The federal "thought crimes" (a.k.a. "hate crimes") law took another step closer to passage yesterday, as the House voted to go along with a Senate ruse designed to avoid a straight up-or-down vote on the merits of the bill.
The Senate had attached the "hate crimes" measure to a defense authorization bill (despite its complete irrelevance to national defense). The House last night voted to go along with this tactic, which makes it harder for Members to oppose final passage.
On another front where the homosexual agenda is being pushed, "safe schools" czar Kevin Jennings is being defended by the National Education Association--no surprise there!
Liberals defending Jennings have reportedly found the male student that sought counseling from Jennings, then a teacher, about having sex with an older man in a bus station restroom. Jennings advice; "I hope you knew to use a condom."
Jennings's defenders claim they've identified the boy and can prove he was 16 at the time of the incident, and they assert that this absolves Jennings of suspicion that he violated "mandatory reporting" laws regarding child abuse.
But even if true, that is just one outrageous incident involving Jennings. The record still shows that Jennings is someone who thinks kids' "safety" is endangered more by people who say "homosexual conduct is wrong" (such as the Boy Scouts) than by sexual contact with strangers found in bus station restrooms.
From Big Sky Country:
Parents everywhere will be gripping their kids a little tighter after a shocking decision from the Montana Supreme Court. In a major challenge to parental rights, the justices ruled 6-1 that a former same-sex partner can win custody of two children to whom she is not legally or biologically bound.
Michelle Kilstad sued for the right to "parent" her old girlfriend's children even though her former lover married a man and settled down to raise her kids.
The Alliance Defense Fund defended Barbara Mancini's rights to raise her children without interference from Kilstad, a third party with no relation to her children.
In a statement yesterday, ADF expressed their outrage at the ruling, which could open the judicial floodgates to thousands of "de facto" parents who think they're entitled to a right to relationship with their ex-partners' children. "The fundamental rights of parents to raise children the way they see fit should not be threatened by the wishes and desires of a legal stranger... Granting acquaintances and roommates parental rights over the objections of fit parents is a dangerous precedent."
In this instance, the court has essentially forced another person into the Mancini family against its wishes. As ADF weighs its legal options, we would remind these justices that the definition of the family was created by God--and that definition has been the cornerstone of civil society from the beginning, despite what these judges (who think they're like gods) may believe.