“Why is the Government Trying to Force Me to Divorce My Wife?”

“My wife and I would be better off getting divorced,” concludes the author of an article that’s getting a lot of attention on the blogs.    Scott Sumner is lamenting on what amounts to extra taxes that he must pay because he is married.  In fact Mr. Sumner has even calculated the amount that the “marriage penalty” costs him:  “here’s something I can say for sure.  If we did get divorced to save $80,000 to $100,000 in taxes over our lifetime, you’d never know about it.  It would be between us and the IRS.”

UFI has written many times in the past about the “marriage penalty” and the inconsistent message sent to citizens by encouraging couples to marry and then taxing them more heavily than their unmarried and cohabiting contemporaries.   Why a government would more heavily tax those who are participating in such a crucial social institution as marriage, escapes us.

We don’t agree with everything that the author of this very interesting piece has to say, but you will be entertained and enlightened on a topic that doesn’t get much attention—and it should.

To read the entire article go here.

Obama Administration’s HHS Suppresses Important Study

It wasn’t enough that the Obama Administration’s Health and Human Services (HHS) recently issued guidelines to schools instructing them that sex education curriculum should include information on “the needs of lesbian, gay bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and questioning youth and how their program will be inclusive of and non-stigmatizing…” The HHS also felt the need to suppress information from a study showing that parents strongly support the concept that sexual intimacy should wait until after marriage.  Secondly, parental attitudes towards sex are more important than the actual level of parental communications with their child.  Both of these concepts fly in the face of what the comprehensive sex education mavens have been touting for decades.

This story began when researcher, Dr. Lisa Rue, was made aware that the study existed and requested a full report.  HHS said “No;” so Rue submitted a request via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  That, too, was denied by HHS. That’s when the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) got involved; notifying interested persons to submit a request for the public release of the study.  Accordingly to NAEA official Valerie Huber, “Hundreds submitted the request for openness regarding the study.  As a result, HHS posted the entire study report on Monday [August 23].”   So lots of effort and many, many weeks later the Obama administration released the study.  We feel certain that without such intense public pressure (not to mention a whole of conservative-media attention) the study would have remained buried.

So what were some of the study findings?  From the National Survey of Adolescents and Their Parents (sample of 1,000 adolescents and their “most knowledgeable parent”) measuring attitudes and communication for youth who received classes or programs regarding waiting until marriage to engage in sexual relations:

• 7o percent of parents agreed with the statement:  “It is against your values for your adolescents to have sexual intercourse before marriage.”
• 70 percent of parents agreed with the statement:  “Having sexual intercourse is something only married people should do.”
• The two statements received a similar response from the adolescent participants

Uh, Oh….   That’s bad news for “comprehensive” sex education promoters who shun the “abstinence until marriage” message as hopelessly outdated and not in alignment with parents’ wishes.

All of this points to the lack of integrity of the people like Kathleen Sebelius (Secretary of Health and Human Services) and her pro-abortion and “promote-sex-to-adolescents-at –all-cost” friends at Planned Parenthood and SEICUS, who continually claim to highlight and rely only on “medically accurate” and “science-driven” material to support their work.  I guess if the “science” doesn’t fit your agenda, you simply work to ensure it doesn’t see the light of day.

Congratulations to all those who were instrumental in getting this important study to be made available to the public.

“American Teachers Should Revolt”

The results of this week’s UFI readers poll gives some unsurprising results.  What is surprising is that so many pro-family, pro-life educators continue to affiliate with these controversial organizations.

Question asked:

“Is it the role of education groups like the National Education Association (NEA) or the PTA to be an advocate for controversial social policy issues?”

94%     “No”

6%         “Not sure”

0%         “Yes”

Clearly, most of UFI readers believe social policy advocacy is not part of the job description for the educational groups; but, unfortunately, they are using membership dues to promote a particular viewpoint.  We direct your attention  to these articles:

American Teachers Should Revolt

The NEA and its state affiliates have proven themselves disinterested in the business of actually improving the quality of education for students.  As the NEA’s own summer convention demonstrated, they are preoccupied with using dues dollars to advocate: repeal of all right-to-work laws, federal funding of sexual orientation instruction, federal funding to educate illegal aliens, universal healthcare, and (of course) killing human children in the womb.   Teachers, you do have options!  Read more

Education Establishment is Not a Friend of the Family

The National Education Association (NEA) is the largest professional organization and labor union in the U.S. and its influence on education reaches around the world.  Their power and influence extends from the walls of the school room to legislative halls as they promote and finance various candidates and initiatives and work to assure their ideology is entrenched in culture.  But what many people may not know, including teachers and parents, is that the NEA is not a friend of the family.  Read more

Violent Video Games vs. Free Speech: How serious are we about protecting children?

The video game industry is making billions off of selling our children their products.  If a U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision is allowed to stand, video game manufacturers can continue to sell children games that feature decapitation, mutilation, and other mind-numbing images of violence and sexual depravation.

In 2005, the California legislature passed California Civil Code Sections 1746-1746.5 prohibiting the sale or rental of these violent video games to minors under 18.  The law defines a violent game as one that includes “killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being” in a way that a reasonable person would find appeals to a “deviant or morbid interest,” is patently offensive, and lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”  A fine of as much as $1,000 could be assessed to retailers who violate the law.

The statute was immediately challenged in court by the Entertainment Merchants Association and this spring the Ninth Circuit ruled on behalf of the plaintiff, and found the statute to be unconstitutional because it “violates freedom of speech” of minors.  The U. S. Supreme Court will be taking up the case this fall.

What is the content of some of these violent and sexually explicit video games?

We apologize in advance for such unsavory descriptions.  According to an amicus brief filed in support of the new California law by eleven states’ Attorney Generals (Louisiana, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia), video game players engaged in virtual activities such as:

-  Burning people alive with gasoline or napalm;
-  Decapitating people with shovels and have dogs fetch their severed heads;
-  Beating police to death while they beg for mercy;
-  Killing bald, unshaven men wearing pink dresses (in an “expansion pack” called Fag Hunter);
-  Slaughtering nude female zombies;
-  Urinating on people to make them vomit;
-  “Running with Scissors” (name of video game) which is promoted by the tag line:  “[R]emember… it’s only as violent as you are…”
-  An “Easter Egg” called “hot coffee” (as a reward for reaching a particular level) leads to simulated sexual intercourse between the main character and his girlfriend.

Quick perusals of articles written by media outlets like the LA Times, The NY Times, and Washington Post reveal some typical arguments in support of the video game industry’s position.  We offer a few rebuttal points and encourage you to read the various Amicus Briefs submitted regarding California’s new law.

1.  The statue is a violation of the rights, particularly freedom of speech rights, of minors.

Video games are role-playing activities that do not constitute free speech.  Courts have never held that video games are free speech; it not established “expressive conduct” that is protected under the First Amendment. In addition, minors’ freedom of speech is legally and regularly curtailed; such as schools banning particular types of speech.

Playing a video game is conduct and there are numerous legal controls on the conduct of minors.  Conduct such as voting, marriage, military service, consent for healthcare, curfews, sentencing guidelines; all involve legal treatment of minors that is dramatically different than treatment of adults under the law.

“If a state may restrict a minor’s right to vote or to marry, then it may also restrict her ability to purchase graphically violent video games. If a state may not impose the death penalty on minors–because they are “more vulnerable … to negative influences and outside pressures,” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005)–then a state may also keep them from buying games which invite them to commit digital atrocities.” (States’ Brief)

States regulate access of minors to such things as gambling, pornography, cigarettes, and alcohol.  Facilitating parental control over their children’s access to violent video games certainly has precedent within constitutional law.  In addition, the California statute does not prohibit anyone from playing these video games (adults or children), but stops the selling or renting of these games to children.  If a parent chooses to buy/rent the game for their child, they are able to do so.

2. There is not enough evidence of a “causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm.”

This is a situation of which studies do you choose to believe.  It is established that playing violent video games ranks almost as high as gang membership as an indicator and predicator of youth violence.  Playing violent video games is three times a greater risk factor for aggressive/violent behavior than engaging in substance abuse, being from a broken home, having abusive parents or having a low IQ. (Effects of Violent Video Games on Behavior)   As one Amicus Brief pointed out:  “A legislature has not been required to cite million-dollar studies or take exhaustive testimony in order to justify requiring parental consent for a minor to play bingo, get married or serve in the military.”

The technology used in these video games is the same as that used by the military, aerospace and medical industries to train soldiers, police officers, doctors, pilots, and astronauts.  To say that regular exposure to this type of simulation is not effective in training and motivating individuals to behave in particular ways is to deny reality (or it seems there is a lot of money being wasted on simulators).

3.  The well-established “obscenity standard” does not apply to depictions of violence.

This is the argument that has garnered the most attention because it would create, as some experts have stated, a “sea change” in constitutional law.  The Supreme Court (Ginsberg 1968 and forward) has held that states have the right to restrict commercial dissemination to minors of erotic materials (pornography).  The Ninth Circuit, through their ruling, has declined to extend that exception to violence–particularly the violence in video games because it might, by extension, be applied to violence in films, books, magazines, etc.   That question will be decided by the Supreme Court this fall.

Just as there is a state’s right to protect vulnerable children from purchasing Playboy or Penthouse, there should be a right for a state to protect its children from the damaging effects of violence and sexual titillation delivered to our youth through video games.  The First Amendment certainly permits this type of modest regulation of the direct sale/rental of pernicious material to a child that does not in any way limit the freedom of an adult nor does it stop a commercial enterprise.

4.  The task of protecting children should be left to parents without interference from government.

As outlined in the States’ Amicus Brief:  “The California statute constitutionally protects the intrinsic parental right to control the upbringing of children, a well-recognized constitutional objective.”  It is interesting to note that it is constitutional to require parental approval for children to play Bingo, participate in internet gambling and other game playing, but the Ninth Circuit deems it unconstitutional to limit children’s access to violent and pornographic images that have multiple layers of damaging effects to children and to society.

Lastly, parents are limited in their ability to screen video games for offensive material.  These games are not a movie that a parent can watch, or a book that they can flip through and make a determination of its suitability.  Video games are complicated and require high levels of skill and massive amounts of time to reach the different levels where content is revealed.  The “just let the parents do their job!” line is hardly applicable here.  This is certainly a time where assistance should be rendered to parents through effective labeling and restriction on youth purchases.

“California’s law permissibly seeks to reinforce the authority of parents. Limits on juvenile freedoms find their strongest justification when they simply help parents guide their own children as they see fit.” (States’ Brief)

United Families International notes that the types of ideology displayed by the Ninth Circuit ruling– children possess the ultimate right to make decisions for themselves–is part of a broader international “children’s rights” movement designed to take power from parents and turn it over to the state.  United Families will continue to expose the agendas and actions of entities, both national and international, who espouse the “children’s rights” doctrine.

Conclusion

The California statute in question is a common sense law that prevents no adult from buying or renting said games.  Even minors are still allowed to play them with adult consent.  It is a law that helps to ensure that parents–not video game manufactures and retailers–decide what children will be exposed to.

As California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated regarding the new law, “We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies.”

If you live in a state where your Attorney General has already given support to California’s new law, please consider contacting them with a note of “thanks.”  UFI will keep you informed as the case continues through the system and we’ll alert you if other Attorney Generals move to support those who would eagerly sell graphic violence to your children.

Go Here to contact Utah’s Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff.

Do Violent Video Games Harm Children? UFI in the News

Members of United Families International joined with other pro-family organizations and Utah state legislators in a press conference to encourage Utah’s Attorney General not to oppose the California law prohibiting minors from purchasing ultra-violent and sexually explicit video games.  This press conference was in response to a recent Salt Lake Tribune report, that Utah’s “Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said Thursday he is talking with a number of his colleagues from other states who are working on a potential friend-of-the-court brief opposing California’s law.”

United Families Utah’s Laura Bunker also spoke at the press conference, explaining, “These are not just war games. They are ultra-violent video games that use pornography and animated sexual acts as rewards for reaching higher levels. Rather than opposing this measure to protect children, Utah should join the eleven other states in support of it.”   We applaud the eleven states and their Attorneys General that have risen to the support of California’s common-sense law and urge Utah’s Attorney General and other states’ Attorneys General to not get involved on behalf of the video game industry and in support of the canard that California’s law infringes on a minor’s freedom of speech.

To see media coverage of this issue and a video of United Families Utah’s efforts, go to these links:

http://connect2utah.com/news-story/?nxd_id=105435
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12129145&pid=0

To learn more about the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case and the issues surrounding Violent Video Games vs. Free speech and the impact to our children, go here.

Another Catholic Charity Forced Out of the Adoption Business. What About Your religious Freedom?

The Guardian newspaper is reporting that Catholic Care, a charity in northern England, has lost an appeal and will be required by Britain’s charity regulator to offer children for adoption to homosexual couples or stop offering adoption services.  Since the British government imposed an anti-discrimination rule in 2007 other Catholic agencies have either ended their affiliation with the Catholic Church or have stopped adoption services altogether.

The Charity Commission cites a breach of European human rights laws as the basis for their decision to force Catholic Care out of the adoption business. In the United States, we’ve seen Boston Catholic Charities forced to withdraw from offering adoption because of anti-discrimination laws in Massachusetts that became hyper charged because of court imposed same-sex marriage.

What does this mean for other religious entities and individuals who have moral and ethical objections to same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage?  We quote an issues brief from Becket Fund for Religious Liberty “Same-sex Marriage and State Anti-Discrimination Laws:”

We conclude that if same-sex marriage is recognized by courts or legislatures, people and institutions who have conscientious objections to facilitating same-sex marriage will likely be sued under existing anti-discrimination laws—laws never intended for that purpose.   Lawsuits will likely arise when religious people or religious organizations choose, based on their sincerely held religious beliefs, not to hire individuals in same-sex marriage, refuse to extend spousal benefits to same-sex spouses, refuse to make their property or services available for same-sex marriage ceremonies or other events affirming same-sex marriage, or refuse to provide otherwise available housing to same-sex couples.  This wide-ranging conflict between governments and conscientious citizens would take years of litigation to resolve, assuming it could be resolved…

Marriage Saving Men’s Lives?

Married men have a lower risk of fatal stroke than single men.  According to a study by Uri Goldbourt, Tel Aviv University’s Neufeld Cardiac Research Institute, the happier you are in marriage the lower your risk of stroke.  Men in unhappy marriages had a 64 percent higher risk of fatal stroke than married men who reported being happy, but married men, overall, had a lower risk than single men.

The researchers indicated that some of the apparent protection comes from enhanced prevention with a supportive and involved spouse—better health care, better diet, reminders about medication, and quick access to medical treatment should a major health problem occur.  But the study points to a key component:  marital happiness.

Studies like this one should also be a wakeup call to all to strengthen your relationship with your spouse—it is not a call to “unload” them via divorce.  The negative health ramifications associated with divorce are substantial.

Here’s a few more studies on the positive impact of marriage on health:

• Married persons had the lowest incidences of diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and hypertension. Amy Mehraban Pienta, “Health Consequences of Marriage for the Retirement Years,” Journal of Family Issues 21 (2000):  559-586.
• Compared to men living with a wife and their children, fathers living alone-without spouse and apart from their children-experienced “almost four times as great a risk of all-cause mortality, 10 times of death from external violence, 13 times from fall and poisoning, almost five times from suicide and 19 times from addiction.” Even when controlling for health-selections effects and differences in socioeconomic status, researchers found “significantly elevated risks” remained for men living without a spouse and for men living without children. Gunilla Ringback Weitoft, Bo Burstrom, and Mans Rosen, “Premature Mortality Among Lone Fathers and Childless Men,” Social Science & Medicine 59 (2004): 1449-1459. As cited in: “Men Dying Alone, November 2004, ” New Research, The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society 18(11).
  • Cures for cancer were significantly more successful (eight to 17 percent) when a patient was married. Being married was comparable to being in an age category 10 years younger. James Goodwin, William Hunt, Charles Key and Jonathan Samet, “The Effect of Marital Status on Stage, Treatment, and Survival of Cancer Patients,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 258 (1987): 3,152-3,130.
  • “The size of the health gain from marriage is remarkable. It may be as large as the benefit from giving up smoking.” Chris Wilson and Andrew Oswald, “How Does Marriage Affect Physical and Psychological Health? A Survey of the Longitudinal Evidence,” Institute for the Study of Labor,” Discussion Paper No. 1619 (2005). 
  • Singleness was one of a number of important “psychosocial predictors of premature mortality.” Carlos Iribarren, David Jacobs, Catarina Kiefe, Cora Lewis, Karen Matthews, Jeffrey Roseman and Stephen Hullley, “Causes and Demographic, Medical, Lifestyle and Psychosocial Predictors of Premature Mortality: The CARDIA Study,” Social Science & Medicine 60 (2005): 471-482.

Americans Still Oppose Same-sex Marriage by Large Margin

Last week’s national  Public Policy Poll shows what citizens have said repeatedly in the voting booth–Americans opposed gay marriage. The August 2-9 poll showed that Americans opposed same-sex marriage almost 2-to-1 — 57 percent opposed, 33 percent in favor.    Republicans oppose same-sex marriage 80 percent to 12 percent and Democrats are in favor of same-sex marriage 48 percent to 41 percent.  But here’s a number you want to pay attention to:  Independents oppose same-sex marriage by a 48 percent to 41 percent margin.

Just last week, a friend was insisting that African-Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage.  She commented “all my black friends support gay marriage.”  Well, the Public Policy Poll gives us some insight on that question.  Whites oppose same-sex marriage 58 percent to 34 percent, Hispanics oppose it 57 percent to 27 percent and African-American oppose it 52 percent to 34 percent.

In one less heartening statistic, Americans are not optimistic about the odds of holding off same-sex advocacy, believing that a change is coming.  Fifty-three percent think that same-sex marriage will be legal 20 years from now with 32 percent believing it will still be illegal for homosexuals to marry.

That’s exactly what homosexual activists want you to believe.  Don’t buy into it!  Pro-family, traditional marriage proponents are still the core of this nation.  There is no reason, other than being cowed into silence and failure to get involved, that same-sex marriage will be legalized nationwide—even 20 years from now.   You decide the future.

The Age of the Uncivilized

The family is the source of our greatest joys and some of our keenest sorrows. It is where our most basic need to loved is met.  In the family men and women learn to sacrifice, love, and serve.  Children learn to value work, respect, and responsibility.   Experiencing life in a natural family becomes absolutely fundamental to the preservation of society.

Some years back we begin to hear voices that claimed they could take the “difficulties” out of life by eliminating our responsibilities–especially in families.  The objective of these voices was to “relieve women of their oppressive roles as wives and mothers and men of their responsibilities to provide support and security for their families.”  They used words like equality and liberation to create a feel good motive for destroying the very bases of civilization—the family.

In 1978, guided by a love for the family and the recognition that these voices could destroy not only families but entire civilizations, United Families International was created to protect and strengthen the family.  By strengthening the family, communities, states, and nations are strengthened.

We strengthen the family by promoting:

Family: Respect for existing law, political structure, religion, and cultural norms that preserve the family.

Marriage: Respect for marriage between a man and a woman founded on chastity before marriage and fidelity in marriage

Life: Respect for the sanctity of human life including unborn children.

Parents: Respect for the right and obligation of parents to love protect, provide for, and teach their children.

Sovereignty: Respect for the sovereign rights of each individual nation as we work in the world community to protect the common good of individual families.

But how are communities, states, and nations strengthened by strong families? Inversely, what happens to a society where the respect for important cultural institutions and behavioral norms are lost?

“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”–Newton’s Third Law

In the recorded history of mankind, people have acknowledged that an ordered structure of behavior valued, and adhered to by the vast majority of individuals in a community, state, or nation, brought results that improved their lives.  This ordered structure consisted of principles, supported by institutions. Adherence to principles (the action) produced positive results (the reaction) for the entire society. These societal improvements included peace, prosperity, fewer interpersonal conflicts, reliable systematic progression from one generation to another, self-respect, self-reliance, refinement, abhorrence for imposing upon the community burdens and responsibilities best borne by the individual, and liberty.

This process of developing principles, institutions, and patterns of beneficial behavior was called “civilization”.  Mankind prospered greatly under this civilizing process.  Achievement beyond description to one generation became commonplace for the next because of the civilizing impact of man’s institutions.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “civilize” thus:

Civilize: to cause to develop out of a primitive state; to bring to a technically advanced and rationally ordered stage of cultural development.

Webster’s also defines “culture”:

Culture: the integrated pattern of human behavior that includes thought, speech, action, and artifacts and depends upon man’s capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations; b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group.

What happens to a civilization or cultural society when, after realizing the success achieved through multi-generational development of institutions, it devalues and destroys those successful institutions?  To find the answer one must merely observe our modern society as we discuss the cause and effect relationship (action and reaction) that brought us to our present circumstances.  The devaluation of the institution of the family is leading to its replacement as the fundamental unit of society. Government now seeks to become the fundamental unit of society, placing liberty, freedom of conscience, and free agency at risk.

The devaluation of marriage between a man and a woman threatens the destruction of this successful cultural institution. The sexual revolution of the 1960s and the feminist movement of the 70s have falsely convinced people that the incessant pursuit of personal pleasures and desires are the only benefits to life.  Cohabitation, divorce, homosexuality, physical or emotional abuse of spouse or children, are a sampling of the threats to marriage. A culture that does not value marriage, will eventually replace civil society with tribalism. Development of societies of gangs that spread internationally illustrates the negative consequences of a marriage-less culture.

The activist judge that recently struck down California’s Proposition 8 preserving marriage between a man and a woman said he could find no harm to anyone by forceful imposition of homosexual marriage on a people opposed to it.  Only the intellectually deaf, dumb, and blind can fail to recognize the harm.

Parents are also being replaced by governments. These secular-socialist regimes seek to strip the rights, privileges, and obligations to teach the rising generations the basic moral fundamental principles that built our civilization and substitute it with an amoral, corrupt, political correctness.  To successfully replace parents, these governments must supplant free agency, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and other liberties and institute policies of indoctrination of youth in government schools.

In lieu of the joy associated with life, a culture of death has become pervasive. The devaluation of life is evidenced by millions of voluntary, birth control-driven abortions; billions of forced, population-control driven abortions; millions of aged and ill persons euthanized when they become a burden to care-givers; institution of a “duty-to-die” mindset when secular-socialist regimes no longer have the financial resources to provide life prolonging medical services; escalating levels of seemingly random acts of violence, where murder is a tribalist right-of-passage, or tactical pursuit of business interests.
The negative consequences (the reaction) of rejection of long-valued cultural institutions (the action) are real and measurable.  Social scientists tell us that our prisons are full because of the breakdown of the family. Imprisoned are gang members who live in primitive, tribalist societies.  They house increasing numbers of individuals driven to drug and alcohol abuse.  They house an increasing number of child and spousal abusers.

Children and their unmarried mothers languish in poverty and neglect because governments, having replaced the family, lack resources to provide for them. In addition to the intense and pervasive personal suffering attributed directly to these actions, the financial costs to struggling economies cast a shadow of fear across the future wellbeing of everyone.

The world has more artists, actors, musicians, and writers than ever before.  Once instrumental in, and a sign of cultural refinement, the “artists” of today are purveyors of cultural decline. Where we once  valued refinement, we now prefer vulgarity, crudeness, and crassness.

In our modern society, the collective good is being replaced by short term satisfaction of adult desires that brings long term harm to those seeking such satisfaction.  Rejection of cultural institutions and behavioral norms has resulted in a cultural devolution or reversion to a more primitive state. An entire generation is now, ironically, supplanting its own long-term best interest in exchange for short term satisfaction.

Civilization, as we know it, is at a tipping point.  We can succumb to the trends I have described, or we can hold true to those civilizing institutions that brought the broad range of cultural success we enjoy in the world today.

At UFI, we are dedicated to our mission of preserving these cultural institutions.  We continue to educate the world regarding the value of cultural institutions and the consequences of their destruction.  Stand with us by dedicating your resources to help us preserve for generations to come, the cultural benefits you have long enjoyed.  Click HERE to support the family today!

Mike Duff
President, United Families International

---

Should educators be allowed to speak their minds?

Here’s how our United Families International readers responded to that question:

When not in a school setting, should educators be allowed to openly express their opinions on controversial issues (abortion, gay marriage, homosexual behavior, pre-marital sex, role of men and women, etc.)?

Yes         76%

No          27%

Not sure   2%

The vast majority of our readers believe that educators should be allowed to speak their minds in non-school settings.  We wonder why some believe their free speech should be limited.  Perhaps some of you who voted that way could respond and tell us why.