Monthly Archives: April 2013

Every Little Child doesn’t just Want, but Desperately NEEDS, a Married Mommie & Daddy

This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it. – G.K. Chesterton

It’s Now Coming Out, That Merely HAVING A Parent Who Is Acting Out In The Active Homosexual Lifestyle–Even If The Child Lives Elsewhere–Is INCREDIBLY Damaging To The Child’s Happiness And Well-Being

The New NON-Normal

What about the children of same-sex couples?

by Peter Sprigg

…only 1 in every 17 children of “gay” parents actually lives with a same-sex couple. So the “new normal” isn’t normal…

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 4, 2013 (Family Research Council) – A few weeks ago, there was a flurry of news coverage of a new “Policy Statement” (that’s what it was, by its own labeling—it wasn’t a “study”) from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which endorsed the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

The impression which advocates for marriage redefinition seek to create in the public’s mind is that children of homosexual parents are essentially in exactly the same position as children of heterosexual parents, and children raised by same-sex couples are in the same position as children raised by married opposite-sex couples, except regarding the gender of the parents. Continue reading

Ryan Anderson videos removed from LifeSiteNews, get ’em here

This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it. – G.K. Chesterton

Youtube videos showing Heritage Foundation speaker Ryan T. Anderson (Co-Author with Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George of “What Is Marriage“) on CNN’s Piers Morgan with Suze Orman, have been removed from the LifeSiteNews article “Must-see video: A marriage expert’s masterful handling of Piers Morgan” by Rob Bluey, Thurday, March 28, 2013.

Get ’em here.

John Sutter, Don Lemon and Ryan Anderson

Ryan Anderson and Bryan Moulton

About Ryan T. Anderson.

Civil Divorce if Proposition 8 Overturned?

This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it. – G.K. Chesterton

Question to Canonist Ed Peters:

If the Court presumes to equate our Matrimony, the Queen of Sacraments, with Sodomy;

Can we not regard the action as having abrogated the terms of the civil rite, rendering what was formerly a mirror or echo of the essential Sacrament, now a ludicrous parody?

Co-Author with Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George of “What Is Marriage“, Heritage Foundation speaker Ryan T Anderson, rather unilaterally “debated” some of this question with CNN’s Piers Morgan and Suze Orman, the latter living an active homosexual lifestyle in a “committed relationship” spanning more than a decade.

(The video has been removed from the LifeSiteNews article “Must-see video: A marriage expert’s masterful handling of Piers Morgan” by Rob Bluey Thurday, March 28, 2013.)

Mr. Anderson refers to the fact that in all fifty states, religious institutions are legally capable of performing [counterfeit] “marriage” ceremonies for people of any lifestyle persuasion; therefore, why is it necessary that government attempt to alter the definition of authentic, natural marriage?

In light of the universal availability already of this “marriage” parody, why should we continue to legitimize the civil rite, if the Court so unwisely equates it with a civil abomination?

Should we not turn the tables and stop suffering the tax-code marriage penalty?

Can we morally go through civil divorce en masse?

Don’t “Like” Hate? Don’t Hate!

This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it. – G.K. Chesterton

The Unseemly Campaign Directed at One Man

by Austin Ruse

Justice Kennedy

Many years ago I sat with Justice Scalia at a Catholic prayer breakfast in New York City. As we ate, a waiter approached, leaned into Scalia and handed him a FedEx package. This was suspicious since FedEx does not deliver on Sunday.

Scalia said, “Must be a bomb” and tossed it unopened into the middle of the table where it lay ticking for the length of the morning. Scalia said it was probably some message about a case, probably Roe v. Wade. You got the feeling he gets this kind of thing all the time.

Scalia went on to say that in simpler times, members of the public likely did not know the names of the Supreme Court justices and that is the way it is supposed to be. The Court’s decisions should not be so intrusive into people’s lives that it would occur to them to learn their names let alone lobby them.

The Supreme Court has likely never seen a campaign like the one unfolding around the twin Prop 8 and DOMA cases. Continue reading