Category Archives: Education
From the BBC comes a disturbing report of a meteoric rise, over the past six years, on referrals to clinicians of children under the age of 18 for treatment to help them make "gender transitions."
The startling figure for the whole age group of one- to eighteen-year-old referrals is the rise from 94 in 2009-2010 to 969 in 2015-2016: an increase of 930%! This includes a stunning rise in referrals for children between the tender ages of five and nine years old: within that age group, the rise in referrals over the period studied has been nearly 600%!
In explaining the phenomenon, the BBC quotes the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), an official specialized service provided under England's National Health Service (NHS):
GIDS, based in north London, is the NHS's dedicated gender identity development service for children and takes referrals from GPs, paediatricians, mental health services and schools across the country.
Its director, Polly Carmichael, said in recent years more younger children were making gender transitions and there was no "right or wrong approach", with many families reporting their child was happier living in another gender.
In terms of the general increase in referrals, GIDS said there could be a number of reasons, but increased awareness and acceptance of gender issues - particularly via the media and social networks - was a likely factor.
The article also notes that Carmichael acknowledged that, "research published in the Netherlands suggest[s] that 'for some young people who make an early social transition it may be difficult to de-transition if their gender identity develops in another direction'."
We hope that the lesson of that research is taken to heart and that those to whom these poor children are referred do not push them into making a life-changing decision which they are mentally and emotionally too immature to grasp. Indeed, we have already seen in many ways how "gender transition" decisions can be regretting in a very high percentage of cases.
In any case, this article points to a troubling trend of how the permeation throughout our culture of radical LGBT ideology is beginning to have a problematic impact on the youngest and most vulnerable in our society.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 8, 2016
Contact: Joseph Grabowski (202) 457-8060 x-110 | [email protected]
March Will Protest Supreme Court Gay ‘Marriage’ Decision and Obama Transgender Decrees; Call on Congress to Enact Legal Protections
Washington, D.C. – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced that the 2016 March for Marriage has been scheduled for Saturday, June 25th in Washington, DC. Marchers will walk from the US Capitol building to the US Supreme Court. Tens of thousands of people have attended previous marches in support of traditional marriage.
“The Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling redefining marriage will go down as one of the most infamous, illegitimate rulings in the Court’s history, along the lines of their decision in Dred Scott to sanction slavery,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “The narrow 5-4 majority ignored precedent and invented a constitutional ‘right’ to gay ‘marriage’ so that these activist judges could impose their own values on the nation. In the process, they stripped over 50 million voters and countless legislators in states across America of their sovereign right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
Supporters of marriage are urged to attend the March from all across the country. More information including a route map and schedule is available at www.marriagemarch.org.
Brown noted that it didn’t take long following the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage for LGBT activists and their chief ally President Obama to push the next element of their agenda – transgender bathroom rules. “The LGBT extremists and the Obama administration are attempting to defy human nature itself and declare that gender can be self-directed and chosen based on ‘identity,’” Brown said. “Obama is fighting to ensure that when someone chooses to declare an identity different from reality, such as a man claiming to be a woman, all of society will be expected to bow in compliance and succumb to every demand, including allowing men into private facilities like restrooms and showers reserved for girls and women. It’s outrageous and it must be stopped.”
NOM is also a strong supporter of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) to provide legal protections for supporters of marriage, protecting them against governmental discrimination. The proposal (HR 2802/S.1598) has 170 sponsors and co-sponsors in the House and 38 in the Senate, but has not been scheduled for a hearing. Encouraging support for this measure is another goal of the March for Marriage this year.
“It’s time that Congress pass the First Amendment Defense Act so that people of faith do not have to worry about choosing between protecting their livelihood and upholding their beliefs about marriage,” Brown concluded.
# # #
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, please contact:
Joseph Grabowski, [email protected], (202) 457-8060 x-110.
Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
NOM's President Signs Statement Decrying Scandals At Catholic Universities Who Honor People Who Oppose Marriage and Life
Brian Brown, president of NOM, has joined with other Catholic and pro-family leaders to decry the scandal at Catholic universities who have honored or provided speaking platforms to public advocates of abortion and same-sex 'marriage.' The statement called on Catholic colleges and universities to "'consecrate [their selves] without reserve to the cause of truth' by teaching and upholding the sacred dignity of all human life and of the divinely ordered institution of marriage."
In recent months, Georgetown University, the University of Notre Dame and Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles have honored or provided prominent speaking platforms to notorious advocates of abortion and same-sex 'marriage.'
Last week, Loyola Marymount University awarded an honorary degree to former President Bill Clinton and allowed him to give the spring commencement address to its graduates. Clinton has become an outspoken advocate for gay 'marriage' and abortion and is the leading supporter of his wife Hillary's campaign for president, which is built on a foundation of supporting same-sex 'marriage' and abortion on demand.
Georgetown promoted an appearance late last month by Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, a woman who has presided over an organization that has killed 2.8 million babies through abortion during her tenure. Richards used her appearance on the Catholic campus to advocate for abortion, sterilization and contraception in contravention of the teachings of the Catholic church.
Notre Dame hosted a lecture by Texas state Senator Wendy Davis, a prominent abortion advocate, who used her appearance before students to defend her abortion of her own child. Later this week, the university will honor Vice President Joe Biden, who supports both abortion and same-sex 'marriage.'
The statement, signed by 28 pro-family and/or Catholic leaders, points out that appeals to "freedom of speech" and "academic freedom" do not justify "holding up opponents of known moral truths like marriage and life "as if falsehood and immorality are to be celebrated and not firmly rejected."
The full statement can be read here.
Throughout history it's been obvious to any observer that children in intact families with a married mother and father do much better than children from broken homes or those living in alternative family structures. In recent years, there's been an attempt to deny that reality and convince people that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are somehow exempted from the realities of family life, claiming there are "no differences" in outcomes for these kids or even sometimes suggesting they do better than children raised by a married mother and father in the home. Increasingly, social scientists have been examining this "no differences" claim and, as you might suspect, find it without merit. A distinguished social scientist from the University of Virginia, W. Bradford Wilcox, writes a detailed piece this week for National Review reviewing three recent developments that make it harder for the "family structure denialists" to continue to make the "no differences" claim. He says:
"It’s been a rough two weeks for the family-structure denialists, those progressive academics (Philip Cohen, “How to Live in a World Where Marriage Is in Decline”), journalists (Katie Roiphe, “New York Times, Stop Moralizing About Single Mothers”), and pundits (Matthew Yglesias, “The ‘Decline’ of Marriage Isn’t a Problem”) who seek to minimize or deny the importance of marriage and family structure. That’s because three new pieces of scholarship — a journal, a report, and a study — were released this month that solidify the growing scientific consensus that marriage and family structure matter for children, families, and the nation as a whole."
The studies and reports mention by Wilcox confirm many of the outcome problems that children who lack a married mother and father in the home experience, especially boys lacking the presence of their father at home. Wilcox says these children "are floundering in school and society" and details findings including problems in the areas of truancy and educational attainment, increased behavioral problems, higher cognitive disability, perform worse on standardized school tests and are less likely to graduate from high school. And the article details important new findings that states with higher levels of married parenthood enjoy higher levels of growth, economic mobility for children growing up poor, higher median family income and markedly lower levels of child poverty. Says Wilcox,
"[W]ith study after study showing that children, families, and now even states benefit from strong and stable married families, the job of those who would seek to deny that marriage and family structure also play an important role — the family-structure denialists — is getting harder and harder. That’s because the facts just aren’t with those who seek to deny the scientific evidence that family change is having a major impact on our social environment and — in particular — our boys.
The complete article is available at National Review.
Many colleges today unfortunately see themselves as the standard bearers of "progressive thought" and "equality." Following the trend of popular culture, universities believe it is their role to spread the acceptance of same-sex "marriage" as well as new theories on gender and race relations. When students refuse to acquiesce to their ideologies, however, colleges often react in unjust and intolerant ways. LifeSiteNews reports on one such case:
Gender and homosexuality politics are among the areas the professors are looking to influence the young people in their classes, along with race and immigration ideology.
The affronting terms that could land students in hot water in a number of Washington State University classes include “illegal alien” and “illegals,” CampusReform.org reports, but also considered oppressive and hateful by one teacher are the very definitions of gender, “male” and “female.”
A Marquette University student was prohibited from articulating his Biblical view of marriage last year, and a tenured professor was fired from there last year as well for voicing his view in support of marriage.
Johns Hopkins University denied a pro-life student organization recognition in 2013 until threatened with legal action.
Religious freedom banners were prohibited at Sinclair College in Ohio a year earlier.
A lawsuit was filed against Los Angeles Community College District in 2009 after a professor censored and threatened to expel a student who had given a speech on marriage and his Christian faith in a public speaking class. The professor had also told his class they were a “fascist (explicative)” if they voted for California’s Proposition 8 in defense of marriage.
It is a great hypocrisy when the so-called proponents of "tolerance" become worse than the very people they claim to be fighting. Help us expose these deceitful ideals and bring the hypocrisy about "equality" to an end.
Andrew Guernsey, a political science and classics major at John Hopkins University, reports via National Review that John Hopkins has launched another attack on individuals who hold conservative beliefs. This week, JHU’s student government voted to ban any hypothetical future Chick-fil-A outlet from their campus.
The student government allegedly disagrees with the personal opinions of the fast food chain’s owner on the topic of marriage. Guernsey, president of the student group Johns Hopkins University Voice for Life, explains why the student government’s decision is so dangerous:
The student government’s vote went beyond merely expressing support for same-sex marriage. The Chick-fil-A ban seeks to introduce unprecedented discrimination against companies owned by religious conservatives into the university’s contracting policies, even though only a few years ago, prominent liberals like Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama had held the same views on marriage. In banning Chick-fil-A from campus for “homophobia,” the JHU student government is only a short step from similarly giving the boot to socially conservative Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Orthodox, and Jewish student groups from campus, as we have seen happen at Vanderbilt University, the 23 campuses of California State University, and others throughout the country.
In a free-market economy, the company that makes the best food at the lowest price usually wins more business. At a university, the robust free market of thought similarly should allow the best ideas to win out in an unfettered debate. The Chick-fil-A ban hurts both types of free market on campus. If the argument for redefining marriage into a genderless contract for any two consenting adults is so strong, then advocates for it should not need the student government’s version of the thought police to silence dissenting voices.
Guernsey is absolutely correct: silencing dissenting voices is an affront to the American university system. JHU’s message is crystal clear: any students who disagree with their opinion are not welcome on Johns Hopkins' campus. It is no shock, but it is a shame. There are many brilliant students at JHU who should be given the opportunity to hear both sides of an argument and make the decision for themselves. While Johns Hopkins may have seemingly “silenced” potential dissenting voices, it won’t last.
Truth can never be fully silenced nor destroyed. The student government at Hopkins can spin their decisions any way they want, but sharp students like Guernsey can see exactly what their real intention is: discrimination, all in the name of “tolerance.”
Harvard Divinity School tweeted a photo this week of its new “gender-neutral” restroom signs, which promote a new third symbol alongside the traditional male and female gender icons.
Harvard Divinity College is only the latest in a growing number of universities to embrace gender-neutral bathrooms over the past several years. According to a recent article by the Huffington Post, more than 150 schools across the United States have installed all-gender restrooms in at least some of their facilities. And it’s not just colleges getting in on the trend. Offices, city-owned buildings, and other workplaces are all working to make their bathrooms more gender neutral.
Labeled an "all gender restroom", the sign displays the standard male and female figures, a handicapped symbol, and a male/female hybrid figure. Underneath is written: “Anyone can use this restroom, regardless of gender identity or expression.”
It is unclear as to why the standard unisex indicators were not used, nor if it is a private one-stall bathroom or a community bathroom.
Nebraska School Insists: Stop Referring to Students by "Gendered Expressions" Such as "Boys and Girls"
A school in Lincoln, Nebraska is demanding that teachers no longer refer to students as “boys and girls”, but ... purple penguins?
Fox News reports on aLincoln Public Schools handout that included the following advice and explanation:
“Don’t use phrases such as ‘boys and girls,’ ‘you guys,’ ‘ladies and gentlemen,’ and similarly gendered expressions to get kids’ attention,” reads a handout from the Lincoln Public Schools that was given to teachers.
“The agenda we’re promoting is to help all kids succeed,” Brenda Leggiardo the district's coordinator of social workers and counselors told the newspaper. “We have kids who come to us with a whole variety of circumstances, and we need to equitably serve all kids.”
So instead of asking boys and girls to line up as boys or girls, teachers have been encouraged to segregate the children by whether they prefer skateboards or bikes, or whether they like milk or juice.
“Always ask yourself, ‘Will this configuration create a gendered space?’” the handout stated.
The handout, provided by Gender Spectrum, a website which "provides education, training and support to help create a gender sensitive and inclusive environment for children of all ages" does not explain what to do if all of the children like juice or skateboards. But it does suggest teachers “create classroom names and then ask all of the ‘purple penguins’ to meet at the rug.”
Equitably serve all kids? The school district seems to believe that in order to ensure “equality” for children who might have a real problem of gender confusion, it is a better idea to confuse ALL children.
As NOM President Brian Brown notes in our national newsletter this week:
Now we see the tragic absurdity of a situation wherein, in response to gender dysphoria and confused sexual identities that may be conditions suffered by a certain number of kids, we confuse all kids by chiding them for calling themselves 'boys and girls' and name them instead after an imaginary creature, 'purple penguins.' (I suppose 'purple penguins,' unlike the black and white ones that live in Antarctica, don’t have biological sexes.)
This is why this indoctrination in the public schools is such a travesty and will be hard on our children: because, as you know, boys and girls actually really do exist, and purple penguins do not; and being a girl is a very good thing, as is being a boy.
Girls and boys shouldn’t be called “purple penguins” in order to appease a political agenda: they should be encouraged to be the people they have been since birth. Childhood is precious, and it should not be compromised because a small portion of adults want to modify the way boys and girls are addressed.
No law can change simple truth, no matter what terms are used. So let's fight back in our own school districts across America. Enough of the indoctrination: let girls enjoy being girls, and let boys enjoy being boys.
On May 19, the Intercollegiate Review published a brilliant essay authored by Robert P. George, NOM's founding Chairman.
The essay is adapted from George's new book, Conscience and Its Enemies: Exposing the Dogmas of Secular Liberalism. It explores why academic freedom is necessary:
Perhaps it is worth pausing to ask why we care—or should care—so much about intellectual freedom in the academy. Why ought we be concerned about the rights of an administrator who is fired for stating her moral views by a university that says it is morally neutral and nonsectarian, or the freedom of an assistant professor who is denied tenure because he would not toe the party line at such a university? Why should we care about students who are punished with a bad grade for having the temerity to state views that are out of line with those of the course instructor? What is it about intellectual or academic freedom that makes it worth worrying about—and worth fighting for?
I have already mentioned that some partisans of academic freedom misguidedly depict truth as an enemy of freedom. They appeal to, or presuppose, a species of relativism or subjectivism or radical skepticism in defending freedom of inquiry. Now, it is certainly true that one reason for respecting academic freedom is that people can be mistaken about what they regard—even securely regard—as true. Indeed, even unanimity of belief does not guarantee its correctness. But I think that the possibility of error is not the primary or most powerful reason for honoring academic freedom and protecting it even in areas where we are secure in our knowledge of the truth.
The stronger and deeper reason is that freedom is the condition of our fuller appropriation of the truth. I use the term appropriation because knowledge and truth have their value for human beings precisely as fulfillment of capacities for understanding and judgment. The liberal arts liberate the human spirit because knowledge of truth—attained by the exercise of our rational faculties—is intrinsically and not merely instrumentally valuable. “Useful knowledge” is, of course, all to the good. It is wonderful when human knowledge can serve other human goods, such as health, as in the biomedical sciences, or economic efficiency and growth, or the constructing of great buildings and bridges, or any of a million other worthy purposes. But even “useful knowledge” is often more than instrumentally valuable, and a great deal of knowledge that wouldn’t qualify as “useful” in the instrumental sense is intrinsically and profoundly enriching and liberating. This is why we honor—and should honor even more highly than we currently do in our institutions of higher learning—excellence in the humanities and pure science (social and natural).
Knowledge that elevates and enriches—knowledge that liberates the human spirit—cannot be merely notional. It must be appropriated. It is not—it cannot be—a matter of affirming or even believing correct propositions. The knowledge that elevates and liberates is knowledge not only that something is the case but also why and how it is the case. Typically such knowledge does more than settle something in one’s mind; it opens new avenues of exploration. Its payoff includes new sets of questions, new lines of inquiry.
Let us return, then, to the question of why we should respect freedom even where truth is known securely. It is because freedom—freedom to inquire, freedom to assent or withhold assent as one’s best judgment dictates—is a condition of the personal appropriation of the truth by the human subject, the human person for the sake of whom, for the flourishing of whom, for the liberation of whom, knowledge of truth is intrinsically valuable. And it is intrinsically valuable not in some abstract sense but precisely as an aspect of the well-being and fulfillment of human beings—rational creatures whose flourishing consists in part in intellectual inquiry, understanding, and judgment and in the practice of the virtues that make possible excellence in the intellectual question.
The freedom we must defend is freedom for the practice of these virtues. It is freedom for excellence, the freedom that enables us to master ourselves. It is a freedom that, far from being negated by rigorous standards of scholarship, demands them. It is not the freedom of “if it feels good, do it”; it is, rather, the freedom of self-transcendence, the freedom from slavery to self.
Read the rest of Robert George's essay here.
Michael Bradley, one of the co-founders of the Notre Dame pro-marriage group Students for Child-Oriented Policy (SCOP), wrote a piece at Public Discourse on witnessing the truth about marriage at Notre Dame. He criticized the school's refusal to recognize SCOP's as an official university club, explaining:
On April 30, the university rejected SCOP’s request to become an officially recognized student club, citing a “recommendation” by a group of student government officials who judged that “there was not a need” for SCOP’s presence on campus.
The official reason given for rejecting SCOP’s application is “redundancy,” a transparent reason for rejection that even a momentary glance through the names of some of the more than 500 recognized student clubs punctures. Additionally, when pressed to identify the groups the missions of which allegedly make SCOP’s acceptance redundant, the president of the aforementioned student government group listed several groups that don’t at all claim to advocate for child-oriented public policies.
Notre Dame’s decision to deny SCOP’s application is rooted in either culpable ignorance of SCOP’s mission and purpose or barely veiled hostility toward SCOP’s true mission and purpose.
Furthermore, the rejection letter came from the same Student Activities official who told SCOP leaders in early April that the SCOP petition was “inaccurate” and suggested that its language would make some members of the Notre Dame community feel “unwelcome.” She further intimated concerns that the petition’s authors were misquoting their sources, and took twice as long as official Student Activities Office policy standards dictate to return a request (which was filed on behalf of a recognized student group) to publicize the petition in Notre Dame’s student center.
As demonstrated by their resilience, the students of SCOP are not going to back down. They are diligently and tenaciously standing up for marriage on campus, despite the apparent hostility of some of their peers who do not share their pro-family sentiment. Marriage defenders can look forward to what SCOP will accomplish on campus in future years.
Students for Child-Oriented Policy, a group of pro-marriage Notre Dame students, remains resolute in their endeavor to be recognized as an official university club. The University of Notre Dame denied them official status as a club on the grounds that other groups at Notre Dame have similar missions.
Fox News reported:
The group, Students for Child-Oriented Policy (SCOP), was rejected in an April 30 letter from the university’s Student Activities Office to Tiernan Kane, the club’s proposed president. The decision was based on a recommendation by the university’s Club Coordination Council, a division of student government, that found the club’s mission “closely mirrored” that of other undergraduate student clubs at the 12,000-student university.
“In evaluating a proposal, approval is based on several things,” read the letter to Kane. “We consider the general purpose of a club, uniqueness to campus, proposed activities, a clear constitution, a strong understanding of budget planning, projected membership, opportunity for membership, among other things.”
Due to the perceived duplicative mission of the group, SCOP’s proposal was rejected, according to the letter, which did not reference other university-recognized groups.
“As such, the Club Coordination Council felt there was not a need for another similar-type club,” the letter continued. “You are encouraged to contact the Club Coordination Council’s Social Service Division to learn about collaborating with the existing clubs working toward your mutual goals.”
SCOP, which was founded in January, is comprised of Notre Dame undergraduate and graduate students focused on the debate about marriage in Indiana, where the school is based, according to its Facebook profile, which had 69 members as of Tuesday.
“SCOP's overarching concern is that policymakers are failing to approach their task with a view to how those policies will affect children,” the group’s Facebook page reads. “They seem to conceive of policy only as it will affect the stable, independent adult with resources. We see this approach affecting a number of important political issues, not just the current question about the definition of marriage. Still, marriage is both foundational and at a critical point in this state and country, and therefore, SCOP has decided to focus on the issue in its initial conference.”
The group seeks to unite a network of students across The Hoosier State in favor of “child-oriented policies,” according to its organizers.
“We reject the view that the young have agreed to redefine marriage,” the group’s Facebook page continues. “Rather, we think that they have not explored the meaning and importance of marriage.”
Messages seeking comment from Kane and other SCOP students were not returned early Tuesday.
Kane told The Cardinal Newman Society he believes Notre Dame should take the lead on marriage, much like it did in publicly voicing its support for the Dream Act and other controversial topics.
“The Catholic Church's teaching on marriage, which is universally intelligible to human reason, is informed by a tradition of philosophical reflection that reaches back at least as far as Plato,” he said. “As the nation's premier Catholic university, Notre Dame has the ability, and thus the responsibility, to contribute to -- indeed, to lead -- public discourse about marriage.”
A petition created by the group calling on Notre Dame to “take up the defense of marriage at this pivotal moment in the national discussion” had 948 signatures as of Tuesday.
“We understand marriage to be that natural institution that unites one man and one woman in a comprehensive sharing of life ‘ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring,’” the petition reads.
Timothy Bradley, another SCOP member, indicated that the group is undergoing an appeal process in hopes of reversing the decision.
...Kane, the prospective SCOP president, said CCC mistakenly conflated his group with being a “Catholic” organization.
“SCOP is not a religious group,” Kane said. “Our application clearly conveyed our group’s nonpartisan, nonsectarian focus on public policy as it relates to issues that specially affect children.”
McEntee declined to discuss CCC’s discussion and vote — a two-thirds majority is needed to approve a club application — in greater detail because the process is meant to be confidential. CCC’s student membership is also private.
In its proposed constitution, SCOP describes itself as a group whose purpose is to “educate and energize the public, especially young people,” about a child-oriented approach to public policy. Although its public-policy prescriptions, which Kane said are derived from reason, align with Catholic teaching, he said SCOP is not meant to be “an explicitly Catholic organization.”
...After SCOP was established in January, its first step was to circulate a petition that called upon the university to take a clear public stand in support of the true definition of marriage and to take “serious and sustained action” to improve the public understanding of the natural institution.
When SCOP drafted its petition, the Indiana Legislature was debating a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Both chambers of the legislature approved the amendment, which required approval in another legislative session before it could be presented to Indiana’s voters.
Tim Bradley, a Notre Dame student and the prospective treasurer of the group, said SCOP pushed the petition because the group believed Notre Dame’s administration had been “totally silent” on the issue.
“The way we see it, Notre Dame has a responsibility to witness to the truth of marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” Tim Bradley said.
It's clear that SCOP will not back down when it comes to defending marriage on campus. They are boldly defying the liberal myth that young people think marriage should be redefined. Hats off to these courageous students who continue to stand up for marriage!
Two stories in the news lately demonstrate chillingly how far the new orthodoxy of marriage radicalism has infiltrated the sector of society where formerly freedom and diversity of opinion were most prized: the Academy.
First, from The Daily Caller, comes news that Angela McCaskill has been denied legal redress in court after having been targeting with harassment and intimidation as a result of having signed a petition to protect marriage in Maryland:
McCaskill, the first black deaf woman to get a Ph.D from Gallaudet, sued the university last year for illegal discrimination based on race, religion, marital status and political views.
The acclaimed school for the deaf suspended and then demoted Angela McCaskill after a lesbian professor discovered her name on the petition to put “Proposition 6” — which would have overturned Maryland’s legalization of gay marriage — on the November 2012 Maryland ballot.
As if this weren't bad enough, a proposed Christian law school in Canada is "facing opposition from lawyers who do not like the university's stance on 'sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.'"
From the story:
The British Columbia Law Society had voted 20-6 on April 11 to approve the law school, but then lawyer Michael Mulligan convinced his fellow lawyers to sign a petition to overturn the decision. As a result, 1,300 signed to back Mulligan.
In addition, the Law Society of Upper Canada executive voted 28-21 to reject Trinity Western law grads the opportunity to practice law in Ontario, Canada on April 24. However, on April 25, Nova Scotia Barristers' Society voted 10-9 to approve the school, but only if it cancels its evangelical stance on "sexual intimacy" outside of traditional marriages.
"The idea that Trinity's law school graduates aren't really qualified is not going to get them very far, because there's no end to that argument," said [Christian Higher Education Canada Executive Director Justin Cooper]. "Are they going to give a 'religious test' to every Muslim and Hindu graduate of a law school who may hold some similar values?"
Perhaps a more incisive question would be whether an evident bias in favor of redefining marriage on the part of a given law school would subject that program to stricter scrutiny, on account of the fact that its graduates would be unlikely to remain impartial if faced with the prospect, say, of defending a religious business owner targeted with a lawsuit for declining to violate their beliefs?
It is doubtful: the same double-standards cutting through all of the institutions in society as part of the march to redefine marriage and sexuality are taking firm root in the halls of higher education, it seems, and those halls are becoming too narrow to accommodate anyone who won't step into line with the new radical ideology.
A group of plucky students at Notre Dame made news this week with a petition to the University officials "to take up the defense of marriage at this pivotal moment in the national discussion surrounding this foundational institution."
The petition was created by members of the newly formed Students for Child-Oriented Policy (SCOP), made up of undergraduate and graduate students at the University...
A co-founder of the group, Tiernan Kane, told The Cardinal Newman Society that he believes the university should take the lead on marriage.
"The Catholic Church's teaching on marriage, which is universally intelligible to human reason, is informed by a tradition of philosophical reflection that reaches back at least as far as Plato," [Kane] said. "As the nation's premier Catholic university, Notre Dame has the ability, and thus the responsibility, to contribute to--indeed, to lead--public discourse about marriage."
Senior Michael Bradley, a co-founder of the group, told The Cardinal Newman Society that the administration has been "entirely mute on marriage" while publicly supporting the Dream Act and other contested political issues. [Bradley] said, "Notre Dame, you have a voice, and it would mean a lot in defense of Church teaching."
Bravo to these brave young men and women!
Gingerbread men are a staple in many households around the holidays, but (alas!) in our Brave New World this treasured holiday icon apparently could be taken as perpetuating old and outdated stereotypes about men and women. What is a discerning cultural gourmet to do? Have no fear! Meet The Genderbread Person 2.0!
File this under things you simply can't make up.
This "edugraphic" (read "indoctrination tool") is the product of "social justice advocate and ally" Sam Killerman, who runs a website centered around his one-man comedy show called It's Pronounced Metrosexual. According to the site, "Sam travels the country and performs the show for students at colleges and universities." If you have a university student, you might want to ask whether their college student orientation included a staging of this production.
The content of the show is unclear to us, but judging from Sam's blog, one can imagine what sort of values it proposes. For instance, he has articles on "Examples of Christian Privilege" and "Examples of Cisgender Privilege" that implicitly paint Christians and "cisgender" persons as oblivious bullies.
What's a "cisgender" person, you ask? Sam explains that this "means having a biological sex that matches your gender identity and expression, resulting in other people accurately perceiving your gender."
Among the "privileges" of the cisgendered, Sam lists "being able to pretend that anatomy and gender are irrevocably entwined when having the “boy parts and girl parts” talk with children, instead of explaining the actual complexity of the issue."
Of course this "pretending" is meant to be exploded by The Genderbread Person 2.0, which demonstrates how "biological sex" actually contains "infinite... possible plot and label combos" on two parallel continua from "asex" to "female-ness" and "maleness" -- among which just some of the options are "male, female, intersex, female-self-identifying, and male-self-identifying."
In all, Sam's work seems to highlight for us the larger picture of which redefining marriage into a genderless institution is an integral part. A future with genderless marriage is the same future in which children would lack the right to privacy in using the bathroom of their biological sex and in which something as simple as a Christmas cookie may be construed as hearkening back to an oppressive and bigoted past.
- 2016 Presidential Election
- Bathroom Bills
- Catholic Church
- Civil Unions
- Corporate Ethics
- Debating Marriage
- Donald Trump
- Dump General Mills
- Dump Starbucks
- Election 2010
- Election Watch 2012
- Election Watch 2014
- Free Speech
- Gay Voices
- Human Rights Campaign
- Let The People Vote
- Manhattan Declaration
- March for Marriage
- Marriage Election Watch
- Marriage Moment
- Marriage Update
- Marriage Victory
- Married Joy
- Mitt Romney
- New Zealand
- NOM Marriage News
- NOM on Facebook
- President Obama
- Press Releases
- Prop 8
- Religious Liberty
- Ruth Institute
- Same Sex Marriage
- Say No To Target
- Sen. Marco Rubio
- Sen. Ted Cruz
- Social Media
- South America
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- Washington DC
- West Virginia
- Supreme Court
- U.S. Senate
- United for Marriage
- United Kingdom
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009