6 thoughts on “To the kind attention of the USA Supreme Court

  1. WARNING: These 8th graders will soon be receiving lessons on „oral and anal“ sex. Fourth graders will receive instruction about incest. The goal is to teach students about homosexual, bisexual, and transgender identity.

    Още от детската градина учениците в САЩ ще изучават еднополовия секс /анален, орален и т.н./ Родителите няма да имат право на мнение. Гледайте внимателно репортажа на CBN и свиквайте с извращенията, които ще ни бъдат СИЛОВО налагани под формата на „човешки права“, чрез потъпкването на най-фундаменталните такива човешки права


  2. A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights

    by Dawn Stefanowicz

    April 24th, 2015

    Americans need to understand that the endgame of the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.

    I am one of six adult children of gay parents who recently filed amicus briefs with the US Supreme Court, asking the Court to respect the authority of citizens to keep the original definition of marriage: a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, so that children may know and may be raised by their biological parents. I also live in Canada, where same-sex marriage was federally mandated in 2005.

    I am the daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS. I described my experiences in my book: Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. Over fifty adult children who were raised by LGBT parents have communicated with me and share my concerns about same-sex marriage and parenting. Many of us struggle with our own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influences in our household environments growing up.

    We have great compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality and gender identity—not animosity. And we love our parents. Yet, when we go public with our stories, we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.

    I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.

    Canada’s Lessons

    In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

    Why do police prosecute speech under the guise of eliminating “hate speech” when there are existing legal remedies and criminal protections against slander, defamation, threats, and assault that equally apply to all Americans? Hate-crime-like policies using the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” create unequal protections in law, whereby protected groups receive more legal protection than other groups.

    Having witnessed how mob hysteria in Indiana caused the legislature to back-track on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, many Americans are beginning to understand that some activists on the Left want to usher in state control over every institution and freedom. In this scheme, personal autonomy and freedom of expression become nothing more than pipe dreams, and children become commodified.

    Children are not commodities that can be justifiably severed from their natural parentage and traded between unrelated adults. Children in same-sex households will often deny their grief and pretend they don’t miss a biological parent, feeling pressured to speak positively due to the politics surrounding LGBT households. However, when children lose either of their biological parents because of death, divorce, adoption, or artificial reproductive technology, they experience a painful void. It is the same for us when our gay parent brings his or her same-sex partner(s) into our lives. Their partner(s) can never replace our missing biological parent.

    The State as Ultimate Arbiter of Parenthood

    Over and over, we are told that “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.

    When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents.

    Mothers and fathers bring unique and complementary gifts to their children. Contrary to the logic of same-sex marriage, the gender of parents matters for the healthy development of children. We know, for example, that the majority of incarcerated men did not have their fathers in the home. Fathers by their nature secure identity, instill direction, provide discipline, boundaries, and risk-taking adventures, and set lifelong examples for children. But fathers cannot nurture children in the womb or give birth to and breast-feed babies. Mothers nurture children in unique and beneficial ways that cannot be duplicated by fathers.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that men and women are anatomically, biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally, and neurologically different from each other. These unique differences provide lifelong benefits to children that cannot be duplicated by same-gender “legal” parents acting out different gender roles or attempting to substitute for the missing male or female role model in the home.

    In effect, same-sex marriage not only deprives children of their own rights to natural parentage, it gives the state the power to override the autonomy of biological parents, which means parental rights are usurped by the government.

    Hate Tribunals Are Coming

    In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.

    Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

    The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint.

    If your beliefs, values, and political opinions are different from the state’s, you risk losing your professional license, job, or business, and even your children. Look no further than the Lev Tahor Sect, an Orthodox Jewish sect. Many members, who had been involved in a bitter custody battle with child protection services, began leaving Chatham, Ontario, for Guatemala in March 2014, to escape prosecution for their religious faith, which conflicted with the Province’s guidelines for religious education. Of the two hundred sect members, only half a dozen families remain in Chatham.

    Parents can expect state interference when it comes to moral values, parenting, and education—and not just in school. The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home.

    Teachers cannot make comments in their social networks, write letters to editors, publicly debate, or vote according to their own conscience on their own time. They can be disciplined or lose any chance of tenure. They can be required at a bureaucrat’s whim to take re-education classes or sensitivity training, or be fired for thinking politically incorrect thoughts.

    When same-sex marriage was created in Canada, gender-neutral language became legally mandated. Newspeak proclaims that it is discriminatory to assume a human being is male or female, or heterosexual. So, to be inclusive, special non-gender-specific language is being used in media, government, workplaces, and especially schools to avoid appearing ignorant, homophobic, or discriminatory. A special curriculum is being used in many schools to teach students how to use proper gender-neutral language. Unbeknownst to many parents, use of gender terms to describe husband and wife, father and mother, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, and “he” and “she” is being steadily eradicated in Canadian schools.

    Which Is More Important: Sexual Autonomy or the First Amendment?

    Recently, an American professor who was anonymously interviewed for the American Conservative questioned whether sexual autonomy is going to cost you your freedoms: “We are now at the point, he said, at which it is legitimate to ask if sexual autonomy is more important than the First Amendment?”

    Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian citizens were supposed to have been guaranteed: (1) freedom of conscience and religion; (2) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (3) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (4) freedom of association. In reality, all of these freedoms have been curtailed with the legalization of same-sex marriage.

    Wedding planners, rental halls, bed and breakfast owners, florists, photographers, and bakers have already seen their freedoms eroded, conscience rights ignored, and religious freedoms trampled in Canada. But this is not just about the wedding industry. Anybody who owns a business may not legally permit his or her conscience to inform business practices or decisions if those decisions are not in line with the tribunals’ decisions and the government’s sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination laws. In the end, this means that the state basically dictates whether and how citizens may express themselves.

    Freedom to assemble and speak freely about man-woman marriage, family, and sexuality is now restricted. Most faith communities have become “politically correct” to avoid fines and loss of charitable status. Canadian media are restricted by the Canadian Radio, Television, and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which is similar to the FCC. If the media air anything considered discriminatory, broadcasting licenses can be revoked, and “human rights bodies” can charge fines and restrict future airings.

    An example of legally curtailed speech regarding homosexuality in Canada involves the case of Bill Whatcott, who was arrested for hate speech in April 2014 after distributing pamphlets that were critical of homosexuality. Whether or not you agree with what he says, you should be aghast at this state-sanctioned gagging. Books, DVDs, and other materials can also be confiscated at the Canadian border if the materials are deemed “hateful.”

    Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.

    Dawn Stefanowicz is an internationally recognized speaker and author. She is a member of the Testimonial Committee of the International Children’s Rights Institute. Her book, Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, is available at http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org. Dawn, a full-time licensed accountant, is married and has two teenaged children.

  3. Лила said:
    Този се е олял. За пръв път чувам колене да се „преклоняват“.
    # 26 юни 2015 at 11:09 PM“

    One day soon every knee will bow & every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord of Lords & King of Kings, the Alpha & the Omega, the Beginning & the End.“

    bow – прекланям (се) [Английско-български речник, том І. А-І, С., 1985, с.149]

    прекланям гл. нсв.Навеждам се в знак на почит, смирение [Български тълковен речник А-Я, С., 1993, с.727]



    While all the findings are important, we can have a higher level of confidence that findings represent actual differences in the overall population if they are „statistically significant.“ If they are statistically significant after „controlling“ for other variables that might influence a particular outcome, that is even more compelling. Below are some of the statistically significant findings comparing children who had homosexual parents with children raised by their married mother and father. (Some of these figures represent percentages reporting certain experiences, while others represent average scores on scales created by Regnerus.)

    Significant for both lesbian mothers (LM) and gay fathers (GF), with & without controls:

    Compared with children raised by their married biological parents („intact biological family,“ or IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

    Are much more likely to have received welfare growing up (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
    Have lower educational attainment (IBF 3.19; LM 2.39; GF 2.64)
    Report less safety and security in their family of origin (IBF 4.13; LM 3.12; GF 3.25)
    Report more ongoing „negative impact“ from their family of origin (IBF 2.30; LM 3.13; GF 2.90)
    Are more likely to suffer from depression (IBF 1.83; LM 2.20; 2.18)
    Have been arrested more often (IBF 1.18; LM 1.68; GF 1.75)
    If they are female, have had more sexual partners-both male (IBF 2.79; LM 4.02; GF 5.92) and female (IBF 0.22; LM 1.04; GF 1.47)
    Significant for lesbian mothers (LM) with & without controls

    Compared to children from intact biological families (IBF), children of lesbian mothers:

    Are more likely to be currently cohabiting (IBF 9%; LM 24%)
    Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance (IBF 10%; LM 38%)
    Are barely half as likely to be currently employed full-time (IBF 49%; LM 26%)
    Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed (IBF 8%; LM 28%)
    Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual (Identifies as entirely heterosexual: IBF 90%; LM 61%)
    Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting (IBF 13%; LM 40%)
    Are an astonishing 11 times more likely to have been „touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver“ in childhood (but not necessarily by the homosexual parent; IBF 2%; LM 23%)
    Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been „physically forced“ to have sex against their will (at some time in their life, not necessarily in childhood; IBF 8%; LM 31%)
    Are more likely to have „attachment“ problems related to the ability to depend on others (IBF 2.82; LM 3.43)
    Use marijuana more frequently (IBF 1.32; LM 1.84)
    Smoke more frequently (IBF 1.79; LM 2.76)
    Watch TV for long periods more frequently (IBF 3.01; LM 3.70)
    Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense (IBF 1.10; LM 1.36)


  5. Този се е олял. За пръв път чувам колене да се „преклоняват“. 🙂

  6. Юристът Николай Гусев е по-директен в коментар на същата тема, публикуван във Фейсбук:

    „Член 2 В настоящата Конвенция под „геноцид“ се разбира всяко едно от следните действия, извършени с цел да се унищожи, отчасти или изцяло, една национална, етническа, расова или религиозна група като такава:
    г) мерки за предотвратяване ражданията на групата;

    Член 3 Ще бъдат наказуеми следните действия:
    а) геноцид;
    б) заговор за извършване на геноцид;
    в) пряко и публично подстрекателство за извършване на геноцид;
    г) опит за извършване на геноцид;
    д) съучастие в геноцид.

    Член 4 Лица, които са извършили геноцид или което и да е действие, посочено в чл. 3, ще бъдат наказани независимо от това, дали са правителства, държавни служители или частни лица.“

    Горните текстове са от приетата на 9.12.1948 г. с резолюция 260 A (III) на Общото събрание на ООН Конвенция за преследване и наказване на престъплението геноцид (ратифицирана от България с Указ № 300 от 23.06.1950 г.).

    Какво представлява т.нар. хомосексуализъм? Ето какво:

    – Един мъж, манаф, изсипва семенната си течност в ануса на друг мъж, педераст. Анусът на педераста не е детероден орган, следователно от „брак“ между манаф и педераст не може да се роди нов човешки живот;

    – Една жена, „активна“ лесбийка, търка гениталиите си в гениталиите на друга жена, „пасивна“ лесбийка. И двете по природа не са предназначени да оплождат, а да бъдат оплождани от мъж, следователно от „брак“ между „активна“ и „пасивна“ лесбийка не може да се роди нов човешки живот.

    И двата варианта абсолютно точно пасват на забраната на чл.2 б.“г“ от Конвенцията за преследване и наказване на престъплението геноцид – „мерки за предотвратяване ражданията на групата“. А групата в случая е човечеството като цяло!

    Това, което от известно време извършват някои правителства, парламенти, политици, ангажирани на властови позиции лица е пар екселанс цялата гама на чл.4 от Конвенцията за преследване и наказване на престъплението геноцид.

    Нека да имат предвид всичките тези „правителства, държавни служители или частни лица“, че чл.4 от Конвенцията за преследване и наказване на престъплението геноцид не им предоставя индулгенция за античовешките им деяния. Напротив!

    И в заключение:

    Престъплението геноцид е от категорията на престъпленията срещу човечеството – т.е., не подлежи на давност!

    Ние, българският Народ, НИКОГА няма да преклоним колене пред изчадията адови!

Вашият коментар

Вашият имейл адрес няма да бъде публикуван. Задължителните полета са отбелязани с *