2008 Democratic Candidates Push Gay Agenda
Seven Democratic presidential candidates, including the frontrunners, unanimously believe the federal government should recognize state-level same-sex marriages. That’s according to a survey conducted by the Human Rights Campaign, a national homosexual activist group.
Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, along with four others, all favor repealing Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Baptist Press reports. Under the change, the government would be forced to grant the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples “married” at the state level.
According to the questionnaire, the seven candidates also support: civil unions for gay couples; overturning the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy; federal hate-crimes legislation that would grant gays special rights; and the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow gay Americans to petition for immigration sponsorship for their same-sex partners. –from Focus on the Family on their CitizenLink webpage, as submitted by Mark Zaveson 6.06.07
Pharmacists to be Punished $500,000 For Acting on Their Conscience
Washington, — Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey) have introduced legislation deliberately attacking pharmacists who exercise professional moral judgment. The Access to Birth Control (ABC) Act repeals a pharmacist’s fundamental right to make ethical decisions.
This bill would force pharmacists to distribute the controversial morning-after pill (MAP), trampling on any professional or ethical concerns.
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, said, “Pharmacists are professionals, not vending machines. The FDA has been known to make mistakes in approving drugs, and doctors have made mistakes in prescribing. Pharmacists provide a line of defense to ensure that patients’ lives and health are protected and can make patients aware of ethical concerns. Yet this bill would punish pharmacists up to $500,000 for acting on their ethical duty.”
“This punitive bill would bankrupt pharmacists for doing what they believe protects people from harm. We need pharmacists with strong convictions about protecting life and health, but this bill would drive people with such convictions out of the pharmaceutical profession — which would be detrimental to all patients.”
“This bill is promoted by ardent abortion activists yet it would criminalize ‘Freedom of choice’ by forcing people to act against their beliefs.” —as found at the Concerned Women for America website, 6.07.07 and as submitted by Muriel McConnon
State Sponsored Sodomy Dishonors Marriage
San Diego, — The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, responding to a potential legal action by the ACLU will be changing its regulations to accommodate conjugal visits by homosexuals. In an article from the San Francisco Chronicle, Gays and lesbians allowed conjugal visits in prisons, “the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has begun to allow overnight visits for inmates with registered domestic partners and is to adopt permanent regulations later this year.” —from Christian Newswire as submitted by Muriel McConnon 6.08.07
Gallup Poll: Two-thirds of U.S. Are Creationists
A new USA Today/Gallup Poll has found that two-thirds of Americans say creationism is definitely or probably true.
The poll also found that by a margin of more than 2-to-1 more Americans believe creationism is “definitely true” as opposed to those who believe as strongly in evolution.
Creationism is the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years in accordance with biblical accounts. The debate over creationism and evolution continues to evoke strong emotion across the country in school boards and various state legislatures.
It has also become a point of interest in the presidential race, especially among the Republican candidates running.
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee all raised their hands during the GOP candidates’ debate May 3 when asked who did not believe in evolution – the competing belief system that humans evolved from less-advanced life forms over millions of years, according to a report in USA Today. –an article by Dave Eberhart for NewsMax.com as submitted by Mark Zaveson
Gossip: So Much Fun
People Once TriedTo Make It Illegal
‘When God created the heavens and the earth, He inflicted humanity with the presence of snakes, and other slimy and oozy and pestiferous and odiferous objects of loathing,” opined a Texas newspaper in 1915. “And He also inflicted us with gossip — for what reason only He in His superior wisdom can tell.”
Before scandalous tidbits about celebrities dominated popular culture, gossip was almost as zealously condemned as it was enjoyed. Gossip wrecked homes, marriages and friendships. It could even kill. At a 1912 wedding in Logansport, Ind., a guest, Mary Copple, was gossiping about the bride being old and ugly, and another guest passed the comments along to the bride. The bride got a revolver and shot Mrs. Copple dead.
Four years later, a New York City woman, Mary Hoppe, founded the Order of Corinthians, whose mission was to establish Don’t Gossip clubs in every town in the U.S. Its motto: “The tongue is an unruly evil full of deadly poison.”
In Middlehope, N.Y., a women’s club announced that any member who gossiped would be expelled. “They say it is perfectly lovely and so unusual to sit down and sew or chat and yet not talk about one’s neighbors,” reported the New York Times.
By today’s standards, gossip in the first half of the 20th century was pretty tame stuff — “painting, padding or lacing.” Women dyed their hair, lied about their age or, the unkindest cut, chased men. Men’s troubles were usually financial or marital.
Although most respectable people frowned on gossip, an Associated Press reporter, Saul Pett, came to its defense: “If four old biddies sit on the front porch, sipping lemonade and chewing up the neighborhood, why call that gossip? Why not call it news analysis? Aren’t they, like Walter [Lippmann] and Ed [Murrow], trying to understand the world around them?”
…Some public officials went so far as to try to criminalize gossip. In Tennessee, state Sen. John W. Butler introduced a bill in 1927 that would have made gossip a misdemeanor. He was less successful with his antigossip bill than his antievolution one, which two years earlier had sparked the Scopes trial. As a Tennessee “society matron” told a reporter, “I know this bill is aimed at slanderous misstatement, but if you interpreted it in a technical way, every bridge party would end by all the ladies being jailed for gossip.”
A businessman also spoke out against the bill: “I believe all these restrictive laws are more dangerous than the condition they aim to correct. After a while we’ll have laws making it illegal to eat peas with a knife.”
But Wisconsin and Kentucky did pass antigossip statutes. Peter Kesoki was the first person in Wisconsin to be arrested, for allegedly calling Rosa Burney “an unsavory name.” (He was later acquitted.) The first convicted gossip in Kentucky, Maude Basham, had passed along the tidbit that the local police were “50-50 with the bootleggers.”
The Waterloo, Neb., city council in 1910 passed an ordinance making it illegal for barbers “to discuss the gossip of the town” with their customers. The ordinance also prohibited barbers from eating onions between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. and from sticking their fingers in the mouths of their customers.
In 1923, a Brawley, Calif., justice of the peace fined a woman for gossiping and issued a proclamation condemning the destructive power of gossip. “Ye people of the township of Brawley,” he wrote, “will no longer tolerate ye gossips who go about spreading ill-thought and ill-feeling.”
But as the rest of the 20th century demonstrated, no force of man or nature can stop people from tittle-tattling about others. It’s just too much fun.
“I remember my mother telling me a story of two old ladies who would draw their chairs up to the fire on a winter’s evening and sit close to each other,” wrote Eunice Miles in 1910. “Then one would say to the other, ‘And now, my dear, let us talk against our relations.’ –excerpted from Cynthia Crossen’s column DÃ©jÃ vu from The Wall Street Journal 6.4.07[ED. As one reader noted in the WSJ today (6.09.07), ask any of the Duke Lacrosse team members if they believe gossip is harmless.]