Month Archives: September 2011

PART 2Prop 8 Trial Transcript in the Spotlight: Plaintiff Destroys Born Gay, Cant Change Myth

by Peter Sprigg

September 19, 2011

This is Part 2 of a 2-part blog post based on the transcript of the Proposition 8 trial—the legal challenge to the state constitutional amendment, adopted by California voters in 2008, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Today (Monday, September 19), Broadway will be the scene of a star-studded staged reading of a new play—one based on the transcript of the trial in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now known as Perry v. Brown). The unprecedented trial, presided over by the (then closeted, now out) homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, resulted in Walkers opinion in August 2010 declaring that the male-female definition of marriage violates the U. S. Constitution. The ruling is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

Yet the testimony of one of the actual plaintiffs in the case, Sandra Stier, undermines the argument by same-sex marriage advocates that gay people are denied the fundamental right to marry just because of who they are. It also directly contradicts Judge Walkers finding of fact number 51: Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals. In fact, Stiers testimony undermines two of the most fundamental premises of the entire homosexual movement—the claims that people are born gay, and that a persons sexual orientation can never change.

Stier testified that she was married—to a man—for twelve years, and had two biological children with him. Even more startling is her admission that she did not learn that she was a lesbian until she was in her mid-thirties.

Part 1 of this post featured the beginning of attorney Ted Olsons direct examination of Stier, dealing with her marriage to her husband.

This, Part 2, features Stiers testimony about her relationship with her current lesbian partner, Kristin Perry.

Stiers testimony appears in bold; [my editorial comments are in bracket and italics].

 

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

TrialDay 1

1/11/2010 9:00:00 AM

 

Transcript pp. 163-167

… .

 

Q. When did you meet Ms. Perry?

A. I met Kris around 1996.

Q. And how did your relationship with her develop? And go ahead.

A. Well, when I first met Kris, of course, I hadn’t known her previously. I was teaching a computer class and she was a student in my class. So I just sort of knew of her, but then we started working together on projects at work and ended up being coworkers and became fast friends quite quickly. And we were friends for quite some time and I began to realize that the feelings I had for her were really unique and different from friends, feelings I normally had towards friends. And they were absolutely taking over my thoughts and my — sort of my entire self. And I grew to realize I had a very strong attraction to her and, indeed, I was falling in love with her.

Q. And tell us when you realized finally that you had fallen in love with her?

A. I really — I realized that in 1999, early in the year.

[Other anecdotal accounts of lesbian relationships suggest that this pattern is fairly typicalthey begin as friendships which grow more and more intimate emotionally, and only at the end become sexual. She does not report that she looked at her partner and immediatelyor even quicklyfelt a strong sexual attraction to her. Again, this undermines the claim that all lesbians have an innate orientation which makes them sexually attracted to women in general.]

Q. Did your falling in love with Kris have anything to do with the dissolution of your marriage?

A. My marriage was troubled on many fronts and had been in a very, very difficult state. And the end of my marriage was precipitated by my own extreme unhappiness, my ex-husband’s severe problems with alcohol and his inability to provide the type of support as a husband and a family person that I had to have.

[Since Stier realized in 1999, early in the year that she was in love with Kristin Perry, and her marriage also ended in 1999, it is somewhat difficult to give credence to this denial, whatever difficulties her husband may have had. Advocates of same-sex marriage often ask, What harm could same-sex marriage do to your marriage? In the case of Stiers marriage, it appears that societys growing acceptance of homosexual relationships may have made it easier for her to leave her husband. If same-sex marriage were legalized, and it were possible to go directly from a heterosexual marriage to a homosexual one, the incentive to break up the first marriage might be even greater. Thisthe breakup of some existing opposite-sex marriagesis a potential harm of same-sex marriage which is very real. However, it is impossible to predict in advance who will experience it.]

Q. Did your sexual orientation or your discovery of your sexual orientation have anything to do with the dissolution of that marriage?

A. No, it did not.

[Again, this is a fascinating admission. It would seem more consistent with typical homosexual propaganda for her to say, as noted above, I realized I was living a lie, or I decided it was time to be who I really am.

Judge Walker supported his Finding 51 with testimony from a witness who stated:

Some gay men and lesbians have married members of the opposite sex, but many of those marriages dissolve, and some of them experience considerable problems simply because one of the partners is gay or lesbian. A gay or lesbian person marrying a person of the opposite sex is likely to create a great deal of conflict and tension in the relationship.

Yet Sandra Stiers testimony clearly does not support this theory. She states flatly that her discovery of [her] sexual orientation did not have anything to do with the dissolution of that marriage. The implication seems to be that if her husband had not had severe problems with alcohol and had been able to provide the type of support as a husband and a family person that she needed; and if she had not met and fallen in love with Kristin Perry; she might well have remained married to her husband until his death, never learning that she was gay.]

Q. Your husband is no longer living, is that correct?

A. That’s true.

Q. Then tell us about how your relationship with Ms. Perry developed?

A. Well, my relationship with Kris, the romantic part of the relationship certainly started for me in a — just a very exciting place. I had never experienced falling in love before, and I think

Q. Are you saying that you weren’t in love with your husband?

A. I was not in love with my husband, no.

Q. Did you think that you were at some point?

A. I had a hard time relating to the concept of being in love when I was married to my husband. And while I did love him when I married him, I honestly just couldn’t relate when people said they were in love. I thought they were overstating their feelings and maybe making a really big deal out of something. It didn’t really make sense to me. It seemed dramatic. You know, when you grow up in the midwest and in a farming family — which is a really unique way to grow up, if anybody knows much about that — but there is a pragmatism that is inherent and it’s part of the fabric of life and an understated way of being that is just pervasive in terms of your development. And I remember as a young girl talking to my mom about love and marriage and she would say, “You know, marriage is more than romantic love. It’s more than excitement. It’s an enduring long-term commitment and it’s hard work.” And in my family that seemed very true.

(Laughter.)

[It saddens me that there was laughter in the courtroom at the statement that [marriage is] an enduring long-term commitment and it’s hard work. Truer words were never spokeneven with couples who were madly in love when they first married, and even with couples who still are.]

So I really thought that was what I was kind of signing up for when I got married; not that it would be bad, but that it would be hard work and I would grow into that love, and that I needed to marry a good, solid person and I would grow into something like my parents had, which was really a lovely marriage and still is.

[I am glad that she says that her mother and fathers marriagepresumably one that modeled that enduring long-term commitment and hard workwas really a lovely marriage and still is. It was also a fruitful onewithout the natural procreation possible only in opposite-sex relationships, Ms. Stiers life would never have begun. It is simply obtuse to deny that this is the central reason why marriage is a public institution, and why it is defined as a male-female union.]

Q. And then you were — I interrupted you. You were in the midst of describing what happened in terms of your own feelings as your relationship with Ms. Perry developed?

A. Well, with Kris my — so we have this wonderfully romantic relationship and — that just really grew and blossomed very beautifully. And not only were we in love, but we wanted we realized fairly soon that we wanted to build a life together. We wanted to join our families and live as a family. That we didn’t want to date. I was 36 or 37 years old, and Kris is a tiny about it younger than me, but we really wanted to build a family together and have that kind of life of commitment and stability that we both really appreciated.

Q. How convinced are you that you are gay? You’ve lived with a husband. You said you loved him. Some people might say, Well, it’s this and then it’s that and it could be this again. Answer that.

A. Well, I’m convinced, because at 47 years old I have fallen in love one time and it’s with Kris. And our love is — it’s a blend of many things. It’s physical attraction. It’s romantic attraction. It’s a strong commitment. It’s intellectual bonding and emotional bonding. For me, it just isn’t love. I really, quite frankly, don’t know what that would be for adults. I don’t know what else to say about it.

[She has fallen in love one time and its with Kris. This seems a rather limited data point on which to base any claim that she has an innate lesbian identityan enduring pattern of sexual attraction toward other women.]

Q. Why are you a plaintiff in this case?

A. Well, I’m a plaintiff in this case because I would like to get married, and I would like to marry the person that I choose and that is Kris Perry. She is a woman. And according to California law right now, we can’t get married, and I want to get married.

[This is a succinct and accurate statement of her situation under the current law. And some peoplepeople who feel there is nothing morally wrong with engaging in homosexual conduct; that the definition of marriage has nothing to do with the procreative potential of opposite-sex relationships; that being raised by both their mother and father provides no advantage to children; and that changing the definition of marriage would have no impact at all on the institution of marriagemay sympathize with it and wish to see Stiers desire to marry Perry be fulfilled.

However, this provides no basis whatsoever for claiming that Californias definition of marriage violates the United States Constitution. Thwarting a persons desires is not at all the same as violating a persons constitutional rights.]

Peyton Manning had Adult Stem Cell Procedure

by David Prentice

September 19, 2011

Peyton Manning, quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts and four-time NFL MVP, apparently went to Europe to get an adult stem cell procedure on his neck, according to a report Sunday by Jay Glazer of Fox Sports. Manning has had three surgeries on his neck in the last 19 months, Little detail was available, but the information indicates that the procedure may have used adipose (fat) derived adult stem cells from Manning’s own body; this autologous procedure (using your own adult stem cells) bypasses any problems of transplant rejection and is relatively safe. Manning’s adult stem cells may have then been injected around the site of his problem vertebra in the neck, to assist healing and help with spinal disc fusion. In that respect, it sounds similar to the procedure that Texas Gov. Rick Perry received in Houston, Texas, for his back problem.

Glazer indicates in his report that Manning went to Europe for the adult stem cell procedure because it is not yet approved in the U.S. This may be true, since Europe is well ahead of the U.S. in current use of stem cells for actual patient treatments. ALL of those treatments involve adult stem cells, of course.

Glazer’s suggestion that only embryonic stem cell treatments are available in the U.S. is inaccurate, however. It’s true that the only three approved clinical trials experimenting with embryonic stem cells are in the U.S.; with a total of four patients known to have been injected with the dangerous embryonic stem cells, and no results as yet.

But there are actually over 2,200 FDA-approved adult stem cell clinical trials ongoing or completed, most of which in this list are in the U.S. That includes several adult stem cell trials using adult stem cells for spinal fusion, and even a couple of adipose-derived adult stem cell trials in Indianapolis. Maybe Peyton realized that only adult stem cells had real potential for safe and ethical treatment of patients. Hopefully, he will talk about his experience so more people understand the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells.

Prop 8 Trial Transcript in the Spotlight: Plaintiff Destroys Born Gay, Cant Change Myth (Part 1)

by Peter Sprigg

September 16, 2011

On Monday, September 19, Broadway will be the scene of a star-studded staged reading of a new playone based on the transcript of the trial in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now known as Perry v. Brown).

The Perry case is the federal constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman which was adopted by California voters in 2008. The unprecedented trial, presided over by the (then closeted, now out) homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, resulted in Walkers stunningly biased opinion in August 2010 declaring that the male-female definition of marriage violates the U. S. Constitution. The ruling is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuitbut if upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court, it would force the legalization of same-sex marriage on all fifty states (overturning the constitutions of thirty).

The play, titled simply 8, was written by homosexual writer Dustin Lance Black, who won an Oscar for his screenplay for the biopic Milk, about the murdered homosexual San Francisco politician Harvey Milk. Actors Morgan Freeman and John Lithgow will portray attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson, the prominent Democratic and Republican attorneys (respectively) who teamed up to argue the case against Proposition 8. The one-night reading is a fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization formed to finance the lawsuit.

Homosexual activists seem convinced that publicizing the transcript of the trial will help persuade the public that Walkers ruling was correct. Yet in truth, there is much in the transcript that directly contradicts Judge Walkers opinion and his spurious findings of fact.

In particular, the testimony of one of the actual plaintiffs in the case, Sandra Stier, undermines the argument by same-sex marriage advocates that gay people are denied the fundamental right to marry just because of who they are. It also directly contradicts Judge Walkers finding of fact number 51: Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals. In fact, Stiers testimony undermines two of the most fundamental premises of the entire homosexual movementthe claims that people are born gay, and that a persons sexual orientation can never change.

As Stier made clear in answering Olsons questioning, she was marriedto a manfor twelve years, and had two biological children with him. Even more startling is her admission that she did not learn that she was a lesbian until she was in her mid-thirties.

Below is the transcript of the beginning of Olsons direct examination of Stier, dealing with her marriage to her husband. Part 2 of this post will go over Stiers testimony about her relationship with her current lesbian partner, Kristin Perry.

Stiers testimony appears in bold; [my editorial comments are in bracket and italics].

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

TrialDay 1

1/11/2010 9:00:00 AM

Transcript pp. 160-163

PERRY - DIRECT EXAMINATION / OLSON 160

 

THE COURT: Mr. Olson, your next witness.

 

MR. OLSON: Thank you. The plaintiffs would like to call plaintiff Sandra Stier.

 

SANDRA STIER, called as a witness for the Plaintiffs herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

 

THE WITNESS: Yes.

 

THE CLERK: Thank you. State your name, please?

 

THE WITNESS: Sandra Belzer Stier.

 

THE CLERK: Spell your last name?

 

THE WITNESS: S-t-i-e-r.

 

THE CLERK: And your first name?

 

THE WITNESS: S-a-n-d-r-a.

 

THE CLERK: Thank you.

 

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MROLSON:

 

Q. Ms. Stier, are you one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit?

 

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Would you describe for us and for the Court your background; where you are from, your age, what you do professionally and your family?

 

A. Well, I — I grew up in the midwest. I grew up on a farm in southern Iowa. I’m 47 years old. My background is, really, I lived in Iowa for my youth. I grew up going to public schools, attended college in Iowa, moved to California right after college, and I now work for Alameda County — or for a county government as an information system director in healthcare systems.

Q. And do you — you live with Ms. Perry?

 

A. I do.

Q. And tell us about your family?

 

A. Well, our family is a blended family with our four boys. We each bring two biological children to our family and each other.

[Here is the first hint that the plaintiffsboth Kristin Perry and Sandra Stiermay not have always been lesbians. Both brought to their relationship biological children. Unless they were conceived by a sperm donor through artificial insemination, this would suggest that both had been in sexual relationships with men at one time.]

Q. And just their general ages?

 

A. Well, our two younger sons are in high school. They are teen-agers. And our two older sons are out of high school, young adults.

Q. How would you describe your sexual orientation?

 

A. I’m gay.

Q. When did you learn that about yourself?

 

A. I really learned it about myself fairly late in life, in my mid-thirties.

[Usually, when homosexual activists are promoting the born gay, cant change myth, they trot out people who say, Ive known I was gay all my life. Yet their plaintiff in this landmark court case admits that she did not learn that she was gay until her mid-thirties. This is an astonishing admission.]

Q. Had you been married before at that time?

 

A. Yes, I was married before.

Q. You were married to a man?

 

A. Yes, I was.

[Here is an important point. Advocates of same-sex marriage say things like, Gay people arent allowed to marry, or, Why should someone be denied the right to marry because of who they are? Not only is Sandra Stier not being denied the right to marryshe has actually been married in the past. Homosexuals, as individuals, already have exactly the same right to marry as any other individualand subject to the same restrictions (no one may marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, orin California and 43 other statesa person of the same sex). The law treats same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples, because a same-sex relationship is not a marriage but all individuals are treated the same in terms of the fundamental right to marry.]

Q. When did you get married and where did you live?

 

A. I got married in 1987, and we lived most of the — most of that marriage in Alameda, California.

Q. And you had no feeling at that point in time married to a man that you were a lesbian?

 

A. At that time I did not.

[Another important point. When the subject is raised of people who may experience same-sex attractions choosing to marry someone of the opposite sex, such unions are denounced by homosexual activists as repressing who they really are or living a lie. Judge Walker supported Finding 51 by claiming that for gay men and lesbians, opposite-sex marriage … would compel them to negate their sexual orientation and identity. Stier makes it quite clear that was not the case with hershe had no feeling that she was a lesbian, so her marriage to a man did not negate her sexual orientation and identity.]

Q. And did you have a warm, loving relationship with that individual?

 

A. Umm, I had, unfortunately, a difficult relationship for most of our marriage, but it did start out with the best intentions.

Q. Well, did you encounter gay people growing up in Iowa? I’m wondering how this evolved, this — your realization of how you characterize yourself these days. Tell us how that evolved from your youth in Iowa?

 

A. Growing up in Iowa on a farm in the country where the — you know, the small town that I went to high school in had 1500 people and the towns around us were fairly similar. I really had a fairly sheltered upbringing; a good upbringing, but sheltered. We spent most of our time in our home, you know, working with my parents. We didn’t really travel and go to any place that was very different from where I grew up. And I did not know of any gay people. I didn’t even know of gay people or, really, even the concept of a gay lifestyle or sexuality until I was like a teenager.

Q. Tell us when you moved to California?

 

A. I moved to California in 1985 when I graduated.

THE COURT: Were you married in Iowa before you came to California or were you married after you came to California?

 

THE WITNESS: I moved here in 1985 and got married in 1987. So that was in California.

 

THE COURT: And did you meet your husband in California?

 

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

 

BY MROLSON:

 

Q. Tell us about that. Did you have a relationship with him for a certain period of time before you got married?

 

A. Yes, I did. We dated for about a year before we got married.

[Again, her relationship with her husband developed in a way entirely typical of heterosexual relationships and marriages.]

Q. And give us the date, again, of the marriage?

 

A. November 14th, 1987.

Q. ‘87. And when did the marriage come to an end?

 

A. The marriage came to an end in 1999.

[Note that the marriage lasted for twelve years. This was not a short, doomed from the start type relationshipit even lasted well past the classic seven-year itch.

Part 2 of this post will go over Stiers testimony about her relationship with her current lesbian partner, Kristin Perry.]

Upcoming Events Promoting the Dignity of the Human Person in the DC Area

by Family Research Council

September 16, 2011

- On Tuesday, September 20, the National Catholic Partnership on Disability will host a webinar, “Threats to Life from Physician-Assisted Suicide”. Registration is free at www.ncpd.org. For more information, contact Peg Kolm: mkolm@adw.org or 301-853-4560.

- In Altum Productions, the talented Allot brother film-making team is hosting a benefit on Friday, October 7, 2011 from 6- 8 pm, in Alexandria, Virginia for an upcoming documentary on prenatal disability diagnosis, “Flashes of Color”. A shocking 90% of babies in the womb who are diagnosed with a serious disability are aborted. Flashes of Color, seeks to highlight the profound contributions of people with disabilities at a time when a “culture of perfection” is fueling a deep and deadly bias against them. For more information contact In Altum Productions.

Classic Infanticide Case No Big Deal in Canada

by Family Research Council

September 16, 2011

Last week in Edmonton, Alberta, appellate court judge Joanne Veit issued a shocking decision regarding the fate of Katrina Effert who killed her newly born baby in 2005.

By law, the maximum amount of sentencing time in prison for infanticide is five years however the local media reported that Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son.

In 2005, Effert, who was nineteen at the time, gave birth to a baby boy, strangled him with her underwear and then threw his body over the fence into a neighbors yard. Mark Steyn from National Review Online appropriately labeled this act a Fourth Trimester Abortion in a post earlier this week.

The Calgary Herald reports that Veit called it a classic infanticide case and sentenced her to a three-year suspended sentence with probation. Judge Joanne Veit also expressed sympathy for Effert. [M]any Canadians … generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support…Canadians are grieved by an infants death, especially at the hands of the infants mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.

Ethicist Wesley Smith pointed out the irony that had Effert strangled a dog, she would have received no sympathy whatsoever. Hes right. Michael Vick received 23 months in jail for participating in dog fighting. So, in our culture as it stands you can participate in dog fighting (which I am not advocating, by the way I love animals) and end up in the slammer for close to two years. But strangle your baby and you might be able to get off with a little community service time.

Ten Years of Healing Hearts with Adult Stem Cells

by David Prentice

September 16, 2011

Prof. Dr. med. Bodo-Eckehard Strauer did his first clinical treatment using adult stem cell transplant for a heart patient on March 30, 2001, over ten years ago. Since that time, he and his team have treated hundreds of patients, have published a text on such heart treatments, and many other groups around the world have used adult stem cells for treatment of heart disease.

Now Prof. Dr. med. Strauer and his colleague, Prof. Dr. med. Gustav Steinhoff, have published a review of the field of adult stem cell therapy for heart:

10 Years of Intracoronary and Intramyocardial Bone Marrow Stem Cell Therapy of the Heart: From the Methodological Origin to Clinical Practice

The paper is published as a “State-of-the-Art Paper” in Journal of the American College of Cardiology. It is far more than a historical overview. The paper discusses the rationale for use of adult stem cells to repair cardiac tissue, examines various routes of administration to the heart as well as possible mechanisms of action, documents the effectiveness in studies treating acute as well as chronic heart damage including chronic dilated cardiomyopathy, and provides perspectives for future studies to improve heart treatments. Regarding previous studies of adult stem cells for heart therapy, the authors note:

Thus, the therapeutic advantage clearly prevails, and clinical use has already been realized.

and point to the future

Interest should be focused on adult stem cell projects that have already proven significant clinical efficacy, but without having any ethical concerns.”

How did the I Do People Become I Donts?

by Robert Morrison

September 14, 2011

New Yorks 9th Congressional District this week elected a conservative Republican to fill the seat of the disgraced Anthony Weiner. The winner of the special election will be the first from his party to represent a district that also sent the late Geraldine Ferraro and current U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer to Congress.

When the insiders acknowledge the role the marriage issue played in this race, its gratifying. Its even nicer when they recognize FRC Action for the part it played.

The Democratic nominee had, as a State Assemblyman, voted to give legal recognition to same-sex couples. But thats not usually how the media describes it. Instead, the winner of the special election will be described as anti-gay marriage.

How did we, the I Do people, become I Donts?

Marriage has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman in this country, and in most countries, for centuries. The U.S. Census has so recognized it since Thomas Jefferson directed the first census in 1790. The Republican Party wrote its first platform in 1856. We all know the Republicans took a strong stance against the extension of slavery. But how many of us know the Republicans also opposed polygamy? Slavery and polygamy are the twin relics of barbarism, the Republicans said forthrightly, from its beginning.

Were also routinely described as the anti-abortion rights people. We dont agree that so great a wrong could ever be a right. Hillary Clinton once agreed with us. She told Newsweek (October 31, 1994) that abortion is wrong. That was then. Before that time and since that time, she has gone into every nation, even unto the ends of the earth, pressing for abortion as a right.

Again, we ask this question: Doesnt everyone deserve a birth day?

We say yes. They say no. But somehow we are the antis.

Public relations experts will tell you it is better to be pro- than anti-. Thats why Ronald Reagan, described in the 1960s as a former General Electric pitchman, understood the power of pro-life, not anti-abortion. He was the first political candidate to describe himself as pro-life. Even today, the Washington Postwhen they cannot avoid itputs pro-life in scare quotes. As they never do with Hamas, al Qaeda, or Hezbollah.

When they call us the Taliban wing, they dont even put Taliban in scare quotes. Pretty scary.

Several years ago, at a large Washington gathering I attended with the Prime Minister of Israel, a well-dressed gentleman stood to ask a question:

Mr. Prime Minister. I run a large public relations firm here. I give as much as I can to support Israel. But I have to say, it would be so much better if you could sometimes put Israels position in more positive terms. Its an advantage in selling anything. The media is forever portraying you in negative terms. Youre always the NO man.

Menachem Begin looked thoughtfully at the questioner. He did not seem irritated, and answered with Old World courtliness.

Mr. Public Relations. I thank you for coming. I am grateful for your support of the Jewish state and for this question. I will ask my ministers what we can do about putting Israels case to the world in more positive terms, as you suggest.

But you will grant me this: In our part of the world, there are certain great precedents for

Thou Shalt Not.

Should marriage survive? YES! Does this child deserve a birth day? YES!

Next question.

New Video: 62,000 Petitions Urging Mayor Bloomberg to Allow Clergy, Prayer, First Responders

by Carrie Russell

September 13, 2011

On September 8, 2011, Cathy Ruse, Senior Fellow for Legal Studies at the Family Research Council joined New York City Councilman Fernando Cabrera on the steps of City Hall to deliver over 62,000 petitions urging Mayor Michael Bloomberg to allow first responders and clergy to participate in the September 11th Memorial Service. Click here to read Cathy Ruse’s remarks at the press conference.

Australian Report Shows Kids are Healthier, Wealthier…yet Worse Off

by Krystle Gabele

September 13, 2011

Are children better off growing up in a healthier environment and a higher socioeconomic class? This is all contingent on whom you ask. According to a recent study commissioned by the Australian Christian Lobby, this might not be the case.

The study, For Kids Sake: Repairing the Social Environment for Australian Children and Young People, noted that Australia ranks high on social development, education, and economic well being. However, there is something underlying: Increased reports of child abuse and neglect, as well as an increase in mental health disorders. These reports encompass all socioeconomic levels.

Why has this been occurring? According to the studys author, Patrick Parkinson, the increase in child abuse reports and mental health disorders can be attributed to one key factor: The breakdown of the family.

Living in a family other than that of the two biological parents before the age of 16 is well-documented as being associated with a wide range of adverse results for children’s well-being.

Some people consider that the reason for this is that the adults who form stable marriages tend to be more well-adjusted and better off economically, so it is not so much the question of family structures but rather the personal characteristics of the parents that is the deciding factor.

Although this might be true to some extent the report quoted research that said studies using sophisticated statistical controls, including genetic factors, point in the direction of family breakdown being a significant cause of problems for children, rather than it just being the quality of the adults.

There is no doubt that the breakdown of the family has been a key contributor to the rise in mental illness and child abuse cases. Poor family relationships, marital unhappiness, and divorce all have negative impacts on a childs well being. The statistics are alarming, and children in the United States are experiencing the same effects as well.

What can be done to prevent the breakdown of the family? Parkinson suggests stronger marriage preparation and implementing and providing greater support for organizations that help families.

However, Parkinson is also forgetting one important point: Encouraging families to attend religious services. According to FRCs Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI), children who attend religious services weekly tend to be less depressed and that marriages tend to be stronger and happier when couples attend church together. Perhaps the greatest way to combat the breakdown of the family is through faith.

Krugman Plays the Blame Game

by Krystle Gabele

September 12, 2011

It was a somber Sunday, as we looked back to the events that shattered our sense of security ten years ago yesterday. In DC and across our nation, people gathered to remember the attacks of 9/11 and the lives lost. For some, it was a relaxing Sunday and for others a chance to give back to our communities. We are just as unified, as we were when we learned of these attacks.

However, when I was reading the New York Times this morning, I happened to come across Paul Krugmans op-ed piece slamming the commemorations of 9/11 and slamming then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani and President George W. Bush for cashing in on the tragedy. Krugman further accused them of using 9/11, as a cause to fight in Afghanistan and referring to it as an occasion for shame.

9/11 is not an occasion for shame as Krugman states, rather it is a time to reflect and remember the events that unfolded ten years ago. Families lost loved ones, our country became more unified and grieved together. Our leaders did what they believed was right in terms of defending our nation from further attacks.

While Krugman has the right to publish whatever he wishes, he should really be ashamed of saying that 9/11 created opportunity for war.

August 2011 «

» October 2011

Archives