Category Archives: Homosexual Agenda

Congressman Franks’ List of Obama Failures

Presidential Preference: Senator Cruz, Dr. Carson

Dear Republican National Committee:

This short letter is to inform you of our 2016 presidential candidate preference. We recommend the following two men as acceptable — and highly capable! — candidates:

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz

Dr. Benjamin Carson

Both of these men are well qualified to lead our nation. They understand the Constitution, they know the problems wrought on us by socialism and other failed Democrat policies. Both offer the best possible chances of correcting the destructive course of the current administration and leading responsibly and effectively.

We offer the following individuals as unacceptable presidential candidates:

Jeb Bush

Gov. Chris Christie

 

Gov. Brewer Endorsing RINOs

With the Arizona primary election only a few weeks away, lame duck Gov. Jan Brewer is endorsing every liberal Republican she can find.

Brewer endorsed RINO State Senator Michele Reagan for secretary of state: “I’ve had the pleasure of working with Senator Reagan for years crafting sound public policy for Arizona.”

Crafting sound policy? Not for the unborn children the abortion-supporting Reagan would condemn to death with her unyielding support of abortion.

It is crucial that Reagan not be elected secretary of state. If a governor does not complete his/her term, the secretary of state becomes governor. This is how Brewer gained the governor’s office.

Brewer endorsed Sen. Bob Worsley, the RINO who called Arizona “a police state.” Worsley also voted for HB 1062, then cowardly switched sides when the radical homofascists started screaming. They also stampeded Gov. Brewer into fearfully vetoing the religious freedom bill.

The governor endorsed RINO Rep. Heather Carter: “I am honored to endorse Representative Heather Carter in her re-election campaign for the Arizona House of Representatives. In the face of the worst economic downturn in our state’s history, Heather Carter has continuously proven to be a conservative leader, fighting for commonsense economic policies and smaller, responsible government.”

However, in Rep. Carter’s House tenure, she has earned a dubious failing grade from Americans from Prosperity: “friend of big government.”

Incidentally, this is the same failing grade Gov. Brewer earned from Americans for Prosperity, a watchdog group for taxpayers.

I had Masha Gessen’s dream of five parents… and it sucked

By Jennifer Johnson, Director of Outreach for the Ruth Institute
Around March of 2013 I came across the words of a prominent LGBT activist named Masha Gessen:
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.

 

Imagine having five parents! Here’s what it means: it means going back and forth between all those households on a regular basis, never having a single place to call home during your most tender and vulnerable years. It means having divided Christmases, other holidays, and birthdays–you spend one with one parent, and another with the other parent, never spending a single holiday or birthday with both parents. Imagine having each of your parents completely ignore the other half of you, the other half of your family, as if it did not even exist. Meanwhile, imagine each parent pouring their energy into their new families and creating a unified home for their new children. These experiences give you the definite impression of being something leftover, something not quite part of them. You live like that on a daily basis for 18+ years.

Does this look like a fun way to spend your childhood?

 

I don’t have to imagine, because I had five parents. I had five parents because my mom and dad divorced when I was about three; my mom remarried once and my dad remarried twice. So I had a mom and two step-moms, and a dad and one step-dad. In this day and age children can already have five parents. That’s how badly marriage has deteriorated already. The main difference between what Gessen advocates and my experience is that my step parents were not legal parents; she advocates for all of the adults in her situation to be legal parents.

 

Having more than two legal parents will be a nightmare for a child. Of course, I am making the reasonable assumption that the legal parents will not be living under the same roof, because there is no longer any societal accountability for adults to create a unified home for children. Thus, adding additional legal parents will create more disruption for children’s daily lives, more chaos, more confusion, less unity. And why are we doing this? So that adults can have the sexual partners they want.

Masha Gessen had a mom and a dad, so it appears that she benefitted from the socially conservative family structure--it appears she was not raised under the family structure she advocates. That sounds about right. I’ve talked to many people who think deconstructing the family in favor of adult sexual choice is a good thing… and these very same people lived under the socially conservative family structure with their one mom who spent her life with their one dad, and they all lived together in their unified home. Since I lived under the family structure they advocate, I will sometimes ask them: would you trade childhoods with me? They either say no or they don’t reply.

 If what I had is so great, then why don’t they want it as children? Here’s my conclusion: they want it as adults but not as children. They want the benefits of the socially conservative family structure when they are children. But as adults, they want sexual freedom, or at least they want to appear “open minded” and “tolerant” about others sexual choices, even at the expense of children, even though they themselves would never want to live under what they advocate. It’s a bizarre sort of a “win-win” for them, I guess.

 It’s very painful for me to have conversations with these people. They don’t understand what they advocate, and they don’t seem to want to understand.

CAP: Hobby Lobby and 1062

By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to affirm the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rights of the Green Family (who own Hobby Lobby) and the Hahn family (who own Conestoga Wood Specialties) had a very real tie to Arizona’s SB 1062.

One of the primary purposes CAP supported SB 1062 was to clarify Arizona’s own Religious Freedom Restoration Act to ensure that every Arizonan is not forced to surrender their religious beliefs merely because they start a business.

In the majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito echoed this fundamental principle when he wrote:

“Business practices compelled or limited by the tenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within the understanding of the “exercise of religion” that this Court set out in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith.

Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of modern corporate law.”

Make no mistake, this was no small victory for religious freedom, but it also is not the final word. There is still much to be done to ensure every Arizonan is free to live and work according to their faith.

As with SB 1062, opponents have launched a massive misinformation campaign about the decision. Take time to understand what government mandates were objectionable to the Green and Hahn families. The federal government attempted to compel the family-owned businesses to provide and pay for abortion medication in their employee health insurance plans. Hobby Lobby did not object to providing 16 of 20 contraceptive medications mandated by the government – it’s the other four that can function to cause an abortion that were objectionable.

Endorsements for Arizona Primary Election

The Arizona Conservative is endorsing candidates for public office in the Grand Canyon State in advance of the August 26 primary elections. Voters have two choices: candidates who will champion FREEDOM for the individual and those who will push policies that deny and reduce personal freedoms – the candidates of socialism and excessive government CONTROL of your life. Whom do you want in office? Those who protect your constitutional freedom, or those who would expand government and take away more and more of your freedom? Your vote will impact every facet of American society and culture. Check back frequently as we are examining more candidates and propositions and making recommendations:

Office Freedom Control
Governor Andy Thomas Fred DuVal
Secretary of State Will Cardon Chris Campas, Terry Goddard
Attorney General Mark Brnovich Felicia Rotellini
State Treasurer Randy Pullen
Supt. Of Public Instruction Diane Douglas Sharon Thomas, David Garcia
Mining Inspector Joe Hart Manuel Cruz
Congress-District 1 Adam Kwasman Ann Kirkpatrick
Congress-District 2 Martha McSally, Chuck Wooten Ron Barber
Congress-District 3 Gabriela Saucedo Mercer Raul Grijalva
Congress-District 4 Paul Gosar Mikel Weisser
Congress-District 5 Matt Salmon
Congress-District 6 David Schweikert
Congress-District 7 Steve Gallardo, Cesar Chavez
Congress-District 8 Trent Franks Helmuth Hack
Congress-District 9 Wendy Rogers, Andrew Walter Kyrsten Sinema

Arizona Legislature

District 1

Senate:

House: Linda Gray, Karen Fann

District 2

Senate:

House:

District 3

Senate:

House:

District 4

Senate: Connie Uribe

House:

District 5

Senate: Kelli Ward

House: Sam Medrano

District 6

Senate: Chester Crandall

House: Brenda Barton

District 7

Senate:

House:

District 8

Senate: Irene Littleton

House: Darla Dawald

District 9

Senate:

House: Ethan Orr

District 10

Senate:

House:

District 11

Senate: Steve Smith

House: Vince Leach, Mark Finchem

District 12

Senate: Andy Biggs

House: Eddie Farnsworth, Warren Peterson

District 13

Senate: Don Shooter

House: Darin Mitchell, Steve Montenegro

District 14

Senate: Gail Griffin

House: David Gowan, David Stevens

District 15

Senate: Nancy Barto

House: John Allen, David Smith

District 16

Senate: David Farnsworth

House: Kelly Townsend, John Fillmore

District 17

SenateA Steve Yarbrough

House: J.D. Mesnard, Jeff Weninger

District 18

Senate: Tom Morrissey

House: John King, Jill Norgaard

District 19

Senate:

House:

District 20

Senate: Kimberly Yee

House: Paul Boyer, Carl Seel

District 21

Senate: Debbie Lesko

House: Rick Gray

District 22

Senate: Judy Burges

House: David Livington, Phil Lovas

District 23

Senate: John Kavanaugh

House: Jay Lawrence, Michelle Ugenti

District 24

Senate:

House:

District 25

Senate: Dr. Ralph Heap

House: Rusty Bowers, Justin Olsen, Jerry Walker

District 26

Senate:

House:

District 27

Senate:

House:

District 28

Senate:

House: Shawna Bolick

District 29

Senate:

House:

District 30

Senate: Gary Cox

House:

 

LOCAL ELECTIONS

Mesa mayor — Danny Ray

PROPOSITIONS

Tempe–475: Non-discrimination ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity

NO: This proposition is not in the best interests of individuals who are struggling with same-sex attraction and who are confused about their gender.  Furthermore, these non-discrimination bills, fronted by leftists seeking to destroy traditional marriage and family structure, are cited by activist judges to over-rule the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and the free exercise of religion.  For these reasons, VOTE NO.

 

 

 

ADF Asks Court to Uphold Marriage as One Man, One Woman

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, jointly with the Arizona Solicitor General’s office, filed a motion Tuesday with a federal court to defend Arizona’s laws affirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“Marriage expresses the reality that men and women bring distinct, irreplaceable gifts to family life, especially for children who deserve both a mom and a dad,” said Senior Counsel Byron Babione. “That is why Arizonans approved a constitutional amendment to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The court should uphold the right of Arizonans to define marriage consistent with this public policy, which is motivated by their concern over what’s best for children and society.”

ADF attorneys were appointed by Attorney General Tom Horne to assist the Arizona Solicitor General’s office in defending the state’s marriage laws after six same-sex couples sued county clerks in Pinal County, Maricopa County, and Coconino County.

According to the brief filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in the case,Connolly v. Roche: “[M]arriage has always existed to channel the presumptive procreative potential of man-woman relationships into committed unions in order to join children to both their mother and their father. Nevertheless, some now seek to redefine marriage from a gendered to a genderless institution, while many others legitimately believe that such a change would obscure marriage’s animating purpose and undermine its social utility. So far, the States have reached differing decisions on this important question. Yet Plaintiffs, discontented with the sovereign decision of Arizonans, argue that the public debate about the meaning, purpose, and future of marriage was meaningless… But Plaintiffs are mistaken. The Constitution has not removed this question from the People.”

“The laws of Arizona have always reflected the man-woman nature of marriage,” added ADF Legal Counsel Jim Campbell. “The court should not endorse the recently conceived notion that marriage is about special government recognition for adult relationships, but instead should uphold the time-honored laws preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

Tucson Schools Want to Put Children at Risk of Physical Harm

Alliance Defending Freedom news release …

Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter to the Tucson Unified School District Thursday that asks it to reverse its new policy of allowing children to use bathrooms of the opposite sex. The letter provides a suggested policy that addresses the school district’s concerns about discrimination without allowing the sharing of bathrooms.

The ADF letter explains that, contrary to the district’s stated reason for enacting its new policy, no law requires public schools to allow boys into girls’ restrooms or girls into boys’ restrooms. In fact, the district could be exposing itself to legal liability for placing children in potentially unsafe conditions.

“Protecting young children from inappropriate exposure to the opposite sex is not only perfectly legal, it’s a school district’s duty,” said ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “Letting boys into girls’ bathrooms is an invasion of privacy and a threat to children’s safety. The school district is actually subjecting itself to potential liability if any of these children encounter any harm.”

“Instead of protecting children, the school district is needlessly adopting a policy that invites harm and violations of student privacy,” added ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “The first duty of school district officials is to protect the children who attend school.”

TUSD recently amended its Non-Discrimination Policy to include the terms “gender identity and expression” upon legal advice that federal laws like Title IX require it and require the district to allow students to use opposite-sex bathrooms and changing areas. The ADF letter explains that, in fact, no law requires TUSD to open bathrooms and changing areas to opposite-sex students and that providing such access endangers children and violates the rights of both students and parents.

The letter cites pertinent legal precedent, including a 2009 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruling that public schools can restrict restrooms to members of the same sex for safety reasons without violating Title IX.

“Based on such cases, TUSD does not have any legal duty to open changing areas to opposite-sex students as a means to prevent discrimination. There simply is no discrimination in protecting young children from inappropriate exposure to the opposite-sex…,” the ADF letter states. “Permitting students to use opposite-sex restrooms would seriously endanger student safety, undermine parental authority, and severely impair an environment conducive to learning. These dangers are so clear-cut that a school district allowing such activity would clearly subject itself–and its teachers–to tort liability. We therefore suggest that TUSD reverse its decision and prohibit students from using opposite-sex changing areas.”

In the letter, ADF offers to defend the school district free of charge if it adopts the ADF-recommended policy and then faces any legal challenge over it in court.

82 Percent of Republicans Polled Believe in Marriage

Better think again, GOP, before you abandon the basic unit of society …

 

By Kim Trobee, CitizenLink

A national poll by American Values and the Family Research Council shows 82 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe marriage “should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.”

The poll comes after Nevada’s GOP announced it would remove social issues from the state party platform. Several prominent members of the Republican Party made statements supporting same-sex marriage.

Yet, in reality, the American people “overwhelmingly support the institution of marriage,” said American Values President Gary Bauer.

“Public policy makers are doing a great disservice to themselves and future generations,” he said, “by continuing to misread the convictions of the American people. The misinformation campaign waged by media elites muddies the debate and attempts to isolate those who support the time-honored traditions and values shared by every major world religion throughout human history.”

Bauer said the debate is no longer about privacy and tolerance.

“Religious liberty, free speech and rights of conscience are now at stake” he said. “This survey should remind political and cultural leaders that this debate is far from over.  If anything, it is taking on a new sense of urgency for millions of men and women of faith.”

FRC President Tony Perkins said Republican leadership would do well to listen.

“Republican voters continue to resist the demands of cultural elites who want to see the party abandon the very core values that gave rise to American exceptionalism,” he said. “The vast majority of the GOP base continues to believe that marriage is a non-negotiable plank of the national platform and want to see their elected officials uphold natural marriage as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage and promote in law.”

Homofascist Tyranny Growing out of Control

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 149 other followers