Breaking News Obama Finally Endorses In an announcement that was surprising only by its timing, President Obama announced in a hastily scheduled media interview Wednesday that he supports legalizing homosexual marriage. Up to now, his position was that he still supported natural marriage but that his position was “evolving.” Political observers on both sides of the issue, however, understood this to be merely a political ploy to avoid taking a firm position on this divisive issue until after the November election. If he were re-elected, it was expected that he would then come out clearly in support of legalizing homosexual marriage. Obama was flushed out of his “evolving” political position by an apparent gaffe committed by Vice President Joe Biden at the beginning of the week. Biden stated on a Sunday morning TV talk show that he was “comfortable” with homosexual marriage. Subsequently, several Obama cabinet officers also announced their support for homosexual marriage. This situation gave the media the impetus to pressure Obama into revealing his true position. Obama’s announcement guarantees that legalizing homosexual marriage will be a significant issue in the presidential election which, in turn, will further energize conservatives to defeat him in November. |
||
![]() |
||
Manipulation, Deception and Blackmail
It has been difficult to write this report on the outcome of the recently concluded meeting of the UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD). I am concerned that some of the policies adopted will cause great harm to adolescents and youth around the world. While I prefer to be the optimist and look at the positive, I believe that unless some bold, aggressive steps are taken to immediately reverse the serious pro-family losses we sustained at this year’s CPD meeting will haunt us for years to come. For this report, however I will start with the positive outcomes. The Good Some good things came out of the meeting thanks to the valiant efforts of a number of UN Member States from Africa, the Islamic Group, the Holy See, Russia, Iran and Pakistan. Without them it would have certainly been worse. After all-night battles they succeeded in removing multiple references to sexual orientation, gender identity and sexual rights from the outcome document. Our biggest victory, however, was the inclusion, for the second year in a row, of language calling first and foremost for respect for national sovereignty and religious and cultural values in any policy implementation. There is a danger in this victory, however. This is that some countries may once again be lulled into a false sense of security thinking this language somehow protects them against the other dangerous provisions they allowed to be included in the final document, often under intense pressure from developed nations. History unfortunately demonstrates that UN agencies ignore protective language and implement bad policies with no one holding them accountable. The Bad Positive references to the importance of mothers, abstinence and fidelity as well as references condemning pornography and prostitution were all removed from the final document. References to condoms, contraception and commodities all remained with no mention of encouraging youth to refrain from early sex. Positive references to the important role fathers play and to the importance of the family in the development of children were either removed or corrupted by additional language. Multiple references to family planning and abortion remained. Particularly disturbing was language that was accepted protecting the purported “human rights of adolescents and youth to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health.” This phrase is interpreted by sexual rights activists and UN bureaucrats to establish a right for children as young as ten to be able to decide for themselves when, where, with whom, and with which genders they would like to have sex. Manipulation As is usually the case, the entire negotiation process was manipulated from the outset by International Planned Parenthood and UNFPA. Their clear objective was to advance their agenda to force comprehensive sexuality education on the children of the world and undermine parental rights. Sadly, they were largely successful. Deception UNFPA and IPPF were masterful at hiding the controversial elements behind comprehensive sexuality education including the fact that it is intended to change the gender norms of societies around the world and mainstream LGBT “rights” and acceptance. Studies were quoted supposedly showing how sexuality education has been proven to reduce high risk behavior and teen births. What they didn’t share was that reducing high risk behavior to them does not mean reducing promiscuous sex, including sodomy, which has the highest transmission of HIV/AIDS. For them, high risk behavior means simply sex without a condom even though they know condoms have high failure rates. They also failed to disclose that teen births may have been reduced by abortion and contraception not by youth abstaining from sex until marriage. Parental Rights versus Sexuality Education IPPF planned to use this conference to “abolish” parental rights to guide their children in sexual and reproductive matters, and as a result, the battle over parental rights became quite fierce. In the end a paragraph was adopted that recognized parental rights “as appropriate” and limited those rights to “according to the evolving capacities of the child.” This same paragraph, while acknowledging parental rights in the first sentence, basically cancelled out these parental rights by stating that governments must recognize a child’s right to “privacy” and “confidentiality” and that legal barriers (read parental consent laws and anti-abortion laws) to providing children with health care and “services” must be removed. In the end, the chairman completely ignored the repeated protests by multiple countries opposing comprehensive sexuality education and presented a final document which still contained two strong references calling for sexuality education. Countries were then pressured to “take it or leave it” and those references were retained in the outcome document. It was tragic to witness once again nations coming together to try to solve world problems, especially those relating to youth and children, only to be a waste of time, energy, resources and go into late-night, week-long battles where developed nations try to force their sexual rights agenda onto the developing world. On balance, although there were positive elements and the document could have been much worse, it was not a good outcome for the family and youth around the world. We clearly have our work cut out for us in future UN meetings to push back the agenda to sexualize children. Sincerely,
North Carolina Overwhelmingly Votes Voters in North Carolina on Tuesday voted by an overwhelming 61% to 39% margin to adopt an amendment to their state’s constitution that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. This margin is even more impressive because marriage defenders were outspent by the anti-marriage coalition by at least 2 to 1. North Carolina becomes the 31st U.S. state to adopt a marriage amendment. Every time such a marriage amendment has been placed on a state ballot in the U.S. it has been adopted by the voters. As in all other states where marriage amendments have been adopted, support in North Carolina cut across traditional political and ethnic divides. In addition, as is also usually the case, the margin of victory was significantly larger than polling had predicted. The most recent poll in North Carolina before the election predicted that the amendment would pass by 16 per cent and it actually passed by 22 per cent. These consistently higher margins of passage for marriage amendments show that national polls in the U.S. that occasionally show majority support for homosexual marriage must be looked at critically. Results of any poll can vary depending on how the polling question is asked and how the random sample is drawn. But it also is increasingly clear that on some controversial issues such as homosexual marriage at least some poll respondents are giving what they perceive to be the “politically correct” response but actually vote differently when presented with the real choice on marriage.
News Items of InterestAbortion
Adoption
Homosexuality Related
Marriage Related
News Items of General Interest
Please forward this on to others!If this was forwarded on to you, you can subscribe
|
||
| www.FamilyWatchInternational.org |