Stop Governor From Honoring Homosexual Activist, ACT NOW!

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has until Sunday to decide on a bill that would establish a day of significance for slain politician Harvey Milk, the first openly homosexual official to be elected to public office in California. The bill, promoted as a day to commemorate the life of a fallen civil rights activist, would directly undermine the parental rights and religious freedom of all Californians, and further the attempts to promote homosexual behavior under the banner of civil rights.

Harvey Milk, revered as “a martyr for homosexual rights,” served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for 11 months when he was murdered with Mayor George Moscone by fellow supervisor Dan White. During his political career, Milk actively promoted homosexual lifestyles, promiscuous sexual practices, and the entire LGBT agenda. Although Milk’s murder was in no way associated with his homosexuality and his time in public service insignificant, his life, career and death became symbolic icons for the gay rights movement.

If passed, the bill would officially establish May 22 as Harvey Milk Day and “encourage public schools and educational institutions to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on that date.” This means that schools would conduct activities commemorating and promoting the life of a man recognized solely for his homosexuality. It would not simply commemorate the life of a “civil rights activist,” but rather it would pressure schools to present homosexuality as an identity (rather than a behavior) entitled to civil rights protection and those morally opposed to homosexual behavior as discriminatory bigots. The homosexual agenda would, thus, become a state-sanctioned part of all public education in California.

Furthermore, the primary assumption behind the bill is inherently false and directly undermines the battle to defend traditional marriage. If passed, the bill would reinforce and write into law the belief that LGBT behavior is in fact a minority identifier equivalent to race, religion, gender or ethnicity, as it would establish Harvey Milk as a civil rights activist equal to Martin Luther King Jr. The entire homosexual agenda is dependent upon normalizing the fallacy that homosexual behavior is entitled to specialized civil rights protection and this bill would be just one more step in that process.

Therefore, the time to defend religious freedom, protect parental rights, and stop the state-sponsored promotion of homosexuality is now. You have until Sunday to let Gov. Schwarzenegger know that the people of California oppose this bill. Call him at 916-445-2841 or email him by clicking here and tell him he must VETO bill number SB572.

Sex Education at age 5

The United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) suggests that sex education is an entitled right to children of all countries and cultures starting at the age of five.

The 98 page report that was released in June of this year is called International Guidelines on Sexual Education. This report proposes a universal plan to educate children ages 5-18 on what they consider to be an “age-appropriate” curriculum.  They establish four age groups: 5-8 -years-old, 9-12-years-old, 12-15-years-old and 15-18-years-old.

Under the U.N.’s voluntary sex-ed program, kids just 5-8 years old will be told that “touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation” and that private parts “can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself.”

Now progressing to age 9, children will  learn about “positive and negative effects of ‘aphrodisiacs,” the ideas of “homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power,” that “both men and women can give and receive sexual pleasure” and the “definition and function of orgasm.”

Level three, or ages 12-15 suggests the discussion of “access to safe abortion and post-abortion care” and the “use and misuse of emergency contraception.”

By 15, adolescents should be exposed “advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion,” according to the guidelines.

The report states, “abstinence is only one of a range of choices available to young people,” the authors describe abstinence-only programs as “fear-based” and “designed to control young people’s sexual behavior by instilling fear, shame, and guilt.”

With claims that sex-education is now a human right, these heavy topics are a great concern to parental rights.

Genetically Engineered to be a “Donor Child”

A newly released movie, “My Sister’s Keeper” has brought the controversial topics of parental rights and designer families to the box office. In this thought provoking movie Anna, the main character, was created to be a “donor child” for her older sister Kate who has leukemia. The parents choose to conceive Anna through genetic engineering to ensure that she was perfect genetic match with Kate. Thus, Anna can donate blood, bone marrow and whatever else is necessary to keep her elder sister alive.

Anna loves her sister and never complains. Then, 11 years later, Kate’s kidneys begin to fail and she’ll need one of Anna’s. Anna finally says no. She hires a big-shot lawyer and takes her parents to court seeking “medical emancipation.”

This movie is very timely on the current issues with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and generations of designer families. “Designer families” are becoming more and more popular with European and American couples. Using today’s technology to “design” the number, type and sex of their families has geneticists, ethicists, pro-life and pro-family experts alarmed over the potential harm this practice will have on children, families and society as a whole, and especially on women.

We want to hear from our readers, Do you think it is ok for a family to genetically engineer a child in hopes of saving another?