesterday) “This will have a huge impact on education. Suppose an elementary school teacher has students read stories about princes and princesses and knights and maidens. This can be considered discriminatory, because it promotes opposite sex unions without supporting same-sex ones. Textbooks and other materials in classrooms will have to be changed to give equal support to same-sex and traditional unions. Biology, social science and English lesson plans must all teach that all sexual preferences are equal.

Outside of the classroom, the messages and values of society will also change. The law serves as a moral compass for cultural values. If showing preferences for unions of men and women is bigotry in the eyes of the law. It will also become bigotry in the eyes of society. Showing male and female newlyweds strolling hand in hand along the shore of a beach in a TV or print ad is discriminatory, if we do not have similar images of “groom and groom” or “bride and bride.” Society will not longer have a clear image of man and woman together as a model.

This will have a great effect on people’s sense of identity and purpose. Our sense of the value of being male or female is intimately tied to the recognition that men and women contribute unique gifts to the formation of a family. But what happens when society teaches that two men are sufficient for raising a child? Then the message is that mothers are not necessary. Fatherhood and motherhood become accidental, because gender is not a relevant factor. But if there is nothing special about being a mother or a father, then what is special about being a woman or a man?

The debate over same-sex “marriage” is not just about a name or a label. We have something substantial at stake – the meaning of marriage and family, and our identities as men and women. If the California Supreme Court’s decision stands, then both California and the nation as a whole will face consequences we can only begin to imagine.

On the other hand, the ProtectMarriage.com initiative will be on the November 2008 ballot and will offer voters an opportunity to overrule California Supreme Court. It would amend the state constitution, and restore common sense and the will of the people expressed in 2000 with the passage of Defense Marriage Act (Prop 22), which then defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.

The stakes in the November election are monumental and the results will have consequences for every family in California and across the nation. The true meaning of marriage must be renewed.”
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and translate in to Spanish and Vietnamese.
Action Item – Marriage – 2
cinops be gone Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Traditional marriage is the defining issue in this presidential campaign. One party is for it; the other party is for same-sex marriage. The Catholic-in-name-only politicians like Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Claire McCaskill of Missouri must realize this. There is no neutrality. The same can be said for all Catholic-in-name only politicians in Orange County, California, U.S.A.

(Continued from yesterday) “This will have a huge impact on education. Suppose an elementary school teacher has students read stories about princes and princesses and knights and maidens. This can be considered discriminatory, because it promotes opposite sex unions without supporting same-sex ones. Textbooks and other materials in classrooms will have to be changed to give equal support to same-sex and traditional unions. Biology, social science and English lesson plans must all teach that all sexual preferences are equal.

Outside of the classroom, the messages and values of society will also change. The law serves as a moral compass for cultural values. If showing preferences for unions of men and women is bigotry in the eyes of the law. It will also become bigotry in the eyes of society. Showing male and female newlyweds strolling hand in hand along the shore of a beach in a TV or print ad is discriminatory, if we do not have similar images of “groom and groom” or “bride and bride.” Society will not longer have a clear image of man and woman together as a model.

This will have a great effect on people’s sense of identity and purpose. Our sense of the value of being male or female is intimately tied to the recognition that men and women contribute unique gifts to the formation of a family. But what happens when society teaches that two men are sufficient for raising a child? Then the message is that mothers are not necessary. Fatherhood and motherhood become accidental, because gender is not a relevant factor. But if there is nothing special about being a mother or a father, then what is special about being a woman or a man?

The debate over same-sex “marriage” is not just about a name or a label. We have something substantial at stake – the meaning of marriage and family, and our identities as men and women. If the California Supreme Court’s decision stands, then both California and the nation as a whole will face consequences we can only begin to imagine.

On the other hand, the ProtectMarriage.com initiative will be on the November 2008 ballot and will offer voters an opportunity to overrule California Supreme Court. It would amend the state constitution, and restore common sense and the will of the people expressed in 2000 with the passage of Defense Marriage Act (Prop 22), which then defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.

The stakes in the November election are monumental and the results will have consequences for every family in California and across the nation. The true meaning of marriage must be renewed.”
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and translate in to Spanish and Vietnamese.