Judge Refuses Anonymity to Prop. 8 Donors//

…Of course he did…he’s probably bff’s with Jerry Brown or something. Although backers of the California same-sex marriage ban say it puts more donors at risk of harassment or reprisals, the Judge didn’t seem to be all that concerned with the safety of Prop 8 donors. Just to name a few of the reasons donors’ privacy should have been protected, besides death threats and regular harassment, donors have also received:

Harassing e-mails, phone calls and post cards received by contributors to the California marriage amendment include “Burn in hell” and “If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter.”

After a one-hour hearing Thursday, U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. denied the request to keep private all donors who donated between $99 and $999 in the last two weeks before the election, clearing the way for the names of some 1,600 people to be made public on Monday. That means that my husband and I will be on this list. Fine by me. To quote my Dad and my husband as I’m telling them about this breaking news as I type this post:

Husband:  “Bring it on”

Dad: “Bring it on, I got my concealed [weapons] carry permit”

“We are disappointed that we did not receive the preliminary injunction,” said Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert in a statement. “But this fight is really about how donors to a future campaign will be treated. We are committed to ensuring that supporters of traditional marriage can do so without fear of intimidation and harassment.”

Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, believes there is “systematic effort” to seek out Proposition 8 donors and harass them.

The latest example of published names being used to expose Prop 8 donors is the H8 map.

“The message of this harassment is unmistakable – ’support traditional marriage and we will find you,’” said Prentice.

Source: Christianpost.com

At Obama’s Request, Congress Pulls Abortion Industry Funding in Economic Stimulus Bill// but allots millions for STD prevention

The Democratic-controlled House approved a historically huge $819 billion stimulus bill Wednesday night with spending increases and tax cuts at the heart of the young administration’s plan to revive a badly ailing economy.

Is $335 million for STD prevention a good way to spend economic-recovery money? Too late. . .that’s what is included in the bill that passed the House by a 244-188 vote Wednesday evening.

Republicans and some Democrats have complained that the recovery bill is loaded with items that would provide little short-term help in boosting the economy. Republicans say the bill instead has become a vehicle for congressional Democrats to get approval for projects they’ve been unable to secure in recent years with congressional Republicans and President Bush able to foil their efforts.

I guess there could be worse things than money for STD prevention, however the debate abounds how including this in the stimulus package will actually help create jobs. I’m guessing it won’t. But we should count our blessings that STD money was all that was included in this crazy stimulus thing. Because it could have been worse, much worse:

House Democrats were forced to remove a separate $200 million that had been designated to boost contraceptive coverage under Medicaid, the government-run health care plan for the poor.

That provision was removed after President Obama made a personal appeal to take it out of the bill.

A good idea if you ask me, considering that it was just an under-the-table, round-about way for our typically sleazy politicians to actually provide Planned Parenthood with $200 million for abortions.

In their proposal, Congressional Democrats had loaded down the economic stimulus bill to send taxpayer funds to domestic abortion groups. The stimulus plan originally included a measure to send more public funds to the Planned Parenthood abortion business to fund contraception and birth control. Specifically, a provision in the proposed legislation cleared the way for expanded federal funding of contraceptives through Medicaid for those who aren’t even poor. As proposed, states would have sought a waiver to offer Medicaid “family planning services” to people who didn’t qualify and who didn’t need them. That’s a socialist government for you, provide services and keep the people from taking care of themselves. Under a Clinton-era program, a waiver meant that the Federal Government would have shelled out $9 for every $1 the state pays for said services.

On Friday, when the House Energy & Commerce Committee considered the congressional Democrats’ spending bill, the committee eliminated the waiver requirement.

As a result, all 50 states will now offer Medicaid “family planning” services (including contraception) with the federal government offering the same $9 to $1 match. Although the money doesn’t fund abortions directly, it goes to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business, which would otherwise have to spend its own money on contraception.

Pro-life advocates say the governmental funds free up Planned Parenthood dollars to promote and perform abortions that it would otherwise have to spend on family planning.

“Regardless of where anyone stands on taxpayer-funding for contraceptives and the abortion industry, there is no doubt that this once little-known provision in the congressional Democrats’ spending plan has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and creating more American jobs,” he said.

Sneaky, Scandalous Democrats! Did they really think that no one would catch on to their plan–Fund abortions with money technically allocated for birth control and condoms via Medicaid. When Planned Parenthood didn’t have to give them out, because the government would have, they would then be able to use that freed up money to perform more abortions. Sickening huh???? We have to keep an eye on these people every second. I am constantly amazed by the pure lack of integrity, intelligence and plain common sense in our elected officials. Actually, I’m not constantly amazed, I’m not surprised at all, it’s the status-quo in D.C. and Sacramento. Nothing new. . .

I read somewhere that although Obama requested the removal of this “contraception” part of the bill, and it is not included in the stimulus package that actually passed, he still has a plan to provide money for these disguised abortion purposes, just not within the confines of this particular package. It seems like he’s on the scandalous fast-track; first week in office, and already he has plans to undermine the votes of the legislature. So, yeah, he asked that it be removed, but he still has something up his sleeve.

To be continued. . .

Sources:

Washingtontimes.com

lifenews.com

msnbc.msn.com

Prop. 8 Donors Ask U.S. Court For Anonymity// gays don’t want donors granted privacy

Citing previous death threats and harassment, backers of the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage will ask a U.S. District Court on Thursday to exempt the measure’s campaign contributors from further public disclosure.

As part of the state campaign finance law, a semi-annual disclosure filing is due on Saturday to ensure that voters know who is backing canditates and ballot measures. However,

A 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling found that disclosure exemptions could be permitted if plaintiffs demonstrate a “reasonable probability” that those identified would be subjected to “threats, harassment, or reprisals.”

When it comes to Prop 8 donors, we are way past any reasonable probability that said donors would be threatened, harassed or encounter other reprisals, like vandalism, stalking, and loosing their jobs, because these things have already and continue to happen.

The lawsuit sites specific death threats received by previously disclosed donors, vandalism to private property, and white powder – eventually determined to be harmless – sent to two Mormon churches.

And it wouldn’t be a Prop 8 issue with out the dissenters complaining. As expected, opponents of the exemption include state Attorney General Jerry Brown, Secretary of State Debra Bowen, and the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission.

Brown said that victims should sue or file criminal charges rather than “carve out a special privilege of anonymity for themselves alone.”

According to the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling as mentioned above, they don’t need to carve out any special privileges. It should be a given, in light of the violent and vulgar treatment received by so many prop 8 donors.

Richard L. Hasen, who specializes in election law at Loyola Law School, said the effort to shield the names of specific donors for Prop. 8 will be an easier argument to make than that for a blanket exemption on all ballot measure disclosures.

“In this case, we have seen credible claims of threats,” said Hasen, who has not taken a public position on the issue.

So I don’t get it. First the dissenters are irritated that we donated to Prop 8, then they are irritated that it passed!!!! Yeah!!! So they head out to harass and intimidate its donors and abuse the donor disclosure list. And now that the donors are fed up with the oppositions’ treatment, they’ve filed for privacy. Given the sitution, Prop 8 donors have every right to want their names removed from public view. What did the dissenters think would happen? Just because they don’t agree with us doesn’t mean we have to stay in plain site with big red targets on our garage doors. We aren’t being cowards, we are simply wanting to keep our jobs, keep our families safe and stop being harassed for exercising our Constitutional right to donate and vote according to our conscience. They don’t see us as a threat, because we aren’t, so they don’t feel the need for their names and donations to the No on 8 campaign to be made private.

Prop. 8 backers’ will make oral arguments before U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., and seek a temporary exemption from filing donors’ names. If granted, the court would then hold further deliberations to determine a final decision.

Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, said the last time a donor exemption was granted in California was 1989.

“A U.S. District Court in San Francisco ruled that the Socialist Action Party didn’t need to disclose people who contributed to its candidate for San Francisco supervisor,” Winger said. “It was an ACLU case. The city of San Francisco gave in and signed a consent decree.”

Some think that each donor should have to make their own case. But the filing is for the protection of all donors.

Chapman Law School Dean John Eastman, who sides with the Prop. 8 proponents in the case, disagreed, citing the 1982 Supreme Court precedent.

“I don’t find anything in that case saying there has to be individualized threats,” Eastman said. “The whole point is the prospective threat of economic or physical reprisal. How do you know you’re safe from a threat? You don’t wait until the threat has been made.”

Source: ocregister.com

Court Orders GA. Man to Keep Gay Friends Away from Kids//

or should she say "i know about 'him'"

A Georgia father has been forbidden by a divorce court from having any “homosexual partners or friends” around when his children are present.

Eric Mongerson and his ex-wife, Sandy Ehlers were prohibited by the court from having any one of the opposite sex, or deemed a paramour, and who was not a blood relative, stay overnight in the presence of the children.

But the Judge Christopher Edwards of the Fayette County Superior Court imposed additional restrictions on Mongerson, ordering, “Additionally, defendant is prohibited from exposing the children to his homosexual partners and friends” during the children’s once-per-week visits.

How great is this? Finally, a court “gets it.” And of course, the Father (if you could even call him that. I think that a Father is someone who always does whats in the best interests of their children, so technically this dude doesn’t always qualify), anyway, he appealed the court’s decision. Apparently he doesn’t want to be prohibited from having his homosexual liaisons in front of his children.

His filing argues that, “There was no evidence presented that and the court made no finding that exposing the parties’ children to any of Appellant’s homosexual friends would adversely affect the best interests of the children.

Oh really? So has he not read any of the studies, or payed attention to his children at all? He needs to read these posts here and here, and get himself straightened out. These kids do need a father, but not one who is going to parade his male “paramours” in front of them.

The lawyer for Mongerson’s ex-wife, Lance McMillian, cited as evidence to that effect the testimony by Mongerson’s daughter, who told the court that she had discovered “one of my dad’s magazines that had nude men in it doing things to each other.”

McMillian’s brief further asserted that Mongerson had been unfaithful, and that his children had suffered as their parents’ marriage ended. The presence of gay friends during time with their father, the brief claimed, might result in “potentially damaging effects on the healing process” of Mongerson’s children because they would be “reminded of the painful issue of the appellant’s infidelity, new lifestyle and keeping of pornography in the home.”

But he thinks that his behavior doesn’t adversely affect his children. What is wrong with some people? Of course his children are and will continue to be negatively affected. Thankfully the court also gave him very little visitation time. I guess it’s a toss up between children needing their father, and the father being a perverted self-centered pron addict. I agree with the court. It’s in the children’s best interested to have very little time with a parent who would parade such filth in front of them. Mongerson’s visits are limited to,

four hours once a week with his youngest children, plus one-week visits during the summer and a day with each child just before or after a birthday.

There had to be something drastically wrong for a father to get awarded so little time with his children. I am impressed with Judge Edwards and his effort to protect these kids. He obviously understands the negative effect that homosexuality has on people and how exposure to such things affects children.

Source: edgeboston.com (article found via google news, but website for gay propaganda).

Fireproof Movie Is Out On DVD// order your copy today!

Keep it for yourself of give it as a gift to a married couple! You can order it from the American Family Association, or from amazon.com or wherever else you like to shop.

Read our original write up about the movie here.

Homophobia Is Just a Homosexual Propaganda Term// a term they made up

As we have known all along, homophobia is just a propaganda term used by the homosexual activist community to harass those of use who value marriage and traditional family values, and as Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel describes:

is designed to label negatively anyone who holds traditional values about human sexuality and marriage. He believes parents should be in an uproar. ”We have here public education once again trying to co-opt the proper role of parents, trying to impose their ideology on children whether or not that happens to be the ideology that parents share,” he points out.

Sarah Arnold, a Wisconson public high school teacher is apparently so concerned with this made up term, that she created a program for her students entitled, “Exposing Hidden Homophobia. ” She heard an “anti-gay undertone” in her students conversations and took it upon herself to educate her English students on the issue. Arnold claims that although the student body is mostly white, there are “unacknowledged” demographics at her school. So she decided to  address these hidden demographics, i.e. the GLBT students (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered) and pass it off as an English lesson.

The program Arnold developed included “in-depth exploration of depictions” of homosexuality in mass media; several homosexual-themed films, documentaries, books and novels; internet research on “the nature of homophobia”; and a “homophobia questionnaire” coupled with a “heterosexual questionnaire” designed to take questions “commonly asked of homosexuals and ask them of heterosexuals” – e.g., “When did you decide to become heterosexual?’”

Who asks a child that? And yes, for those of you who might not realize it, high school students are still children. The source material that this teacher has exposed these children to is and outrage. When students were reluctant and parents “balked,” (as well they should), especially Christian parents, Arnold defended her homophobia program by arguing,

that the project supported “higher-order thinking skills” because students were asked to perform such tasks as assembling and presenting portfolios of their research into homosexual culture and media.

I don’t know if this lady just got out of college or what, but I think that that her homosexual promo program is not the only way, or even an acceptable or necessary way, to teach “higher-order thinking skills” to students. Arnold has since attracted outside interest in her “homophobia” program, and she has thus made her resources and lesson plans available for other public school teachers to use so they can indoctrinate their own students with hyped homophobia propaganda. She also includes with her lesson plans,  shortened versions of her “Hidden Homophobia Unit,” which you can read here.

Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) said she was “speechless” when she learned of the curriculum.

Matt Barber  says the program is really intended to indoctrinate children into thinking that homosexual behavior is okay. “The term ‘homophobia’ is a made-up term, made up by homosexual activists, that has no scientific value, no clinical value whatsoever,” he contends. “It’s merely a propaganda term.”

“Wisconsin public schools are permitting radical ideologues to use public money to promote their subversive, unproven moral conclusions and political goals about homosexuality,” said Higgins in an IFI article.  “These propagandists, who should be teaching history or literature or writing, are instead pursuing their illegitimate goals of transforming the views of other people’s children on the contentious issue of homosexuality.”

“Arnold, like countless other English teachers, bases her text selections on whether the ideas conform to and advance her socio-political goals and her particular moral convictions,” said Higgins.  “And she’s doing this with public money.”

Wow… with all of the recent financial shortages in public schools, I am quite sure that schools can find better and more productive ways to spend the little moeny they do have. Sarah Arnold likely isn’t the only public school teacher taking leeway with her lesson plans to indoctrinate your children with their personal ideologies. Have you discussed curriculum with your child’s teachers? Do you know what your children are reading, watching and being exposed to by these radical liberals?

Sources: lifesitenews.com

onenewsnow.com

Send a Message to Congress// don’t mess with the DOMA!

. . .That would be the Defense of Marriage Act. You know, the one Obama is trying to do away with, so he can keep in line with going back on his word to protect marriage. This is what I get for not reading my blogger email over the weekend, and I feel bad I’m late to this game. I got an email from the National Organization for Marriage saying that we need to hold our legislators accountable and send letters to them explaining that we do not want them to repeal the DOMA.

Thousands of letters have already been sent, but we need more sent to Congress and the White House urging President Obama and members of Congress to save the Defense of Marriage Act!

At DomaDefenseFund.com, in just a few minutes, you can contact President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid, as well as your own representatives in Washington via email, or you can print out the letter and mail it. They’ve created a site to make it easy — Just click here to email your letter in defense of the DOMA. Let your voice be heard!

You can find the text of the DOMA here.

{p.s} I just sent my letters and it seriously took less then a minute. Just type in your name and address and hit send!

Photo courtesy of this blog. Very cool pic! He took the words from the DOMA, and made the pic here.

Does ‘No Name-Calling’ campaign reject believers?//

‘Christians are not the oppressors, nor the creators of division in classes’

Wow. . .the more research I do, the scarier the public school system seems to get. Gold stars for all parents who home school their kids, or who can afford a Christian private school and make spending money on tuition a priority. In conjunction with the tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality in schools comes the attack on Christianity and all conservative values, and thus the students who fall into those categories. The GLBT community always tries to blame their problems on us, the conservative Christians. Well, sorry gang, give it up, it’s not going to fly. Actions have consequences and you’re not going to make the rest of society responsible for your perverted, irresponsible, and self-inflicted life anguish. That’s all on you.

An upcoming “No Name-Calling” campaign for public schools, sponsored by none other then a homosexual activist organization, is prompting concerns from a Christian group, which contends the effort promotes hate, not tolerance.

“Is respect for Christians part of these ‘no-naming-calling’ lessons?” asked Linda Harvey, head of Mission America. “Or does this effort in reality create more division by labeling and stereotyping objections to homosexuality?”

You won’t be surprised what other organizations are sponsoring this program: Anti-Defamation League, Educators for Social Responsibility, the National Education Association and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. With this ‘no-name-calling’ campaign comes the attempt of GLBT groups to promote their agenda, seek preferential treatment and disrespect Christians. Just like I said in my post yesterday about tolerance training, shouldn’t no-name-calling be a blanket thing, referring to any type of name-calling  not being tolerated on any front, rather then a sneaky way to promote of the homosexual lifestyle?

According to the NoNameCallingWeek.com website, the inspiration for the idea comes from the a book called “The Misfits,” by James Howe about 5 junior high girls, all different, are taunted, one who’s taunted based on her sexual orientation/gender expression.

Motivated by the inequities they see around them, the ‘Gang of Five’ (as they are known) creates a new political party during student council elections and run on a platform aimed at wiping out name-calling of all kinds.

The website said the No Name-Calling Week Coalition, created by Simon & Schuster Children’s Publishing and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, consists of more than 40 national partner organizations. The coalition organized the first No Name-Calling Week in schools across the nation during the week of March 1-5, 2004. This year, No Name-Calling Week will take place next week.

The website claims it wants to focus national attention on the problem of name-calling in school, and that’s nice and all, but don’t be fooled–what they are really trying to bring attention to is how  much they think GLBT people are discriminated against, and how everyone should think being gay or whatever is so great and wonderful. Ick. . .

Mission America’s Harvey, however, insists it’s not hate that is behind opposition to homosexuality.

“There is in fact, grave concern for these kids, lots of prayers, etc.,” she wrote.

The only hate around, Harvey said, is homosexuality itself.

“It hates the natural human body and spirit, and opposes truth at every level. It fights gender integrity as marvelously designed by God. It ‘uglifies’ a person, preventing the full blossom of natural beauty as a young male or female. It is a dead-end affection, fruitless, never creating new life,” she said.

You got that GLBT folks??? It’s not complicated. Daryl Presgraves, the “No Name-Calling” campaign spokesman, said that they sold 4,000 promotion kits to schools all across the U.S., which includes a 27-minute video, a guide with lesson plans, a copy of a book, two posters and 60 stickers.  I’m sure the liberal school administrators think that this program is a bargain at $129 bucks. When asked, Presgraves

declined to confirm whether “homophobia” would be condemned also. He said “any type” of hurtful word should be avoided.

Typical. . .you can’t expect the truth or the straight story out of these people, which I find cowardly.  If  you can’t be honest, then what do you have? This guy is trying to promote a program but he didn’t want to give the real truth about it. Well, I’ll answer that for him. Of course the no name calling list includes homophobia. That is practically the whole point of this thing anyway; this groups wants to tell kids how crappy they are for thinking that homosexuality is wrong. I think that anyone should be able to teach the concept of not calling names without having to explain sexually explicit details of homosexuality to young children.  Its hard to teach children right from wrong with out including religion and the real reason they need to be kind, compassionate, caring. God expects us to be; and Christ is our ultimate example. That’s the reason. And yes, it does include compassion and sympathy for homosexuals and people who are different, but we do not have to think that behavior is ok, nor should we teach our children that it is.

“The whole point is when someone hears a hurtful word, they can say, ‘This hurts me,’ and have a discussion,” [Presgraves] told WND.

Harvey, however, said that simply misses the point.

“‘Gay’ student clubs only add fuel,” she said, “by dwelling on supposed discrimination while urging entry into the behavior. The enemy? Traditionalists – students, teachers, parents – who know how harmful homosexuality is.”

She said bullying students who are acting out homosexually cannot be excused.

“But the solution is not to endorse homosexuality. Instead, we need to get counseling for these troubled kids to help end their self-destructive behavior, at the same time schools should consistently punish all uncivil and unkind treatment by bullies.”

Harvey said such programs “assume that homosexuality as a behavior is something worthy of respect and defense, and that it’s harmless. It’s not. Let’s get it out of kids’ lives.”

That’s the kicker right there. Harvey hits the nail on the head with that statement. The programs do assume, in fact more realistically force students to think that homosexuality is ok and worthy of respect and defense. Homosexuality is not harmless!!!!! I am so disturbed by the lack of compassion exhibited by the GLBT community for the rest of America. Its as if they are wishing for these children, and even everyone else, to experience the kind of anxiety, turmoil, family chaos, sexual perversion and lack of self-esteem that they themselves have experienced being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. They don’t want these children to experience the sacredness of intimacy within a loving and committed marriage, a real marriage between one man and one woman. They are trying to rob these children of one of life’s essential joys.  None of these GLBT people can say life has been blissful and easy for them, or that they have been happy, they would be lying if they did. They are past the trying phase of agenda execution. so make no mistake they ARE promoting this life of sadness and suffering on America’s children. This is vile behavior at it’s finest!

[Harvey] said the sponsorship of GLSEN should alarm parents [and I hope it does].

“This is the extremist group that helps kids organize homosexual clubs, and has stated a goal to get homosexual student clubs in all schools, kindergarten through 12th grade. Grade school-ers declaring their homosexuality? This is child sexual abuse!” she said.

The solution isn’t that complicated, she contended.

“It’s simple. Schools have to choose, one or the other. Both messages cannot remain with integrity. Either schools need to wise up and remove homosexuality and cross-dressing from the school climate (meaning: remove the propaganda and get help for these kids), or the conservatives and Christians need to go. That’s what is desired – for Christians to leave or be suppressed,” Harvey said.

“Christians are not the oppressors, nor the creators of division in schools. This horrendous behavior is. And it will not end, even if Christians were to leave. Actually, all that’s restraining total barbarism is the few true Christians left,” she said.

Parents, call your child’s school, or district office tomorrow morning promptly, and find out if this program will be taught next week. Pull your child out of school and send them to Grandma’s to visit, or make other arrangements for them if you have to work. This is too important! They don’t need this filth ingrained in their brains and saturating their souls.

Source: worldnetdaily.com

Public schools and ‘tolerance’ training// laws will focus on homosexuality

In response to a Massachusetts case involving a young girl who was allegedly harassed by a third-grade boy, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that people have the right to sue schools over sexual discrimination. Courts in Massachusetts had ruled that the parents could not sue the school, citing Title IX.

The founder of Liberty Counsel says a recent Supreme Court ruling will have far-reaching consequences.

However, the Supreme Court has ruled that Title IX does not prohibit lawsuits. Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel, fears the future treatment of homosexuality in schools.

“And I think what it ultimately will mean is — long-term and even in the short-term — are these policies that schools will pass as a reaction to this [will require] homosexual sensitivity training programs. [T]hey’ll call them ‘no bullying’ laws or ’sensitivity’ or ‘tolerance’ laws, but actually what it will be are laws that will focus on homosexuality,” he contends. “And anybody who says anything that is negative against homosexuality or in support of traditional morality – which, by the way, discriminates against nontraditional immorality – is going to be subject to these particular laws.”

We don’t’ need special laws in public schools that teach homosexuality, disguised as tolerance and sensitivity. No-bullying lessons do not need to be homosexual-specific, for kids to “get” what behaviors aren’t appropriate. Parents need to keep informed about what their child’s school plans to teach regarding these things. There are many ways to teach kindness and tolerance and difference and sensitivity to children, with out the graphic exploitations that are usually involved in public school homosexuality lessons. Law suits are law suits and what’s right is right. Hopefully we will see parents just as willing to fight for traditional morality, and for tolerance and sensitivity to be taught in the home, not by liberal public schools.

Source: onenewsnow.com

Same-sex marriage double media standard// gay couple wants privacy during their “divorce”

Dallas same-sex divorce case a first for Texas–

These types of antics and double standards are so typical of leftist, liberal, and  GLBT groups. A gay couple who was married in Massashusetts, moved back to Texas and has now filed for divorce. They want anonoymity. . .

But on Wednesday one of the pair, citing “discord or conflict of personalities,” asked a state district court in Dallas to void the union in what is believed to be the first such action in Texas.

A bit of confusion in the court over this one. Some say they can’t really be divorced in a state that doesn’t even recognize their union, others say they have to be “divorced” becaues they are “married,” or so says the state of MA.

The double standard is this:  while all of this drama is brewing over their maybe divorce , they want their privacy protected by the media and they want their names left out of the papers!!! Go figure!

“We’ll see what happens,” said attorney Peter Schulte, representing the man who asked that he and his former partner not be identified.

“Personal things could happen to us that wouldn’t happen to other people,” the man said Thursday. “My company has an extremely low tolerance for publicity.”

Personal things huh? Personal things like what has been happening to individuals on the Prop 8 donor list and H8 google map. Yeah, I guess they should be worried if they don’t want to be harassed, threatened, stalked have their property vandalized. They only appreciate the desire and need for privacy when it applies to them.

The reason I post it here is to call attention to the fact that this gay couple, whose marriage in Massachusetts is a public act, asked for and received confidentiality in the newspaper. Normally we only give confidentiality to rape victims and others in extraordinary circumstances.

But I have to put the question to you readers who thought Prop 8 donors should not expect confidentiality — “What are they ashamed of?” one of you rhetorically asked — in the Eightmaps.com situation: Why does this gay couple deserve to have their names kept out of the paper? What are they ashamed of? Why is there a double standard for gay married couples? Should there be?

it is very strange to me to have a couple that wants to be married in the eyes of the law and society, but wants to be treated by the media as if they didn’t exist as a couple. What other married couple would expect that kind of privilege?

Always a double standard and unnecessary drama with the pursuit for same-sex unions to be called marriage. The rules apply to everyone else, but never to them. This situation shouldn’t be given all of this media attention in my opinion. The couple is up in arms because if Texas doesn’t grant them a divorce, they will have to go back to MA and establish residency before they can get divorced there. Too bad guys, the law is the law.

“In the State of Texas, marriage is – and has always been – a union between one man and one woman. To prevent other states from imposing their values on this state, Texas voters overwhelmingly approved a Constitutional amendment specifically defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman,” he said in a written statement. “Because the parties’ Massachusetts-issued arrangement is not a marriage under Texas law, they are asking a Texas court to recognize – and dissolve – something that does not legally exist.”

Their attorney argues that the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, forces TX to recognize the marriage from MA and therefore grant the couple a divorce, however,

from another federal perspective, the Defense of Marriage Act recognizes only marriages between a man and woman and allows states to do the same.

The  couple appears to be a tad bitter and says that they shouldn’t have to go back to MA for their divorce, and that they shouldn’t be treated differently than any other married couple. Oh really????