Tag Archives: Banned

Landslide in North Carolina: traditional definition of marriage wins 61-39

Eastern United States Map
Eastern United States Map

The traditional definition of marriage was affirmed by North Carolina voters on Tuesday. The count was 61-39.

North Carolina approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, becoming the latest state to effectively slam the door shut on same-sex marriages.

With most of the precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 61 percent of the vote to 39 percent against. North Carolina is the 30th state to adopt such a ban on gay marriage.

Tami Fitzgerald, who heads the pro-amendment group Vote FOR Marriage NC, said she believes the initiative awoke a silent majority of more active voters in the future.

“I think it sends a message to the rest of the country that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Fitzgerald said at a celebration Tuesday night. “The whole point is simply that you don’t rewrite the nature of God’s design based on the demands of a group of adults.”

In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama’s cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to oppose the amendment.

The Obama administration opposes traditional marriage and instead favors gay marriage.

Notice that there is nothing in the amendment about banning anything:

Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

That’s something you hear in the leftist media, but this bill is no more a ban on gay marriage as it is a ban on polygamy. It simply affirms that the state will only recognize traditional marriages as valid. People can do whatever they want and live however they want. What they can’t do is force other people to call relationships that do not affirm the right of a child to have a mother and father “marriage”.

To understand why people oppose same-sex marriage, you can read my post from yesterday, in which I lay out 3 non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage. In addition, my friend Melissa has another reason to support traditional marriage that Christians in particular will find compelling.

Should this ad opposing gay activism in Ontario schools be censored?

Here’s the ad, from the Institute for Canadian Values.

Brian Lilley, a journalist with Sun News, explains why he opposes censorship of the ad.


Michael Erickson, a high school teacher in Toronto and a candidate for the New Democrats in the last federal election has petitioned the board of directors of our parent company Quebecor, the Canadian Broadcaster Standards Council and the Advertising Standards Council over our decision to air an ad that he doesn’t like.

The ad, from the Institute for Canadian Values, is against the introduction of the McGuinty government’s graphic sex-ed curriculum.

[…]Erickson’s complaint and his online petition, claim that “This ad promotes intolerance against people who might stand out from traditional male or female gender roles.”

I’d disagree with that and I have several times. The ad highlights what was in McGuinty’s proposed curriculum and what has been found in existing guides for teachers at the elementary school level.

Is teaching about transgendered issues, gender identity and gender fluidity in grade three a good idea?

Dalton McGuinty thinks that it is a good idea. He is the Liberal premier, and most people in Ontario supported him in the last election, because he loves to spend money buying votes with social programs.

Here’s more about the proposed curriculum of the the Liberal party of Ontario.


The new curriculum, replacing a previous version from 1998, aligns with the Ministry’s campaign to p romote “equity and inclusive education” in Ontario’s schools, which includes the advancement of homosexualism and transgenderism. A notable aspect of the curriculum’s revision is the attempt to instil a sense that homosexuality and transgenderism are normal.

Under the curriculum, students begin to explore “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in grade 3, as part of an expectation to appreciate “invisible differences” in others. In grade 5, a student is expected to recognize that “things I cannot control include … personal characteristics such as … my gender identity [and] sexual orientation.”

In addition to learning about masturbation in grade 6, the curriculum suggest that students can better understand “sexual orientation” by “reading books that describe various types of families and relationships,” including those involving two “mothers” or “fathers.” In grades 7 and 8, “preventing pregnancy and disease,”“gender identity,” and “sexual orientation” become “key topics.”

Grade 7s are expected to be taught about “using condoms consistently if and when a person becomes sexually active.” In grade 8, the use of contraception is a key component of the curriculum, and students are expected to “demonstrate an understanding of gender identity (e.g., male, female, two-spirited, transgendered, transsexual, intersex) and sexual orientation (e.g., heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual).”


In February, homosexual Liberal MPP Glen Murray, who serves as Minister of Research and Innovation, praised the new revision of the curriculum and said it will be coming soon.

Dubbing opponents of the graphic sex ed program “rightwing reactionary homophobes,” he told Xtra that the main issues that offended parents are already being covered under the current version of the curriculum from 1998.

“I have to tell you, many of the things that offended people are already in the curriculum. We talk about all kinds of families and human sexuality in our elementary schools,” he said.

I am not sure why Dalton McGuinty, the Liberal premier of Ontario, wants to force the gay agenda onto young, impressionable children. But that’s what liberals and leftists believe. Recall that the Liberal party is the socialist party of Canada, and the NDP are the communist party. Is it really surprising that political parties on the secular left are anti-family values? When you vote for left-wing parties, this is what you get.

UPDATE: More here from Brian Lilley. (H/T Blazing Cat Fur)

The video above was posted by SDAMatt and he notes that the Erickson person is gay. What a surprise!

MUST-READ: Pro-abortion thugs arrested at McGill University pro-life event

After action reports from pro-life speaker Jose Ruba’s event at McGill University. (H/T Andrew) This is the same event that the student society voted to shut down, but that the Provost refused to shut down.

Mcgill Pro-Life Presentation Shut Down by Protesters – Two Arrested (LifesiteNews).


As Ruba began his presentation, about 20 students, including members of SSMU, began protesting, chanting, and singing children’s songs such as Old MacDonald and the hokey pokey.  They bombarded the stage, blocked the screen, and one protester even grabbed at Ruba’s written materials, before being stopped by campus security.

The police arrived and eventually warned the protesters that they would be taken away by force if they did not get off the stage.  Two resisted and were arrested, while others joined the audience and continued to heckle Ruba after police had left, until the designated time had run out and Choose Life ended the event.

Ruba told LifeSiteNews that he was able to present about half an hour of his presentation, but there was no moment where he was able to speak clearly.

Click here to read the whole thing (there’s more).

Here’s a more detailed story from the campus paper (McGill Daily).


Ruba had hardly finished the first sentence of his lecture when a protester near the front of the room stood up and announced that she believed he had no right to deliver his speech at McGill. The protesters proceeded by singing various songs, at one point completing an entire rendition of “99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall.”

Protesters held their arms, jackets, and signs in front of Ruba’s video projections, which included photographs from biology textbooks, videos of the early stages of an abortion, and images of the Holocaust.

[…]Ruba told the protesters he was open to discussion, and that Choose Life had asked for a pro-choice speaker to engage in debate.

[…]In the midst of the confusion, Ruba explained to The Daily why he felt it was important for protesters to hear his message.

“[The protesters] have accused us of all these things, and frankly they haven’t heard this presentation yet. When people pre-judge someone based on heresy and rumours, that’s called prejudice,” Ruba said. “We don’t mind protests; that’s what free universities and free societies do. But they don’t censure people simply because they disagree or prevent people from sharing their ideas. That’s no longer what protests should be about. That’s censorship.”

They won’t debate with Mr. Ruba, because they would lose. Violence, then, is the only option they have left. A one-sided, public school, cradle-to-job indoctrination doesn’t really prepare students for open debate. (Especially when coupled with binge-drinking, irresponsible sex and drug use). When a fanatical true believer encounters facts and arguments, their response can only be disbelief, rage and violence.

I doubt that any of these students will ever be exposed to books like Dr. Francis J. Beckwith’s magnum opus “Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice“, published by Cambridge University Press. Or maybe Princeton University professor Robert P. George’s book “Embryo: A Defense of Human Life“. Pro-abortionists have never been exposed to an academic case for the pro-life position. That’s why they rage and attack.

And it leads to cases like this, where peaceful pro-lifers are shot and killed or nearly killed by being run over with SUVs. After all, if a person is willing to kill a helpless baby, why should they be concerned about killing grown-ups? Only pro-lifers are consistently pro-life. Only pro-lifers oppose taking the lives of innocent people at all stages of life, born and unborn.

More news stories, with photos:

UPDATE: (from commenter Andrew)

I was present when the most fundamental rights of Mr. Ruba, the invited speaker from the Canadian Centre of Bio-Ethical Research and the rights of the students who actually wanted to listen to him were infringed upon. The anti-free speech mob refused the offer of a civilized debate and thus made it abundantly clear that they don’t espouse the same democratic values as the majority of Canadians.

To see this sad spectacle which took place at McGill, go to:


McGill University student government votes to ban pro-life speaker

UPDATE: An update to this story following the event is here.

For Canadian pro-life debater Jose Ruba, it’s deja-vu all over again.

Here’s the story on Big Blue Wave.  (H/T Andrew)


A controversial pro-life presentation will continue tomorrow at McGill University, despite the student union’s attempt to censor it.

The Students Society of McGill University (SSMU) voted 25-2-2 to censure an event entitled “Echoes of the Holocaust” at their meeting last Thursday, October 1st. The event, scheduled for tomorrow, October 6th, has been organized by Choose Life, a pro-life club on campus, and will carry on as planned.

The presentation, hosted by a university-sanctioned club, Choose Life, is to be given by Jose Ruba of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. His presentation, titled, “Echoes of the Holocaust” outlines how societies have justified and perpetuated great atrocities, including the Holocaust and abortion.

[…]Though the students’ society cannot directly stop the event, they have promised to punish the club for hosting the presentation. The motion passed was amended to include a resolution that by continuing with the event despite the censure, Choose Life will be automatically ineligible for funding from the SSMU for the remainder of its existence.

Ruba has given this talk at a variety of campuses including McMaster University, University of New Brunswick Saint John, St. Francis Xavier University and University of Prince Edward Island. When students tried to shut down the same lecture at St. Mary’s University in February 2009, it only resulted in the university being subject to embarrassment in the media for not upholding freedom of speech.

Here is the post in which I blogged about the St. Mary’s event.

The denial of rights is actually not uncommon in Canada, although the pubic is struggling against it.

Christians are especially victimized:

Here, you can read more about how speech is censored in Canada.


Choosing my religion: why I am not Roman Catholic

I’ve decided to spend some time writing extremely short explanations about why I am an evangelical Protestant Christian instead of anything else.

I have two aims.

First, I want show how an honest person can evaluate rival religions using the laws of logic, scientific evidence and historical evidence. Second, I want people who are not religious to understand that religions are either true or it is false. Religions should not be chosen based where you were born, what your parents believed, or what resonates with you. A religion should be embraced for the same reason as the theory of gravity is embraced: because it reflects the way the world really is.

Why I am not a Roman Catholic

  1. To be a Roman Catholic, you need to believe in Papal infallibility in matters of dogma.
  2. In 1950, the Pope pronounced the assumption of Mary to be infallible dogma.
  3. This pronouncement was solicited by a petition featuring over 8 million signatures.
  4. There is no historical record of this doctrine in the Bible.
  5. No early church father mentions the assumption until 590 AD.
  6. Documents dated 377 AD state that no one knows how Mary died.
  7. The assumption appears for the first time in an apocryphal gospel dated about 495 AD.


I only cite Roman Catholic sources for my facts.

6. “But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.” (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

7. “The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

It should be noted that the apocryphal gospel in which the doctrine of the assumption of Mary first appeared was condemned as heretical by two Popes in the 5th and 6th centuries. However, I was not able to find a CATHOLIC source for this fact, so I deliberately chose not to use it in my case.

I am not saying that Roman Catholicism is necessarily WRONG, I am just explaining why I am not a Roman Catholic. I hope that my Roman Catholic readers will not be too angry with me for disagreeing with them on theology. I will try not to test your patience too often like this. I would encourage everyone to be as civil as you all have been so far, and I will be extra vigilant in filtering comments.