'Adult Bullies' Oppose Lesbian Homecoming Court
A pro-family activist doesn't think officials at a San Diego school should have allowed students to nominate a lesbian couple to homecoming court.
When students at Patrick Henry High School selected a lesbian couple as the homecoming king and queen, it sparked an outpouring of e-mails and phone calls from the community. But San Diego Unified School District Superintendent Bob Kowba issued a statement to congratulate the two, and he criticizes those who argue the nomination of Rebecca Arellano and Haileigh Adams to the homecoming court, calling the concerned individuals "adult bullies" and saying they are demonstrating "a lack of tolerance and are presenting such a negative role model for children with their hateful comments."
"I'm stunned that the schools are even allowing this," says Barbara Decker of Eagle Forum San Diego. "If we don't set a benchmark of what is supposed to be a male and a female, what's going to happen to the family?"
She argues that school officials acted irresponsibly in allowing children to nominate a lesbian couple.
"If you let the children run the house, then the children aren't going to make the correct decisions," Decker contends. "They need to have the role model of the parents, and the firmness of the parents, and the guidelines of the parents and the schools."
But in spite of the controversy, Kowba, who has the support of other school board members, congratulates the couple and "wishes them and the school well." -One News Now
A pro-family activist doesn't think officials at a San Diego school should have allowed students to nominate a lesbian couple to homecoming court.
When students at Patrick Henry High School selected a lesbian couple as the homecoming king and queen, it sparked an outpouring of e-mails and phone calls from the community. But San Diego Unified School District Superintendent Bob Kowba issued a statement to congratulate the two, and he criticizes those who argue the nomination of Rebecca Arellano and Haileigh Adams to the homecoming court, calling the concerned individuals "adult bullies" and saying they are demonstrating "a lack of tolerance and are presenting such a negative role model for children with their hateful comments."
"I'm stunned that the schools are even allowing this," says Barbara Decker of Eagle Forum San Diego. "If we don't set a benchmark of what is supposed to be a male and a female, what's going to happen to the family?"
She argues that school officials acted irresponsibly in allowing children to nominate a lesbian couple.
"If you let the children run the house, then the children aren't going to make the correct decisions," Decker contends. "They need to have the role model of the parents, and the firmness of the parents, and the guidelines of the parents and the schools."
But in spite of the controversy, Kowba, who has the support of other school board members, congratulates the couple and "wishes them and the school well." -One News Now
<><><>*<><><>
'Almighty God' Gets Go-Ahead
Now that a court has given its stamp of approval, Kentuckians can legally thank "Almighty God."
A ruling by a three-judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals favors two state actions thanking God. One of those actions came in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when state lawmakers issued a finding stating "the safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance on Almighty God."
The other -- in legislation that created the state Office of Homeland Security in 2006 -- required the executive director of that agency to acknowledge "dependence on Almighty God" in training manuals and on a wall plaque on the door of the operations center.
Kent Ostrander of the Family Foundation of Kentucky explains that a lower court had ruled against the latter action -- specifically, against a plaque saying: "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain." (Psalm 127:1)
"There was a lawsuit by some atheists saying that they were trying to establish religion [by requiring the plaque]," he shares. "And in this case, the court of appeals ruled that that was just a part of the traditional American heritage, and that it's free for a government to say such a thing as 'God Almighty.'"
Of the legislation, one of the judges wrote that it merely "seeks to recognize the historical reliance on God for protection" and does not advance religion.
The Christian activist believes atheists are suggesting everyone has constitutionally guaranteed free speech -- unless, of course, they are mentioning God.
"That's normally the tenor," Ostrander comments. "And it's unfortunate because everybody's so hyper about giving someone an offense -- and certainly we don't want to give anyone offense.
"But just because someone's offended doesn't mean they have the right to take over other people's freedoms -- and that's what is attempted every time these kinds of things are taken to court."
Ostrander fully expects the decision to be appealed. –One News Now
Now that a court has given its stamp of approval, Kentuckians can legally thank "Almighty God."
A ruling by a three-judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals favors two state actions thanking God. One of those actions came in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when state lawmakers issued a finding stating "the safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance on Almighty God."
The other -- in legislation that created the state Office of Homeland Security in 2006 -- required the executive director of that agency to acknowledge "dependence on Almighty God" in training manuals and on a wall plaque on the door of the operations center.
Kent Ostrander of the Family Foundation of Kentucky explains that a lower court had ruled against the latter action -- specifically, against a plaque saying: "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain." (Psalm 127:1)
"There was a lawsuit by some atheists saying that they were trying to establish religion [by requiring the plaque]," he shares. "And in this case, the court of appeals ruled that that was just a part of the traditional American heritage, and that it's free for a government to say such a thing as 'God Almighty.'"
Of the legislation, one of the judges wrote that it merely "seeks to recognize the historical reliance on God for protection" and does not advance religion.
The Christian activist believes atheists are suggesting everyone has constitutionally guaranteed free speech -- unless, of course, they are mentioning God.
"That's normally the tenor," Ostrander comments. "And it's unfortunate because everybody's so hyper about giving someone an offense -- and certainly we don't want to give anyone offense.
"But just because someone's offended doesn't mean they have the right to take over other people's freedoms -- and that's what is attempted every time these kinds of things are taken to court."
Ostrander fully expects the decision to be appealed. –One News Now
No comments:
Post a Comment