Delegates at the World Congress of Families signed a declaration May 27th decrying “ideologies of statism, atomistic individualism, and sexual revolution” and affirming the natural family.
The Madrid Declaration reaffirms Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.” The declaration was adopted by 3,100 delegates assembled on May 25-27 for the World Congress of Families at the Palacio de Congresos in Madrid.
The World Congress of Families is a network of pro-family organizations from all over the world. They promote the rebuilding of the family as the “seed of civil society.” It was founded in 1997 by Allan Carlson, and has had 5 congresses since 1997.
The Declaration says, “Recent legal and public policy changes have corrupted the meaning and dignity of marriage, devalued parenting, encouraged easy divorce and births outside of marriage, confused sexual identities, promoted promiscuity, created conditions that increased child abuse, isolated the elderly, and fostered depopulation.”
29 Comments
This is an organization that we have needed for a long time.
LOL, best of luck with this! Doesn't sound too different than those who wish to protect the purity of the white race.
Good news.
Ah, so mothers and fathers raising their own children is equivalent to white racism to Pete and his fellow lunatics.
Good.
Glad to have it out in the open.
It is long since time to have it out in the open.
MN, MD, WA, hope you are listening.
Carol Ugochukwu, a widely traveled and well educated Nigerian and who is their African Family Policy Advisor, (http://www.profam.org/people/thc.ugochukwu.htm) is a much different person than what one would expect from Pete's unsupported and gratuitous slander.
Pete,
Did you just pull the race card again...?
Parasite!
It looks like pete has been reduced to personal attacks.
Ann Coulter said it best "if you're not leaving a liberal in a sputtering fit of rage, then you're not doing your job"
Clearly that has been accomplished.
Great news from the World Congress of Families. I'm glad to see an international organization taking a stand for marriage and children.
@Publius, thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it will fall on Pete's deaf ears. He is at the bottom of the barrel in terms of pro-ssm commenters, and any attempts at rational discussion is wasted energy.
All he knows how to do is lie, slander, and attempt to intimidate opponents, since he doesn't have the intellectual capacity to defend his position, or critique the positions of others.
I said a few threads back that Professor John Corvino is a breath of fresh air as compared to most pro-ssm commenters. But in reality, most of those pro-ssm commenters are a breath of fresh air as compared to Pete.
And I'm not saying this just based on his trolling of the NOM Blog as "Pete," but based on experience with him under other monikers on other forums.
The question is how long the moderator feels that "Pete" should be allowed to use comment space.
Perhaps s/he feels Pete does a great deal for our side by posting his slime. That's always a possibility.
This was too long of a comment to dedicate to Pete in any case. I just find it sad that he can barf near the top of the thread and derail it by refocusing the attention of marriage supporters.
The admin will eventually tire of his antics, I'm sure; and he'll assume another name to fulfill his need for our attention.
"Did you just pull the race card again...?"
Nope, your bigotry and that of racist us pretty much the same.
"It looks like pete has been reduced to personal attacks."
No more than any NOMer here, what's up with your hypocrisy?
"Ah, so mothers and fathers raising their own children is equivalent to white racism to Pete and his fellow lunatics."
No, saying that there is only one kind of family and that you seek to legislate what others do is much like the racist practice of racial superiority. But you can't explain this to someone who can't grasp our solar system.
See you guys in court, bring all that evidence! LOL
Hmmm. Ineteresting. So, just as the practice of racism was wrong all those years, so the practice of mothers and fathers raising their own children in families was wrong all those years.
Both constituted evils.
Rotsa ruck selling that hysterical non sequitir, Pete.
Oh, and as for the solar system, take it up with Einstein.
Pete can post all these comments but I my one won't show up
Maybe because I attacked Pete in it. But that still wouldn't explain NOM's moderation system
Indeed, Ash.
Remarkable, the kinds of filth and blasphemy the opposition is able to post here, while responses from marriage defenders are Memoryholed.
It is well beyond puzzling now........
Pete,
By playing the race card you paint yourself as a parasite; a blood sucker completely dependent upon the struggles of your host.
Our evidence has already been presented:
Baker v Nelson 1972
""Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, 'gay rights' claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), [footnote omitted] but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal 'prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions.' Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977) (per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."[."
Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings.
"Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (1972)
CASE: Male companions applied for and were denied a marriage license on the grounds that they were of the same sex.
FACTS: Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell made an application for a marriage license with the respondent, who is the clerk of Hennepin County District Court.
They were denied a license on the grounds that they were not man and woman, but man and man. The trial court ruled that the respondent was not required to issue a marriage license and specifically directed that a marriage license not be issued to them. The couple appealed.
BAKER ARGUES:
The absence of an express statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages evinces a legislative intent to authorize such marriages.
The law is unconstitutional because it (a) denies petitioners a fundamental right guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, arguably made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and (b) petitioners are deprived of liberty and property without due process and are denied the equal protection of the laws, both guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
STATE ARGUES: Probably that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting homosexual marriages, that the state has the power to regulate marriage.
COURT SAYS: Affirms the lower court ruling, denying the men a marriage license.
HOLDING: State did not deprive a gay couple of liberty or property without due process or of equal protection when it prohibited them from obtaining a marriage license on the basis of their sex.
RATIONALE:
1)The legislature did not intend to permit same-sex marriages by not specifically outlawing them, as evidenced by the use of heterosexual words like "husband and wife" and "bride and groom" in the laws it passed governing the instutition.
2) The point of marriage is procreation, a fact that is as old as Genesis.
3)There is no irrational discrimination against homosexuals because of their classification in the statute, even though the state does not require heterosexual married couples to have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate
("abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment)."
As long as we take care of business, defeat Barack Obama, and close strong in MD, MN, and WA, this thing will be over for a generation.
The states (and Circuits) that were subverted by courts or legislatures will concentrate on building a steadily-expanding set of legal precedents by which to challenge Baker- someday.
But, with 36 or so states having already effectively shut the door, pseudo-marriage will be on the defensive for the very first time.
The Dream Team is turning into a living nightmare for the marriage corruption movement- just as the smarter folk on that side said, way back when Perry was first filed after the stunning electoral victory of Prop 8.
If SCOTUS decides to give these San Francisco judicial conspirators the comeuppance they so richly deserve (and which SCOTUS has given very clear indications it would be delighted to supply), by taking the Prop 8 case, then pseudo-marriage is finished in the United States, for at least a generation.
And SCOTUS will hear Perry. It is inconceivable that a judge in a robe can set aside the votes of seven million sovereign citizens, on the insane basis that, since the Courts had imposed what the people rejected in the first place, the people therefore have no right to reverse the courts through constitutional means.
How could there possibly be even one vote at SCOTUS for such a fascist's wet dream of an affront to the very meaning of liberty?
@Rick DeLano
And Maine -- got to win that one (again).
Lefty:
Yup.
I tend to be a bit complacent about ME, perhaps, since I know how blustery the marriage corruption movement was about trying to take down Prop 8 out here in CA.
People were so sick of the idea of running through this whole campaign again that they recognized the fact they would lose bigger and folded.
The only difference between CA and ME is the size of the pot, so they decided to double down on stupid.
"No more than any NOMer here, what's up with your hypocrisy?"
Not hypocrisy. Merely stating the obvious.
There is nothing "unnatural" about gay people. There is nothing "unnatural" about heterosexuals who include their married gay couple family members in the larger circles of love of their families. And, heterosexual people who include married gay couples in the larger circles of love of their families, take nothing -- NOTHING -- away from gay-bashing bigots' families.
Okay Scott, anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. We get it. You're the enlightened one here, everyone else is a mere serf with sub-par education.
Even though none of the blogs on this site have even hinted nor implied thaat gay people are "unnatural".
typo: that*
Scott,
Violating the intent of your own biology is unnatural. The very fact that you have to change the meaning of words just to lend an appearance of acceptability to your depravity proves that you, in fact, know your proclivity is unnatural.
Families are link together by a common biology; not common feelings that cannot be quantified, nor universally defined.
Go sell crazy somewhere else; we are not buying any today.
Right in these comments, we see how NOM's gay-bashing bigots think. Homosexuality is "unnatural." Gay people are ipso facto "depraved." Heterosexuals who don't agree with gay-bashing bigots don't count for anything. Their thoughts aren't "real." Only a gay-bashing bigot can have "real" thoughts.
Real: of basic, essential, or critical importance
There is nothing essential or critical about the desire to rub your reproductive organ against a same gendered companion.
Depraved: showing great moral corruption or wickedness
Corrupt: to alter from the original or correct form or version
Unnatural: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
"gay-bashing bigot"
Gay: keenly alive and exuberant: having or inducing high spirits
Bashing: hostile comment directed at a specific person or group
Bigot: one who stubbornly or intolerantly adheres to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
gay bashing bigot: happily hostile to those that do not agree with you.
As previously pointed out; marriage corruption supporters will have to change the meaning of most every word in the English language if they are to succeed at mandating acceptance of their depravity.
That's what I call a thread killer.
Check out the first two definitions.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gay?s=t
Such radical social activism on the part of Dictionary dot com, right? Crazy corrupt pseudo-marriage-supporting liberal anti-family radical leftists.