07.05.08
Posted in The Homosexual Agenda, Mysterium Iniquitatis at 9:18 am by Brian Schuettler
McDonald’s has refused a request to remain neutral in the culture war, choosing to continue support of the homosexual agenda. AFA wrote McDonald’s asking the company do two things:
- Remove McDonald’s name and logo from the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC) Web site listing McDonald’s as a “Corporate Partner and Organization Ally” of NGLCC.
- Remove the endorsement of NGLCC by Richard Ellis, Vice President of Communications for McDonald’s USA, from the NGLCC Web site.
McDonald’s refused both requests. McDonald’s donated $20,000 to NGLCC in exchange for membership in the NGLCC and a seat on the group’s board of directors. The NGLCC lobbies Congress on a wide range of issues including the promotion of homosexual marriage.
This boycott is not about hiring homosexuals, or homosexuals eating at McDonald’s, or how homosexual employees are treated. It is about McDonald’s, as a corporation, choosing to put the full weight of their corporation behind promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.
Pat Harris, Global Chief Diversity Officer, Vice President, Inclusion & Diversity at McDonald’s, responded: “I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm our position on diversity.” Notice that Ms. Harris said “reaffirm.” Translated: McDonald’s will not change their policy of supporting the NGLCC and their promotion of homosexual marriage.
Richard Ellis, who is openly homosexual, was given a seat on the NGLCC Board of Directors. He was quoted as saying: “I’m thrilled to join the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and ready to go to work. I share the NGLCC’s passion for business growth and development within the LGBT community, and I look forward to playing a role in moving these important initiatives forward.”
Addressing McDonald’s promotion of social issues, McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner said earlier the company will aggressively promote the issues they approve. In remarks on its Web site, Skinner said: “Being a socially responsible organization is a fundamental part of who we are. We have an obligation to use our size and resources to make a difference in the world … and we do.”
Permalink
06.19.08
Posted in The Homosexual Agenda, America's Godless Culture, The Primacy of Natural Law, The Tyranny of Relativism at 12:05 pm by Brian Schuettler
By George Neumayr
“A passionate tumultuous age will overthrow everything, pull everything down,” wrote Soren Kierkegaard, “but a revolutionary age that is at the same time reflective and passionless leaves everything standing but cunningly empties it of significance.”
Something like this seems to be happening in California. In the heat of revolutionary fervor, California’s leftists once called for the abolition of marriage, which they regarded as an “outmoded” and “oppressive” tradition. But these days they praise marriage as a hallowed institution while they harness it to their original destructive purposes.
What the open radicalism of the 1960s sought to accomplish overtly its more circumspect successors achieve subtly, leaving state marriage standing but trivializing and discrediting it. The Golden state that first took a cudgel to marriage with no-fault divorce takes a final swipe with same-sex marriage.
“Many gay activists are likening the moment to the 1967 Summer of Love, when young people from across the country converged on California in what came to be regarded as the birth of the counterculture,” reports the Associated Press. That sounds about right: the 1960s counterculture has largely become the culture, and marriage as defined by the California Supreme Court has been reduced to nothing more significant than a Flower Children love ceremony in Golden Gate Park.
San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, however, made sure to select for his 2008 Summer of Love the least representative couple possible to launch it: “a pair of octogenarian lesbians,” as Mary McNamara of the Los Angeles Times put it, allowing that she “couldn’t help thinking that they were chosen because their age made them so adorable.” “Gay and lesbian activist groups,” she added, “reviewed the tapes from four years ago and made it clear to their constituents that sometimes less is more, especially when it comes to cross-dressing.”
Having been softened up by years of widespread “domestic partnerships” and gay-rights propaganda sloshing through the public schools, Californians didn’t seem all that fazed on Tuesday. According to AP, “a recent Field Poll showed that Californians favor granting gays the right to marry 51 percent to 42 percent. It was the first time in 30 years of California polling that the scales tipped in that direction.”
But the implications of the counterculture worming its way into the heart of the state may get their attention over time. Since gay marriage now enjoys the highest level of state approval, anyone who opposes homosexual behavior becomes in effect an opponent of the state. The California justices promised that their ruling would not “impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official or any other person,” but obviously it will, as the trend of recent years, in which courts have stamped out religious liberty in the name of the state’s notion of “equality,” is sure to accelerate after gay marriage.
MEANWHILE, THE OPPOSITION to gay marriage seems depressingly wan, as a note of agnosticism about the immorality of homosexual behavior saps its drive. The case against gay marriage ultimately rests on the natural moral law, but Republicans and conservatives seem to consider that too passe or embarrassing to be useful in the debate. Yet without that philosophical basis, the case against gay marriage appears arbitrary and strained.
“Pragmatic” arguments haven’t proven very practical. Nor have “pragmatic” concessions to the homosexual movement done anything to forestall gay marriage. If anything, granting benefits, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. didn’t slow the gay-marriage juggernaut down but sped it up.
The California media, looking around for a visible opponent to gay marriage, had to settle on Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles. But his opposition to gay marriage isn’t very reassuring. A good chunk of his statement was devoted to extolling benefits for homosexual couples: “Some benefits currently sought by same-sex partners can already be obtained without regard to marital status….Other desired benefits such as sharing in a partner’s health insurance could be made available without the drastic step of a cultural or legal redefinition of marriage.”
Implicit in all these previous concessions was an acceptance of homosexuality that made the state’s full embrace of it in gay marriage inevitable. Negotiating with the gay-rights movement at this point is obtuse. The revolutionary path blazed by the Summer of Love has terminated in the Summer of gay marriage, and there is no turning back unless the issue is engaged at a deeper level than politics.
http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13397
George Neumayr is editor of Catholic World Report and press critic for California Political Review.
Permalink
06.09.08
Posted in The Legal Murder Of Children, The Homosexual Agenda, The Holocaust of Abortion, 2008 Campaign, Democrats of Death, The Primacy of Natural Law at 4:12 pm by Brian Schuettler
On June 3, the Democratic National Committee issued a 2008 Gay PRIDE proclamation supporting homosexual marriage. DNC Chairman Howard Dean and Representatives Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin released the proclamation.
Our goal is to send 1,000,000 e-mails to Congress in support of H.J. RES. 89. We have already sent over 125,000!
Also, in a display of sheer arrogance, the California Supreme Court has refused to delay legalization of homosexual marriage until after the people of California have a chance to vote on the issue in November. Attorneys general from 10 states asked the activist judges to delay implementing their ruling, citing the millions of dollars in litigation it will cost their respective states and the legal chaos caused by the California Supreme Court.?
These activist judges clearly showed their goal is to force homosexual marriage on every American. The only way America can protect itself from such radical judges is through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment of 2008 (H.J. RES. 89). This amendment would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman.
Our goal is to send 1,000,000 e-mails to Congress in support of H.J. RES. 89. We have already sent over 125,000!
Homosexual activists are determined to use activist judges like those in California to force homosexual marriage on every American.
| Take Action! |
| ? If you have not already done so please E-mail your representative asking him or her to co-sponsor H.J. RES. 89. Our system will automatically detect if your representative is one of the 18 co-sponsors and present you with a suggested “thank you” e-mail. If he or she is not a co-sponsor, our system will present you with an e-mail message urging your Member of Congress to support H.J. RES. 89 - the Marriage Protection Amendment (2008).
This is very important: Help us reach our goal of sending 1,000,000 e-mails to Congress. Please forward this to all your family and friends! They are probably unaware of H.J. RES. 89 because the media hasn’t reported on it.
|
Permalink
