Kalley Yanta of the Minnesota Marriage Minute explains some of the consequences after seven years of same-sex marriage:
"Town clerks who were ordered to solemnize same-sex marriages or be fired. Catholic charities was forced to close its adoption agency as it could not abandon its teaching in order to comply with state rules requiring placing children with same-sex couples. After this man's six year old son was exposed to instruction about homosexual relationships in kindergarten, David Parker was arrested for trespassing for protesting the instruction. He spent the night in jail and was taken to court in handcuffs..."
35 Comments
"Town clerks who were ordered to solemnize same-sex marriages or be fired."
No where did that happen in Mass.
"Catholic charities was forced to close its adoption agency as it could not abandon its teaching in order to comply with state rules requiring placing children with same-sex couples."
It lost funding because it refused to comply with state laws. It could have stayed open but it chose not to. That is not "forced to close"
" After this man's six year old son was exposed to instruction about homosexual relationships in kindergarten, David Parker was arrested for trespassing for protesting the instruction."
He was arrested because he refused to leave the school despite being asked several times.
Anymore lies you want to spread?
My son came home from school one day telling me that all of the foreign countries hate the US. Well, he got a new lesson that evening not only about how great our country is, but also about revisionist history and how the government controls what they are being taught in school to try and manipulate them.
If my kids are ever introduced to "King & King," they will get a new lesson at home about sexually confused individuals and how the government has abandoned trying to help them overcome their confusion and instead encourages them to make bad choices.
Kids from stable, man-woman-child families will not be harmed from radical social teaching in the public schools; it's the kids from broken homes or single-family homes who will suffer, becoming sexually confused and/or being unable to form stable male-female relationships. These are most likely the poor kids, as well. A shame.
Nice turns of phrase. It could be more truthfully written as:
"Town clerks who refused to do their jobs were fired. Catholic charities chose to close its adoption agency as it put its teaching over the welfare of children and their legal obligation to comply with state rules in order to receive public funding. After this man's six year old son learned in public school that gay people exist, David Parker was arrested for trespassing for protesting instead of sending his child to a private religious school that agreed with his ideology. He spent the night in jail and was taken to court in handcuffs, which is the appropriate punishment for trespassing, and has nothing to do with the consequences of same-sex marriage, just about the consequences of a person with a poor judgment..."
You seem like a very attentive parent, Overcame, but I'm afraid that not all parents are as tuned in as you are. Some parents make the incorrect assumption that schools and teachers have the best interests of children in mind. They place too much trust in schools and don't always pay close enough attention to what is being taught. As a result a lot of this indoctrination goes unnoticed for a while at least.
This is a warning to parents to pay very close attention to what their children are being taught. And it's also a great argument for avoiding the problem in the first place by voting for the MN marriage amendment.
This is another great episode in the series!
Catholic Charities was NOT forced to close their adoption services. If they wanted to continue to discriminate against gay couples, they were within their rights to do so. But they had to run their organization on their own dime--something the RCC SHOULD be able support handily.
I can vouch for everything that happened in Massachusetts. I live here and it is even worse.
(1) Go on massresistance.com to get the gory details.
(2) YouTube has videos of public schools in MA openly allowing these sexual perverts into the public schools and spewing their deadly lifestyle choice to little innocent children.
(3) As noted in the video, Catholic Charities was forced to stop performing adoptions due to appeasement of the homosexuals
(4) As further appeasement all MA marriage licenses say Party A and Party B instead of husband and wife.
(5) Businesses were forced to honor same sex marriage and forced into providing benefits against their will.
I could go on but I think you get the picture.
You need a licence from the state in order to run an adoption agency, Greg. And the state of Massachusetts would not grant them one unless they were willing to compromise their religious convictions.
I tried to find a site listing organizations in Mass. which receive State funding, but I couldn't locate one. However, I did see that a lot of arts and cultural organizations receive state money, and the state doesn't get to tell them what to do. I did find a paper where the author argues against 'State action' applying to private organizations. Its' at http://www.rbs2.com/esa.pdf if anyone wants to plow through it. I don't know the credentials of the author.
The rights of children to have the best possible upbringing trumps so called discrimination.
This show what happens when the sodomites take control of government. Horrific harms to children trumps the Lords plan for families through marriage between a man and a woman.
Could we add the new actions against Chick-Fil-A by Boston’s mayor to the list? Kalley could then say, “As we told you in episode --, businesses which refuse to endorse the redefinition of marriage would face a number of consequences.”
@Greg,
Please read the below article from Maggie. You could very well reply, “Hey Ash, it’s from Maggie. Why should I take it seriously?” But I don’t think she manufactured the quote from Madnick out of whole cloth.
“It's worth underscoring that Catholic Charities' problem with the state didn't hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey's assessment: ‘Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.’"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
I don’t understand why SSMers believe that someone who engages in invidious discrimination should even be allowed to hold a professional human services license; or why a child welfare agency should be allowed to operate, even if on their own dime, while practicing discrimination. Maybe SSMers don’t believe this, which is why public funding is only the tip of the iceberg.
It’s worth mentioning that ssm brings zero benefit to society. If people want to legalize ssm they are truly doing same-sex couples a favor—an unreasonable favor. For something that brings zero benefit to society, even the stripping an organization of public funding is too high of a price to pay. But funding is not the whole story with Catholic Charities.
You need a licence in order to run an adoption service in Massachusetts, Greg. And the state would not grant Catholic Charities a licence unless they compromised their faith.
Greg got it wrong, again.
The primary issue for adoption agencies is the license, not the funding. The state threatened to hound Catholic Charities; the SSM campaign made it clear their intention to use Government to crush all dissent because that is their real promise to the gay identity group.
That they would use lawfare (a form of warfare through litigation and the threat of expensive litigation) to do what they could not justify. This is another example of the arbitrary use of governmental authority that SSMers depend upon, always.
Greg compound his error when he said: "But they had to run their organization on their own dime"
1. Catholic Charities relied far more heavily on non-governmental funding and on non-governmental volunteering and a lot of other non-governmental resources (including goodwill and expertise), that it received from the state government.
2. Why withhold any taxpayer funding? There are adoption agencies in MA who specialize in serving the gay clientle's neediness for children. The gay identity group is not the savior of the MA fostercare system nor is there a state constitutional right to attain a child through adoption.
So Greg's multiple layers of misrepresentation, if repeated (as SSMers are wont to do because that is what the SSM campaign teaches them to do), will be a willingly told falsehood. A fabrication. An outright lie.
He could self-correct.
Or he could stand corrected even as he repeats outright lies.
Correction for added clarity:
"1. Catholic Charities relied far more heavily on non-governmental funding and on non-governmental volunteering and a lot of other non-governmental resources (including goodwill and expertise), THAN it received from the state government."
Unlike the totalitarian impulse of the SSM campaign, adoption agencies of the highest standards do not form and operate on the basis that the Government is the solution to all issues and all problems. Civil society is far more significant to solutions than identity politics -- gay or otherwise -- can ever be even with Government sponsorship of the hockers of identity politics.
No SSMer has managed to justify their gay emphasis regarding adoption licenses. Instead they merely asserted, and continue to assert, that the neediness of some tiny subset of gay adults must take priority over the children in need of adoption.
Not all in the gay population are so predisposed but the SSM campaign is driven by the asserted supremacy of gay identity politics over all other considerations. In the aftermath of imposing SSM through the arbitary use of Governmental power, the SSM campaign sought to solidify its promise of crushing dissent. It will always need Government to enforce the legal fiction of SSM and so this should come as no surprise to citizens.
Top submit oneself and one's society to the supremacy of gay identity politics is to give-up liberty for nothing. The examples in MA are not benign nor neutral nor justifiable.
Not to mention that the separation of Church and State is un-Constitutional.
I have a comment in the que.
I seem to be blocked--yet again.
Well, on the off chance this gets through, check out this link.
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/catholic-charities-fact-sheet.pdf
Sure things get spun, but the ever charming Chairm is the 1st person I've heard make the claim that the agency's actual licensing was going to be withheld. Please verify.
Interesting too that CCB actually placed children with same sex couples for more than a decade and a half before the church hierarchy put the kabosho on that. And this years before gay marriage was on the horizon.
By the way, Chairmy, how's about we stick to calling eact other misguided or unenlightened? I won't accuse you of being a liar or a "tool," if you'll do me the same courtesy.
The God-mocking liberals love to say that 'the sky didn't fall' after homosexual marriage was legalized in places like Massachusetts but the truth is, there were many very sad consequences as shown by this clip. Keep up the good work for Minnesota, Maryland, Washington and Maine this November. If I was a resident in any of those states, I would certainly be voting to ratify the amendments or in favor of traditional marriage.
I'm from Massachusetts and can attest and verify that everything mentioned in the video is true and it has indeed happened.
To learn the gory details go to massresistance.com
Greg' mocking tone does not disguise his repetition of falsehoods.
At least he suggests a way for him to save face: he is not enlightened because he has never heard the truth before. And besides, he has been misled and thus is misguided by the political spin of the lobby group that has led the same campaign.
So, as I said earlier, self-correction is still open to Greg. He can enlighten himself on the truth; he can take a sober look at how others have guided him wrong. The SSM campaign misleads and counts on the coercive influence of group identity politics. But Greg can still rise above that and correct himself.
Greg, if you botch this up and end-up inviting others to correct you, then, you could still submit your own public correction of your earlier comment upon your being enlightened by others whose guidance on this ks more truthful. So lots of room for you to save face.
On the other hand, repetition of falsehoods out of your admitted ignorance would not be a good excuse. Relying on sources that misguided you would not be a good excuse.
Again, you can self-correct and avoid further embarrassment here. Or you could double down and bet on your bluff. Or credibility is on the line now, one way or the other.
"Chairmy," "Evie,.." "Greggy?"
So the premise is that legalizing SSM will require people to learn about .
For religious people, who oppose on religious grounds, this is no different than divorce or evolution, which are part of society and learned in school. Why can't they be as accepting.
For secular folks, whatever happen to live and let live. If they don't beleive in SSM, don't marry someone of the same sex. If this is the only thing in American society you disapprove of, consider it the price of freedom.
Each of the responses by marriage corruption supporters on this post fall into the "no it isn't" and "so what" categories sans the prerequisite proof needed to substantiate their willful disinformation campaign; as opposed to the indisputable evidence offered in defense of.
I’m not a professional prognosticator, but if these miscreants go 0 for 5 this November it may be time to consider a different tactic…
Feel free to call me Greggy, Evie. I have no problem w/ that.
As for you, Chair, all this talk about self-correction (meaning seeing things YOUR way) is all well and good, but you haven't yet provided verification that CC's license was being revoked or challenged. Please back that claim up.
No Greg it is about your telling falsehoods. You admitted your ignorance. You also suggested you would rather be we grant you the benefit of the possibility that you were guided wrongly. So you can correct yourself as a show of sincerity. Or you can be corrected by others and then admit your error.
Or you can repeat falsehoods knowingly. You credibility is on the line so do your homework.
Would you prefer to be called "Greg,' or "Greggy?" Seems to me that it's common politeness not to purposefully twist a given name, as part of a passive agressive assault on another's opinion. If you're secure in your argument, there is no need for theatrics.
Kieran also got it wrong.
The state instructed the Justices of Peace that they can not refuse to perform SSM. That is a fact.
A great many of the thousand-plus Town Clerks are also Justices of Peace. The marriage statutes include the expectation that town clerks should be empowered to perform as JPs by virtue of their job. So in addition to being required by the state to sign SSM licenses, these clerks/JPs are coerced to do what Kierarn denied they are required to do subject to penalty and being pushed out in resignation of their post.
Catholic charities was not forced to shut down, and had in fact been adopting to gay couples before gay marriage.
Is that your own idea, or did you read that somewhere?
You are repeating what has already been answered.
See Maggie Gallagher's article on that for starters
Whatever may be said about those previous adoptions to gay couples, CCB was not free to perform them after the Vatican issued a clear policy statement in Jun 2003.
An excerpt:
Maggie also makes a key point here , "To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination--including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too."
It seems, then, CCB could not make the required pledge and also remain faithful to Catholic principles, and that was a major reason why it had to stop providing adoption services.
Dn also got it wrong.
Adoption to "gay couples" was never the official policy of Catholic Charities. The Bishop confronted those who had advocated a stealth change in policy; as a result 8 members resigned from the Boston Catholic Charities board.
There are other boards in Massachusetts who have confirmed that no such adoptions, official or unofficial, had been arranged under their operations.
Readers will note that prior to the imposition of SSM, the gay lobbiests had not felt empowered sufficiently to threatened adoption agencies. In the aftermath of the imposition of SSM, they directly targeted Catholic Charities (both from within and outside) through political measures and lawfare.
By striking at the largest adoption agency in the state, the SSM campaign sought to set an example for all other adoption agencies. This is the pattern followed in other jurisdictions that have imposed or enacted SSM.
Indeed, when pressed, the leadership of the SSM campaign will concede that this is the official state policy that they advocate anyway.
Kieran go it wrong: "[Parker] was arrested because he refused to leave the school despite being asked several times."
He had an appointment with the school officials.
The Governor had said that government policy required that public schools give parents advance warning of these types of lessons; that parents had the authority to remove their children during presentation of such lessons.
At minimum, this policy was on the record even if it was under dispute by the gay lobbiests and the SSM campaign.
Parker protested when the school officials defied the government policy. His protest was legitimate.
The appointment and his protest did in fact occur. The ill-advised arrest did in fact occur. The charges of trespassing were in fact thrown out of court later.
So the video got it wrong. No lies told.
Keiran said: "Anymore lies you want to spread?"
Look in the mirror and ask yourself, Keiran, if you are going to agree to be held accountable for your misrepresentations.
Again, gay lobbiests and the SSM campaign seek to impose this sort of school policy in the aftermath of the imposition of SSM. It is not a secret that SSMers seek forced compliance of the SSM idea throughout government policy. Why would they attempt to portray their goals as different?
Perhaps because they understand that those goals are unpalatable especially when the electorate's attention is focussed on the conflict between the marriage idea and their SSM idea.
Great posts, Chairm.
Typo correction: the video got it right.
Kieran got it wrong. No lies were told, contrary to Kieran's comment.
So now we see that SSSMers begin by asserting falsehoods here; when prompted to check themselves and correct those false assertions, they refused;when forewarned that they will be corrected if they do not step up and self_correct, they remained intransigent;and when corrected, adter ample opportunity for them to correct the misrepresentations, they turn away.
A misrepresnetation told in sincere error is something the individual can self-correct and thus salvage credibility. That same misrepresentation repeated anyway is a falsehood told with the facade of awaiting to be corrected by others; but it really is an admission of the error being the product of the teller being misled by the SSM campaign ... or a reliance on ignroance which is the offered excuse to rely on the assertion of the SSM campaign. So misrepresentations can occur by genuine eorror rather than a deliberate effort to decieve.
But.
When the falsehood is told after it has been corrected, there is no excuse for it. It is a falsehood told willfully. It is an effort to pass off an outright lie as an asserted truth.
And THAT is how the gay lobbiests and the SSM campaign endeavor to reduce the opportunity for civil discourse into an ongoing effort to smear and to propagandize and to indoctrinate. It subordinates truth and it subordinates civil discourse to the supremacy of gay identity politics.
Society is thus forewarned by SSMers themselves who teach their priorities by how they conduct themselves, represent their cause, and determinedly misrepresent reality and those with whom they'd disagree.