More Evidence of the Consequences of Same-Sex Marriage

Parker v. Hurley (Massachusetts case):
Second graders in public school were taught about a prince marrying another prince. Parents sued the school for the right to be notified and the right to pull their children out of the instruction. Court ruled that parents had no legal right to object.

(It's odd that a school nurse can't even administer so much as an aspirin without a signed parental permission, but the parents' permission isn't only not required, the parents can't even object when their children are taught about same sex marriage in school.)

(Consider this: if children are forced to learn about same-sex marriage in schools, what will be taught when those children reach the age at which sex education classes are administered?)

North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. San Diego County Superior Court (California):
A same-sex couple (women) sued a San Diego fertility clinic when a doctor refused to perform artificial insemination on one of the women because of the doctor's Christian beliefs. Even though there was another doctor willing to perform this elective procedure, the court ruled that anti-discrimination laws are more important than religious beliefs.

Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association, stated, "This case was never about discrimination against patients on the basis of sexual choices; it was about discrimination against healthcare professionals on the basis of their sincerely held ethical standards."

"Physicians of course must treat all patients with compassion and respect, regardless of the belief systems or sexual norms of the patients," Stevens said. "But tolerance is a two-way street: we must also respect the right of healthcare professionals to make decisions based on ethical standards. ... Even the American Medical Association officially affirms that 'neither physician, hospital, nor hospital personnel shall be required to perform any act violative of personally held moral principles.'"

Good News Employees Association v. Hicks (California):
The City of Oakland’s Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible and Christian beliefs in widespread city emails. When other employees attempted to refute the attack, they were threatened with immediate termination.

(This is a perfect example of the “tyranny of tolerance,” or the “paradox of tolerance” where one side demands that their behavior be tolerated and anyone opposed to it is not tolerated—they are sued or threatened with retaliation)

FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, THIS PROPOSITION TO LIMIT MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA TO A MAN AND A WOMAN DOES NOT DEPRIVE THEM OF RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA!!! TOLERANCE IS SHOWN FOR THEIR LIFESTYLE THROUGH THE GUARANTEE THAT DOMESTIC PARTNERS WILL ENJOY ALL THE SAME “RIGHTS, PROTECTIONS, AND BENEFITS” AS MARRIED SPOUSES (Cal Family Code 297.5). TOLERANCE IS NOT SHOWN, HOWEVER, FOR THOSE WHO OPPOSE THIS LIFESTYLE! PROP 8 PROTECTS MORE THAN JUST MARRIAGE—IT PROTECTS THE FIRST AMENDMENT’S GUARANTEE OF FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, FREE SPEECH, AND FURTHER PROTECTS VALUABLE PARENTAL RIGHTS.

THINK ABOUT IT.