Wednesday, March 30, 2005

"ERA" Amendment Back Door to Homosexual Agenda

By Pam Manard (click "comments" below for article)


Blogger Debbie Pelley said...

By Pam Manard

A bill to ratify the infamous radical and dangerous ERA has been just sitting on the daily agenda at the capital for 3 days now (Monday-Wed.), waiting- so it can be swiftly forwarded as soon as the sponsors find the votes for it.

Jerry Cox of Family Council reports that ERA supporters are working on legislators very hard and that this is proving to be a real hard battle. Some who had at first said that they would oppose it have since changed their minds as they have been bombarded with calls by its supporters. Also, a number of legislators are on the fence right now.

This is to homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals and other free sex activists, radical feminists, and like minded, A Lot More than what the Federal Marriage amendment would mean for those of us who want marriage and families protected!

This is a backdoor Civil Rights amendment for the Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, and amoral Heterosexual- Free Sex movement!


Almost unbelievable, but it passed the Arkansas House already and is now in the Senate. There is a real battle going on over this. There are some democrat women’s groups that have been flooding legislators with calls, etc.

We need every person possible to be contacted about this and ask them to contact legislators immediately and maybe keep contacting them until this battle is over. There are apparently only a few states that are needed from 20 plus years ago - to ratify this thing to add it to the US constitution. This is a Very serious matter!

The following are points I have quickly put together from my own notes and e-mails to make it easier for you and save you time. You may not need them, but just in case.

We do have laws and policies already that protect women today. If those laws need to be enforced we already have recourses we can take.

(For Women) - As a woman I strongly oppose this bill which seeks to make it illegal to distinguish between the sexes on almost every front.

Rep. Sue Madison’s statement "how can anybody look at their daughters or their wives and not be ashamed that we haven’t already passed it?" is a sham and the very opposite is true in reality.

It is not honoring to women and girls to strip them of any recognition and regard for their special God given unique qualities of being feminine and neither is it honorable to attempt to emasculate men and boys by forbidding them to be recognized as having unique characteristics beyond even physical - as being different than women and girls!

That’s the lengths to which this thing goes – as crazy as that may sound, that IS the truth. I have read and heard some of these views and arguments from feminists myself. Please! Don’t be fooled.

We are different in a number of ways which needs to be recognized and treated accordingly in order for things to be right and fair!

Equal and fair pay for equal work is one thing, destroying the whole male/ female categories and to be forced into some weird unisex or asexual classification or whatever other class someone might come up with, is not acceptable! Also, this term “sex” in this context is used by free sex rights activists to mean any kind of sexual orientation as well and some have even used it to attack age differences and age of consent laws also. (I can get you valid documentation of this if needed.)

See some arguments below from PRO ERA – Note: This says States that originally voted yes, but since then (from 20 or so yrs ago) have voted to rescind their vote and do Not support it now (because they began realizing the reality of the horrid ways in which it would be used!), will not be allowed to rescind? –

Now how does that fit in with democracy as they are always talking about as being so important? Also, how does this announcement fit: the right to readdress grievances? ; Or equal rights? Doesn’t that sound more like ramming and that “hotel California” scenario – “you can check in but you can never get out” once you are in? That should sound BIG alarm bells right there! – Please, Don’t be deceived! This thing is bad news!

Quoted below is from an ERA activist support web site: followed by my talking points/notes.

“US Congressional Resolutions for Constitutional adoption of the ERA now await the completion of the full 38 states’ ratifications. All three Florida Democratic US senatorial candidates '04 have pledged to introduce ERA bills if elected! Republicans, next. Past state ratifications cannot be rescinded. (Ref.) A three-state strategy has been proposed that is less costly, less time-consuming, quicker, and less risky politically than starting ratifications all over. Ratifications of only three more states out of the 15 still unratified are needed. (Ref.)

• By past precedent (a different 203 year old amendment was recently ratified) the ERA is still legally held timely (“contemporaneous”) and viable, fair, and just. Past objections are now moot – such as the dreaded unisex toilets, women in combat, abortion and same-sex marriage (which is under state jurisdiction, not the US Constitution’s, certainly not the ERA).”

Please Pay particular attention to what they say are “moot points”:

Point 1: Women in combat moot? That is not true – some women are in combat to some degree today (in part as a result of the “work” done by radical feminists and also because individual women have wanted, asked, or volunteered - and some have pushed for this inclusion for themselves to advance this idea). This scenario would not remain status quo though if ERA passed. It would then be Required for ALL that there be NO difference at all made in any area between men and women! This would also apply if there ever was a draft.

Point 2: “The dreaded unisex toilets” moot? Setting the tone of mockery aside (but worth noting), though there has been some movement or success (?) towards removing these taboos, there has not as yet been a complete collapse of these considerations. But the taboos that have yet to be crossed are much more serious.

Point 3: “Same sex marriage under state jurisdiction”: Radical activist judges have been striking down laws in States right and left- ruling various “sex” issues and laws as “unconstitutional.” If ERA were added to the constitution this would give the additional “justification” these activists need to overthrow everything in every area they have been attempting to do anyway, even without this weapon to use. This would be used to enforce these old Greek/Roman standards upon everybody < this information found on some of the GLBTQ sites under education and spirituality forums and plans for inclusive education- many called “queer history” and “queer theory”. All anybody needs to do is seriously consider what has been going on to figure that out. Forget about it all being about “privacy” “to get Government out of peoples bedrooms”.

So much for all this free-sex movement’s driving wedge talks being about it being about “privacy” matters that don’t affect anybody else about what goes on in “consenting” adult’s bedrooms. This is probably bigger than – at least it is as big a move as- adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act – Same Results, maybe even more!

Point 4: This also would greatly affect how children are treated and how/ what they are taught about all these sexual orientations, something many of us already have to contend with. This would give clout to make it all mandatory and illegal not to go along with these programs. So parental authority and rights would be made moot, if they had a different moral standard than what the State mandated.

Consider how some countries such as China handles these discrepancies between parents and the State’s dogma.

Point 5: Because of the domino effect that would ensue, this ERA would also Greatly Impact Decency

Laws and Standards- which are already constantly being pushed at and assaulted to bring them lowered or done away completely in the name of amoral “civil rights”.

I greatly appreciate and thank all the men who are rightly treating and recognizing women in honorable ways as women; as different but never the less valuable.

There are sound reasons why it was not ratified - and why some states have voted to nullify their vote for it after they realized what more of the consequences of such action would be – a lot more than was presented up front.

7:23 PM, March 30, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Best regards from NY! fracture evista lawsuit find bentley the car dealers in canada Benelux design law 2b design patent Penium cpu is compatible with venlafaxine withdrawal and electric head Popup blocker for me

7:34 PM, February 21, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home