Study finds Gay Parents “Far More Likely to Have Gay Kids”

A meta-analysis of 26 previously-published studies focusing on children living with same-sex parents finds “evidence […that] suggests intergenerational transfer of sexual orientation can occur at statistically significant and substantial rates, especially for female parents or female children.”

Walter Schumm, Kansas State University researcher, concluded that 28 percent of the children (over age 17) of same-sex parents identify as gay with the figure dropping to 20 percent for children under age 17.  The rate of homosexuality for children raised by heterosexual parents is just under four percent.

Mr. Schumm, looking at anthropological studies of various cultures, found that of communities that welcome gays and lesbians, “89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior.”

Gay advocacy groups are actively working to cast doubt on Mr. Schumm’s work, but that pesky 28 percent number for children raised by gay parents just keeps resurfacing in the studies.  Maybe that’s because it is the real number.  It is also interesting to note that many gay advocates are “OK” with sharing that statistic as fact.  They argue that there’s nothing wrong with being gay so why be concerned about that figure.

Here are some examples of existing studies pointing to an intergenerational transfer of same-sex behavior:

With respect to actual involvement in same-gender sexual relationships, there was a significant difference between groups . . .  None of the children from heterosexual families had experienced a lesbian or gay relationship.” By contrast, five (29 percent) of the 17 daughters and one (13 percent) of the eight boys in homosexual families reported having at least one same-sex relationship. Susan Golombok and Fiona L. Tasker, “Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children? Findings from a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families,” Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7.

Sixty-four percent of young adults raised by lesbian mothers reported considering having same-sex relationships.  Only 17 percent of young adults in heterosexual families reported the same thing. Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, “Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?  American Sociological Review 66 (2001):  159-183.

Other studies show that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their families (Adolescence, 1996; Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1986; American Sociological Review, 2001).

 

Civil Rights Complaint Filed against Woman for Seeking Christian Roommate

Posting an ad at your church that you are looking for a Christian roommate is evidently illegal in West Michigan.  Last July a 31-year-old woman did just that and is now facing a civil rights complaint that could include a punishment of several hundreds of dollars in fines and fair housing training.

“It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement, states Fair Housing Center of West Michigan Executive Director, Nancy Haynes.  She adds:  “There are no exemptions to that.”

The civil rights complaint filed against the roommate-seeking woman read in part that her advertisement “expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths.”

The woman’s attorney, Joel Oster, called the case “outrageous.”  He continued:  “Clearly this woman has a right to pick and choose who she wants to live with.  It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church—an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity.”

Oster is an attorney that works with Alliance Defense Fund and they will be defending the woman free of charge.  The Fair Housing Center of West Michigan is not backing down, however, claiming that they “want to make sure it doesn’t happen again.” Harold Core, Michigan Department of Civil Rights, told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling.

The complaint was filed by a person who saw the ad with the words “Christian Roommate Wanted” on the church bulletin board and then complained to the Fair Housing authorities.  It appears that political correctness now extends to who you can choose as a roommate.

To see more on this story go here.

UPDATE

The Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) has released a statement distancing themselves from this situation.  They MDCR has returned the complaint to Housing and Urban and Development.    To read their statement go here.

Your children and their “Right to Comprehensive Sex Ed”

The UN ideologues are at it again! This week a special UN Rapporteur or “expert” will be presenting to the UN General Assembly (GA) a report promoting yet another fabricated human-right – the “right to comprehensive sexual education.”   Comprehensive sex education is a movement promoting a curriculum that seeks to minimize abstinence while promoting what amounts to early sexualization of our children. The report, The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, outlines how children have a right to sex education unfettered by parents, religion and outdated notions of patriarchy that were designed to oppress sexuality.

Religion and patriarchy are barriers to sexual fulfillment

In the report’s opening statements it is made clear that Mr. Vernor Munoz, the UN special Rapporteur on Education, views religion as a stumbling block to sexual fulfillment.  He states that religion promotes patriarchy and patriarchy seeks to control sexuality; it is “a system of social order imposing supremacy of men over women…determines strict roles for men and women and even divides the sexes against themselves.”(para 7)  The reports also purports “that young people who believe in full gender equality have better sexual lives.”(para 21)

“[T]he Special Rapporteur considers that pleasure in and enjoyment of sexuality…should be one of the goals of comprehensive sexual education, abolishing guilt feelings about eroticism…  restricting sexual education to the issue of sexually transmitted diseases gives a limited view of sexuality…reducing sexual education to these aspects may create an erroneous associate between sexuality and disease, which is as harmful as associating it with sin.”(para 15)

The report warns that in some cases “sexual education has been obstructed in the name of religious ideas” and outlandishly states that “comprehensive [sex] education acts as a guarantor of a democratic and pluralistic environment.” (para 6)

Parents are not to have a say in their child’s sexual education

One of the more disturbing aspects of this report is the Rapporteur’s efforts to diminish parental involvement in their children’s sexual education.  You, as a parent, are not to have a say. The report pays special attention to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and openly states that a barrier to sexual education is “allowing parents to exempt their children from such education.” (para 27)

The report notes that various UN treaty monitoring have “called upon States to provide sexual education in a compulsory and systematic manner in schools”[emphasis added] (para 25) and that sex education should be a mandatory part of primary education.  It appears the author believes that even elementary students should be taught “their right to sexual pleasure.”  No mention is made of the importance of teaching young children and youth that sexual relations should occur within the bounds of marriage and instead refers to teaching children about “responsible partnerships and parenthood.” (para 35)  Marriage is mentioned one time and only in a negative context. (para 69)

Government’s role is to provide “better sexual lives”?

One of the more bizarre aspects of the report is the continual reference to the government’s necessary role in providing “better sexual lives” for young people. “   With all of the supposed jobs of government, we’re not sure we would have ever thought of that one!  The reports regularly references the “goal of education for sexuality”–read that again a second time and note that it is significantly different from traditional sex education.

The report, in general, slams men and states that “the goal of education for sexuality is also to construct affects and develop a transforming role for men by going beyond the strictly genital and physical aspect.” (para 22)

Playing the “diversity” and sexual orientation card

The report seems to not miss an opportunity to promote “sexual diversity” and prominently features the Yogyakarta Principles as “a fundamental tool” that the “Special Rapporteur fully endorses…” (para 23, 67)  This document was created by sexual rights activists in 2006 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia; it seeks to redefine gender and promote governmental, legal and societal recognition–including protection and promotion–of all types of sexual orientation. Now, this report wants to ensure that the Yogyakarta Principles will be applied to the education of children all over the world.

The report adds that it wants you, the taxpayer and civil society, to pay for their brand of sex education:  “These policies should focus on rights, gender, and respect for diversity; provide for coordination among agencies and with civil society; and provide the resources necessary to their implementation;” (para 87)

The report finishes up by calling on the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to “investigate specific problems relating to barriers and challenges to effect enjoyed of the right to Comprehensive Sexual Education…”  These radicals appear to be very serious about enforcing their dogma. (para 88)

Conclusion

UN “experts” this very week are promoting to international policy makers a mandated role of promoting and providing sexual rights -including sexual pleasure along with sexual health– deconstruction of male/female roles, and support for “sexual diversity” and the normalization of a range of sexual behaviors.  We cannot allow this particular document to be accorded any credibility or support.  The radical “sexual rights” agenda is gaining momentum within the international system and it must be stopped.

United Families International will have a representative at UN headquarters again this week addressing these issues and promoting a pro-family, pro-life position to UN delegates and committees.  The crucial “Third Committee” meetings continue to take place and UFI will do its part to ensure that documents such as this report do not get traction and that positive, family-affirming language finds its place in the ever-developing UN and international body of law.  As long as the UN system exists, and as long as that system promotes a radical, sexualized agenda, there is no other choice.

Please contact the U.S. State Department or the Foreign Affairs Ministers in your country to express your displeasure and objection to The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education.  Remember too, that in many nations elections will be held yet this calendar year.  Remind your elected leaders of how important the institution of the family and parental rights are to you. Urge them to specifically reject this report –it is aimed directly at you, your children, and your faith.

UPDATE!

The incoming Special Rapporteur for Education presented the above mentioned report to the UN General Assembly late on Monday afternoon.  Many UN member states were quick to criticize the report:  The Russian Federation, the Holy See, The Arab and African Groups, the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) and Caricom (coalition of Caribbean member states).  Our colleague Patrick Buckley, UN consultant for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, reported that “the U.S. [delegation] while expressing support for the right to education agreed that there is no such international right to comprehensive sexuality education.”

The Caricom group’s delivered statement harshly criticized the report:

“According to CARICOM’s understanding, “a right to sexual education, a right to comprehensive sexual education, or a right to sexuality education”, does not exist in any internationally agreed human rights instrument…  We therefore wish to put on record our strong disapproval of this attempt by the Special Rapporteur to create a new right within the universally established right to education, far exceeding his mandate and the mandate of the Council itself in the process…  [W]e take umbrage at the license taken by the Special Rapporteur in indulging his personal interests at the expense of Member States.”

The UN General Assembly took no action on the report during Monday’s gathering.  UFI will continue to work to keep this outrageous report from continuing through the UN system.  Watch our UFI blog and Tuesday alerts for up-dates.  For more information on some of the statements delivered in response to The Special Rapporteur’s Report on Education, visit Patrick Buckley’s blog here.

---

Messed up Minds, Lives and Families

“Marijuana us the number one addiction for 65 percent of all teens in drug rehab.  It is the gateway drug to cocaine and meth.  Marijuana harms lungs faster than smoking cigarettes.”  These are just a few of the statistics that have been highlighted in the effort to stop the legalization of marijuana.  The states of California, Arizona and South Dakota all have marijuana initiatives on their ballots to be decided on November 2.

A campaign ad/youtube video produced by Save California Families explains the harms of marijuana and the risks in its legalization.  Although United Families International does not deal directly with drug policy, the policy implications and the negative effect of marijuana on families brings us to a place where we feel we want to share this information.

After watching the video, please go to MarijuanaHarmsFamilies.com where you can access the video documentation containing research sources to support the points made in the video.

 

“More Trick than Treat:” UNICEF Loses Sight of Their Mission

It was 60 years ago this month when the United Nations Children’s Education Fund (UNICEF) began their highly successful “Trick or Treat for UNICEF” campaign.  Several generations of Halloween-costumed children have carried the orange donation boxes door to door to help children in countries around the world receive food, vaccinations, health care, and education.  Yet, few understand that some 25 years ago, UNICEF adopted another vision for their efforts, one that includes carrying the banner for radical feminists, promoting abortion and enticing children to engage in promiscuity and risky sexual behaviors.

Before your children get involved in a school group devoted to UNICEF, or they pick up a donation box for trick or treating, please be aware of the current thrust of UNICEF.

History:  Once a Leading Advocate for Children Now a Major Promoter of Anti-family Positions

- In 1946, UNICEF founded to provide medicine and food to stave off starvation in post-war Europe; very effective in their efforts.

- In 1953, original name–United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund”"changed to UN Children’s Fund (original acronym, UNICEF, retained)

- In the 1950′s, UNICEF was a leader in combating epidemics and disease with the distribution of vaccines and penicillin.  They also began to assist women in childbirth and developed a philosophy that embraced maternity.

- The 1960′s brought UNICEF heavily into the education world with 43 percent of their budget devoted to it.

- In 1970′s, branched out into infrastructure and providing a clean water supply

- In 1980′s,  Under the leadership of James Grant, targeted life and death interventions with GOBI (growth monitoring, oral rehydration, breast feeding, immunizations/vaccines)

- 1990s to present: embraces radical feminism and emphasizes “girl-child” and “reproductive and sexual rights.”
For a more thorough review of UNICEF’s history and dealings, see the well-document white paper prepared by Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute:  http://www.c-fam.org/docLib/20080424_Number_3_UNICEF_2003.pdf

Focus on the “Girl-Child:” UNICEF Not Concerned About Boys?

The UNICEF mandate to aid children was best accomplished by assisting women in their role as mothers and UNICEF had a decidedly “maternal” focus.  You can see that reflected in GOBI and especially the focus on breastfeeding.  During the late 1970′s and 80′s, as the feminist movement began to gain strength and moved into the UN system, feminist leaders began to exert influence with the UNICEF Executive Board.  Feminist ideology was not aligned with the notion of mothers remaining in their traditional domestic roles with an exclusive focus on the welfare of their children. UNICEF began to realize that feminism, to the degree it would divert attention from meeting the essential needs of children, was not compatible with the mission of UNICEF.

That gulf was eventually bridged, however, by the notion of the “girl child.”  In the world of “gender” politics that was an acceptable approach”"focusing on girls and thus the lifecycle of women and increasing their rights”"would allow both factions to rededicate themselves to helping children; but only one half of children.  Programs were devised and monies flowed towards programs directed at girls.  A search of UNICEF’s website for the word “girls” vs. “boys” will give you just a glimpse of that continued lopsided approach.

Abortion and “Reproductive Rights”

Although UNICEF denies supporting abortion, their record shows otherwise.  Here are just a few examples.

- In 2004, they actively opposed a New Zealand proposal that would have required parental consent for underage girls seeking abortion.

- In 2007, UNICEF was a sponsor of a global initiative now called “Women Deliver” calling for worldwide legalized abortion in an effort to promote maternal and child health care.

- Just last year (2009), they lobbied against language in the Dominican Republic’s new constitution that would have protected life “from conception until death” asking legislators to instead liberalize abortion laws.

- UNICEF continues to work closely with UNFPA another UN agency that actively promotes abortion and population control programs.

UNICEF is an opportunistic advocate for the spread of abortion rights.  Their denial of that support and their promotion of abortion is based on semantics and cleverly worded distortion of the facts surrounding their actual activities and expenditures of money.  However, we do want to give credit where credit is due.   This past spring, at Canada’s G-8 maternal health summit, UNICEF called for an end to the rancorous debate over abortion asking all parties to move forward by addressing specifically ways to save the lives of mothers and children in the developing world.

Condoms, Sexual Rights, and Graphic Sexual Materials

When HIV/AIDs became a worldwide health issue, UNICEF became heavily involved with condom distribution and the delivery of sexual information to children–some of it decidedly anti-family and unsavory.
In 2002, United Families International was the first to expose a UNICEF-funded book prepared for Latin America that encourages children to engage in sexual activities with other minors, homosexual sex, and bestiality. The book’s title (Spanish translation) “Theoretic Elements for Working with Mothers and Pregnant Teens” emphasizes that “Reproductive health includes the following components:  Counseling on sexuality, pregnancy, methods of contraception, abortion, infertility, infections and diseases.” An accompanying workbook instructs:

“Situations which you can obtain sexual pleasure:  1. Masturbation 2.  Sexual relations with a partner”"whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual 3. A sexual response that is directed towards inanimate objects, animals, minors, non-consenting persons.”

Two years earlier another controversial UNCIEF sexual education manual was distributed in El Salvador and they also were a backer of a controversial website for South African youth that uses the name LoveLife.

This past August, UNICEF was one of the sponsors of a “World Conference for Youth” in preparation for the upcoming “International Year of Youth.”  At that event, full sexual rights and freedoms were graphically promoted.  For a full description of the event and the exhibition displays go here.

Focus on “Children’s Rights” Rather Than Children’s Needs
UNICEF’s mission of direct action and service to children in need has shifted towards a stated policy of the promotion of controversial “child rights.” This new direction shifts emphasis away from providing services to children in need and focuses, instead, on programs that advance sexual and reproductive rights for children, displaces parental rights, and pushes child autonomy”"we believe to their detriment.

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal, The Lancet”"hardly a bastion of conservatism”"speaking on UNICEF deviation from its original mission stated:

“This rights-based approach to the future of children fits well with the zeitgeist of international development policy. But a preoccupation with rights ignores the fact that children will have no opportunity for development at all unless they survive. The language of rights means little to a child stillborn, an infant dying in pain from pneumonia, or a child desiccated by famine. The most fundamental right of all is the right to survive. Child survival must sit at the core of UNICEF’s advocacy and country work. Currently, and shamefully, it does not…  [UNICEF] has failed to address the essential health needs of children.”

Find Another Way to Donate to Children’s Welfare

The propaganda publicized by UNICEF for this project has deceived many schools and parents into encouraging children to participate in what looks like children helping children.  The truth is, most of these same adults would be horrified to know that their encouragement actually promotes abortion and sexual rights for children through programs that are being fueled by the donations received from children on Halloween.

The original mandate to provide basic health care and education services to the poor children of the world has been diluted by UNICEF and in its place is the destruction of millions of unborn children.  It is a cynical program that uses children to promote sexual promiscuity that negatively impacts children and families.

Conclusion

Caring parents should carefully consider the other options available for their efforts to needy children.  Thankfully there are many humanitarian programs worthy of support and funding as they assist disadvantaged children while promoting family friendly values.  United  Families understands the importance of saving lives while promoting positive behaviors that strengthen families. That is why United Families founded and has championed the “Stay Alive” HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Program for many years which has reached close to a million children in Africa.    Designed to reach children ages 9-14, Stay Alive empowers them to make positive choices before they reach the age of sexual activity. Stay Alive helps children focus on the goal of “living a long, loving life”.  The program teaches that the only sure way to avoid contracting the HIV virus is to avoid sexual contact before marriage, to marry someone who is disease-free, and to stay faithful to that partner throughout their “long, loving life”.

Stay Alive is a worthy alternative to the agenda driven, UNICEF programs we have described.  Your support for it and other UFI programs can teach your children the importance of family and the benefits of constructively helping children around the world.  Click here to donate today!

Youth Arrested for being Pro-life?

This story began back in 2008 when 18 pro-life advocates were arrested for standing on a public street and sharing a pro-life message.  They were handcuffed, hauled to jail and not told what the charges were until the next day.  The three females in the group, two of them under 18 were strip searched—twice.  The pro-life group has sued the Maryland state police officers involved and this week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4^th Circuit upheld a district court decision and denied the request of the police officers that they be immune to charges related to the incident.

This is a case of harassment and denial of rights by officers for what appears to be nothing more than a bias against the pro-life advocates and their message.  As I read an article by LifeSite News and see the photo of the young woman being handcuffed, I am very troubled—not only at the injustice of the situation, but also because I have spent enough time involved with pro-life individuals, especially the youth, to know of their goodness, their motivations and their innocence.  These are just good kids, trying to do a good thing—something they deeply believe in.  To picture them being handcuffed, thrown into a jail cell and strip searched! is a little much for me to handle.

This should be a wakeup call for people of all political persuasions.  At what point did we lose our right to stand on a public street, not obstructing or causing harm, and express our opinion?  The Maryland State troopers involved must be held accountable for their actions.

To read more on the story:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10101908.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=217461

The Carnage of Abortion, should it be displayed? UFI Readers Respond

“Do you believe that those who protest against abortion should be allowed to set up public displays of photos showing the carnage of abortion?”

Yes                 88 percent

No                  12 percent

We chose this topic because of the recent situation in Canada where university students were arrested for setting up an anti-abortion display at Carleton University.

This question gave our UFI staff some moments of reflection as well.  Clearly we oppose abortion and are actively working to stop policy that ends the life of unborn children, but this question brings to the forefront a discussion of whether or not it is disrespectful to the victims of abortion to display their mutilated bodies in that fashion.  Another consideration is whether or not this type of display alienates those we might hope to influence.  Both are good questions that deserve reflection.

Here are some arguments on the other side.  The truth is ugly, but people need to be made aware of the reality and the horror of what is occurring with abortion.  To use the logic of not presenting photos of what is occurring would be to say that we shouldn’t allow displays of the victims of the holocaust or other genocide tragedies—movies, photos, books of these tragedies should all be banned.  These are powerful teaching tools that need to be utilized on behalf of our unborn children.

As one UFI reader put it:

“If you want to keep yourself or your child from seeing awful things, switch off the TV, cut the internet, take away the cell phones and examine all and everything they read. Abortion is murder–the more people who realize it the better.  Especially the children who live because of our attention to at least part of that reality.”

Aggressive Homosexual Advocacy Impacts Military Families

It’s been an interesting few weeks and months.  There are many things that have occurred in the social policy world that should give all of us cause for great optimism.  Such things as the state of Nebraska’s new “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” Brazil’s President pledging not to decriminalize abortion or personally support anything that would negatively impact families or religious freedoms, the successful lawsuit by the San Diego firefighters who were forced to work at a gay parade”"all of these show the power of citizens who get involved and stand strong for families and traditional values.

Unfortunately we also live in a time when same-sex advocates and the courts have turned up the heat on the U.S. military, on churches, and on businesses.  We’ve seen efforts to malign Target Corp., we’ve seen the Human Rights Campaign up the ante on forcing companies to pay for transgendered surgery insurance, and we’ve seen various churches and their leadership openly attacked.

It’s disheartening and rather shocking how aggressive and abusive the proponents of the homosexual agenda have grown in the past few years.  As they call for “equality,” “acceptance,” and “tolerance” they simultaneously attack free speech, freedom of religion, and most aggressively, they attack traditional families.  While this hypocrisy is ever apparent to the layperson, the media has seemed to overlook it, touting the moral high ground of the homosexual agenda and similarly fostering negativity toward traditional values.

But sadly, the media isn’t the only one politicizing things that should remain unbiased–so is the United States Congress.  While most of what Congress does is by definition political, there are a few important things that should remain bi-partisan, one of those important things being support for troops in combat overseas.  But, once again the aggressive and selfish nature of the homosexual agenda is prevailing over the safety of United States troops as the politicos in Washington, D.C. and The United States court system has attempted to overturn the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy (DADT)”"even attaching an amendment to repeal DADT to crucial appropriations legislation which would extend money for equipment and support programs to the American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.   This is a political stunt that should not be tolerated nor should we tolerate any policy shifts that have the potential to inflict harm or damage the overall morale of military personnel.

A personal account on the impact of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

A United Families International supporter shares some personal insights on the impact to military families if DADT is repealed:

As I live alone in Germany with my husband in Iraq, halfway through a 12-month deployment, I’m amazed at the cunning and manipulative ways that I see this push for so-called human rights working from even more angles to tear apart families.  To the proponents of the homosexual agenda, same-sex marriage is a human right, apparently a more important human right than all the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan’s human right to life.

One of the biggest issues I have found among soldiers has to do with the government dictating their moral beliefs.  Especially for officers and higher ranking Non Commissioned Officers  (NCOs) who may have moral or religious objections to the homosexual lifestyle, a repeal of DADT would not just mean that homosexuals could serve openly in the military but that these officers and NCOs would have to defend the homosexual soldiers’ lifestyles.  With a military that is overwhelming conservative and supportive of traditional values, this has caused the most concern.   These families do not want a standard to be set in the military community that teaches their children to accept the homosexual lifestyle as a normal option and a healthy marriage and family.  Because the military community can be so insular – they go to Department of Defense Dependent Schools (DODDS) and military hospitals, even the grocery store is run by the military – a policy shift such as the acceptance and condoning of the homosexual lifestyle would then be endorsed not only in the soldiers’ unit but in their families, next door to them, in their schools, in all aspects of their lives.

The Department of Defense has been conducting large scale surveys of both soldiers and spouses of active duty military personnel to gauge their opinions about the issue of repealing DADT but Congress has been ambivalent toward waiting for the response.  The surveys were only just collected over a month ago and running the data on a survey of hundreds of thousands takes more than a couple weeks.  But clearly, Congress and the White House couldn’t care less about how this would actually impact a military that is already spread thin and worn out from this ten year war.  They’ve shown where their priorities lay and it’s with the political melee of the liberal left’s agenda and not with supporting the troops.  Soldiers and their families also understand this and any goodwill that the repeal could have among some has been tarnished by the way in which they’ve attempted to go about enforcing it. Attempting to attach the DADT repeal to the funding for our soldiers was the best way to demonstrate how little they value the sacrifices that these soldiers and their families are making every day.

This woman concludes:

“I am continually surprised by how the homosexual agenda’s mantra of equality has left others ‘hung out to dry’ as they place themselves and their wants above other’s feelings and needs.”

Conclusion

UFI recognizes the important work of military families around the world and the sacrifices they are making.  All citizens should be troubled when any group’s agenda is allowed to overshadow the security and the needs of soldiers and their families.

In a world where common sense is backed up with a growing body of scientific research all disproving the claims of the homosexual agenda, it seems the focused approach of same-sex advocates is to personally attack and harass everyone who doesn’t agree with them.  It’s a world where the values of parenting, marriage between a man and a woman, and the freedoms of religion, speech, and so many other freedoms can only be countered by being called hate speech.  With the growing ferocity of their claims and attacks, UFI and the promoters and protectors of the family must not shirk away in silence.  It is the time for us to be more outspoken.  We cannot allow the tactics of the homosexual agenda’s supporters to intimidate us.  If we sit silently, their campaign will be successful.

UFI stands firmly in support and defense of the family and the traditional values which create stronger and healthier communities, stronger and healthier governments, and a stronger and healthier world.  Please join us in our fight for the family.  Pledge your support today.

San Diego Firefighters Prevail in Gay Pride Parade Lawsuit

The Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that four San Diego firefighters had their rights violated and were sexually harassed when they were forced to work during a 2007 Gay Pride Parade.  The firefighters were forced to be part of the parade in spite of the fact that they had informed their supervisor days earlier that they had objections.

The Appeal Court ruling stated: “that the record contains substantial evidence to support a finding that the sexual harassment experienced by the Firefighters during the Pride Parade was severe and pervasive, thus altering the conditions of employment and creating a hostile or abusive work environment.”

That “hostile and abusive work environment,” the firefighters testified, included nearly four hours of waiting and then traveling the parade route while being subjected to spectators and parade participants “licking their lips and engaging in simulated sex acts, including groping themselves and others.”  Even the parade announcer made lewd and suggestive comments and some spectators exposed themselves.

The firefighters were originally awarded damages ranging from $5,000 to $14,200.  They also received over $500,000 for attorney fees.  The firefighters maintain that the money was not the issue and they had filed the suit because they had been forced by their superiors to be involved.

If there are further appeals, Alliance Defense Fund, who filed and defended it on behalf of the firefighters, has vowed to take this case “all the way to the California Supreme Court” if necessary.

Prior to this ruling the City of San Diego had already changed their policy so that only firefighters who volunteer will be on hand for future gay pride parades.

Nebraska’s Fetal Pain Abortion Law goes into Effect

The pro-life community around the country is celebrating as Nebraska’s revolutionary and hopefully trendsetting bill went into effect on Oct. 15.  Preborn children 20 weeks and older will now be protected as “The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” takes effect.  This bill acknowledges the scientific fact that preborn children, as young as 20 weeks, feel pain and will respond to stimuli in ways similar to an already born infant.

The language of the bill bans abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother “has a condition which so complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function…”

As the bill is written women who obtain an abortion would face no criminal penalties, but abortionists who break the law would face a Class IV felony charge—a five year maximum prison sentence, a $10,000 fine, or both.

We’re waiting to see if the pro-abortion lobby will challenge the bill.  Experts speculate that pro-abortion advocates may be reluctant to draw attention to this piece of legislation because they may not want a national dialogue on fetal pain nor would they want to run the risk that a challenge like this would advance through the court system.  Newsweek magazine acknowledged that this new legislation is a “game changer” for the national abortion debate.

United Families International congratulates Nebraska on crafting this historic piece of legislation that is quite unassailable and has rightfully returned the focus of the abortion debate to the condition and needs of each preborn child.    We recommit to the ongoing effort to pass similar legislation in other states.

Other articles on this topic:

http://lifenews.com/state5554.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10101813.html