Durban II: More U.N. Efforts to Squelch Free Speech?

by Barbara Sowell

On Dec. 18, 2008 the U.N General Assembly passed a non binding resolution that condemned "defamation of religion." Western critics have said that this resolution will be used to limit freedom of speech.

Last month the Obama administration said that the United States will boycott Durban II, the upcoming U.N. conference of racism, “unless its final document is changed to drop all references to Israel and the defamation of religion.”

A growing number of nations fear that Durban II may be the launch pad for an all out final assault on freedom of speech. A binding anti-blasphemy resolution on member UN nations would make it a crime to criticize Islam.

Canada, United States, Italy, other European states, and Israel are now boycotting the United Nations racism summit, the Durban Review Conference, or what is dubbed “Durban II,” which is due to take place in Geneva from April 20-24.

In Nov 2008, Islamic countries won United Nations backing for an anti-blasphemy measure. According to a Nov 2008 CanWest article, this resolution, and similar resolutions, are being accumulated for a more sinister goal – to provide international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws. The goal of the Organization of Islamic Conference is to create a binding resolution on member nations to severely limit free speech. This goal might be accomplished at the Durbin II conference.

Passage of the resolution is part of a 10-year action plan the 57-state Organization of Islamic Conference launched in 2005 to ensure “renaissance” of the “Muslim Ummah” or community.

While the current resolution is non-binding, Pakistan’s Ambassador Masood Khan reminded the UN’s Human Rights Council this year that the OIC ultimately seeks a “new instrument or convention” on the issue. Such a measure would impose its terms on signatory states.

The resolution passed in Nov 2008 links religious defamation to incitement to violence, which would severely limit a broad range of peaceful speech and expression.
The CanWest article continues:

But Western democracies argue that a religion can’t enjoy protection from criticism because that would require a judicial ruling that its teachings are the “truth.”

 
“Defamation carries a particular legal meaning and application in domestic systems that makes the term wholly unsuitable in the context of religions,” says the U.S. government in a response on the issue to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

 
“A defamatory statement . . . is more than just an offensive one. It is also a statement that is false.”

The article goes on to explain the legal difficulty of even defining the term “defamation,” and that belief cannot be equated with a legal definition of truth. Additionally, most Western countries do not grant rights to ideas. There is a distinction between “granting an “idea” rights – and defending the right of people not to be discriminated against.”

Canada says governments have abused laws against defamation or contempt of religions to “prosecute and imprison journalists, bloggers, academics students and peaceful political dissidents.”

There’s also consensus among opponents of the UN measure that people most likely to be targeted by anti-blasphemy laws are Muslims in Muslim countries.

According to Nat Hentoff’s op-ed column in Feb 2, 2009 in the Washington Times only Islam and Muslims are covered by the current anti-defamation resolution.

Only Islam and Muslims are specifically named in this resolution against religious defamation, sponsored by Uganda on behalf of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, and cosponsored by Belarus and Venezuela. Opponents included the United States, a majority of European countries, Japan and India. . .

The article quotes Floyd Abrams, “the nation’s leading protector of the First Amendment,” as stating "that laws based on the concept of ‘defamation of religion’ actually help to create a climate of violence."

"Violators of these laws, as applied in most Muslim countries, are subject to the death penalty," Abrams continued. He cited from the study a 22-year-old Hindu in Pakistan who "was beaten to death by co-workers at a factory for allegedly committing the crime of blasphemy, which is a crime punishable by death in the country." The three workers were "charged not with murder but with ‘failure to inform the police that blasphemy was under way.’ " . . .

Another of America’s leading First Amendment lawyers, Marc Stern, co-executive director of the American Jewish Congress, makes a crucial point: If this approach to "defamation of religion" were to become a crime under international law (under the impetus of the U.N. resolution), "nations would be able to seek extradition and trial abroad of persons who make statements critical or offensive to one or all faiths anywhere in the world."

According to the Jewish Tribune, the International March of the Living praised the United States for announcing that it would not attend the conference. The organization is urging a boycott of the Durbin II conference in Geneva.

“This is a compelling moral position by the US leadership, displaying that hatred and intolerance have no place in international discourse,” said Dr. Shmuel Rosenman, chairman of the International March of the Living. . .”

As reported by (AFP) yesterday, Australia is threatening to boycott Durban II, because it threatens to turn into an anti-Jewish anti-Semitic rant. According to Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, Australia is leery of joining Durban II for fear it will be a repeat of the inaugural UN racism summit, held in the South African city of Durban in September 2001.
"

People should please understand this: if we come to the conclusion that the text being prepared for the Durban review number two conference sets us up for a re-run of an anti-Jewish anti-Semitic harangue, as the first conference was, then Australia will not take part," Smith told reporters.

Haaretz.com reports that Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel says that the upcoming Durban II conference on racism will hurt the United Nations.

Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel on Thursday said the passing of resolutions attacking Israel at the upcoming "Durban II" conference on racism would only harm the summit’s host, the United Nations.

"The anti-Israeli resolutions to be expected at Durban II will harm the UN, not Israel," Weisel told Haaretz. He was referring to reports that draft resolutions for the summit brand Israel as an occupying state that carries out racist policies.

According to Eye on The UN, this is what the Durbin II platform represents:

• Undermining the West and democracy
• Promoting anti-semitism
• Demonizing Israel as racist
• Foiling efforts to combat radical Islamic terrorism
• Manufacturing Islamophobia everywhere
• Fomenting religious extremism
• Curbing free expression

Durban II documents and articles can be found at Eye on the UN

A Lou Dobbs interview with Christopher Hitchens discusses the U.N. anti-blasphemy resolution. If it were binding on member UN nations, it would call on governments to pass their own laws to make it a crime to criticize Islam.

JBlog Me

Originally Published at Digital Journal

Petition Against Employee Free Choice Act

Urgent PSA from Wake Up America Movement

The next step in the "Change" Administration’s attempt to strangle our rights and our economy is an issue we cannot afford to lose. If you have participated in prior W.A.M. ACTIONS – or ever considered doing so, this is the most critical moment and most important Obama move to oppose!

The mislabeled "Employee Free Choice Act" has been slammed into Congress – before the ink is even dry on the insane OMNIBUS Spending Spree. More aptly called "Card Check" – this measure allows an International Union, backed by Obama "community organizers" to infiltrate American businesses – large and small – using the same aggressive intimidation tactics by which they have brought down the banking and lending industries.

Smartly marketed and deceptively portrayed by the well-funded Service Employees International Union, this employment Act is tied directly to Obama’s take-over of Health Care (with higher not lower costs for US all.) Their ambitions, unfortunately, don’t stop there. SEIU bemoans the fact that less than 6% of American businesses are "unionized."

Their agenda – via "Card Check" – is to pervade all levels and forms of U.S. industry with their own "international" standards and extreme government controls. imagine the impact of this Card Check Law on our already faltering economy!!!

   Congressional hearings on Card Check, now in

Your ACTION against CARD CHECK is urgently needed NOW. Click here to  MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD in WASHINGTON on this D.C. led Socialist take-over!

TAKE A STAND AGAINST CARD CHECK! The stakes have never been higher! An immediate organized public OUTCRY is crucial.   Forward this ACTION CALL to every American voter, business operator and worker you know!   Further Card Check information, Petition and additional ACTION TOOLS are provided by this link.

Go to PETITION+ ACTION at:   http://www.wam08.org/TakeaStand.html

 

Moral Standing: the Complaint

In Hints of Compulsory U.N. Censorship, I propounded a rhetorical question concerning the moral qualifications of Islam & the U.N. to persuade the U.S.A. to accede to demands for censorship. This post begins the process of answering that question. Lets begin with an examination of Ambassador Masood Khan’s statement of 04/01/08.

Without explicitly naming Geert Wilders or his video, Ambassador Khan expresses the O.I.C.’s appreciation to the Dutch government for its unsuccessful attempt to prevent its publication and the Prime Minister’s rejection of “the interpretation given to the Quran in the documentary and equation of Islam with violence”.

He expresses their agreement with “Mr. Jorge Sampaio, Secretary-General’s High Representative for the Alliance of Civilizations”, providing this outline of his statement.

  1. the insulting and defamatory film is a deliberate incitement to discrimination, violence and hatred on grounds of religion, aimed at provoking and promoting social unrest, and encourages extremist groups within European societies to discriminate and marginalize Muslims immigrants;
  2. freedom of expression does not preclude the protection of people from racist, discriminatory and xenophobic language; and
  3. We will be losers if we fail to defuse this potential crises.

Ambassador Khan follows up with his own list of accusations against Fitna.

The documentary violates letter and spirit of

  1. The UN Charter;
  2. The covenants on civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights;
  3. Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that proscribe any advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence; and
  4. Security Council resolution 1624 of 2005 which calls upon states to prevent targeting of different religions and cultures;

First and foremost, is Fitna. [First Ed. 03/27/08] factually false? If not, then it can not be defamatory. Is it a rude statement intended to offend? This is a good time to click the link and view the 17 minute video, which begins with display & recitation of 8:60.

  • Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.[Abdullah Yusuf Ali]

That verse is followed by the awful image of aircraft striking the World Trade Towers, flames, smoke & falling bodies. Did not Allah say “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve“? Did not Allah say “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.“? Did not Allah issue a commandment ordering Muslims to attack “people of the book” saying “fight those who… until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” ? How then is the association of Allah’s commandment with the act of the “magnificent nineteen” a calumny?

Wilders follows up with images of Imams calling for Jihad and rail cars torn apart by bomb blasts. We see bloodied victims as well. Next, he shows us 4:56.

Surely! Those who disbelieved in Our Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) We shall burn them in Fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for other skins that they may taste the punishment. Truly, Allâh is Ever Most Powerful, All­Wise.

Other than illustrating Islam’s hatred of disbelievers, I see no reason for including that verse, it deals with the next world, not this one. That image is followed immediately by an Imam quoting a genocidal hadith.

Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

We see the Imam drawing his sword, waving it in the air, shouting takbir & “Jihad for the sake of Allah”,. then we see the crowd reaction: pure anticipatory hatred.

That blood chilling scene is followed by an interview with a little girl who informs us that Jews are “apes and pigs”; she learned it from the Koran [2:65, 5:60, 7:166]. Succeeding scenes of bodies being dragged and a buss torn asunder by a bomb are followed by an Imam ranting that the Jews must be massacred. Next, we see placards carried by Muslims demonstrating their hatred, with such messages as “be prepared for the real holocaust” and “God bless Hitler”.

Next, 47:4 is displayed.

So, when you meet (in fight Jihâd in Allâh’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till they embrace Islâm (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allâh’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, He will never let their deeds be lost,

The token of genocide {till when you have killed and wounded many of them} is confirmed by Ibn Kathir in his tafsir. The Command to strike the Enemies’ Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom

Guiding the believers to what they should employ in their fights against the idolators, Allah says, (So, when you meet those who disbelieve (in battle), smite their necks) which means, `when you fight against them, cut them down totally with your swords.’ (until you have fully defeated them,) meaning, `you have killed and utterly destroyed them.’

That recitation is followed by images of the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Next, we hear a Saudi cleric saying that throats must be slit and young men sacrificed. So of course, there is the obligatory decapitation scene. Have we so soon forgotten Nick Berg & Danny Pearl?

The bloody image is followed by 4:89, wherein Allah commands not to befriend Kuffar & hypocrites and to kill the latter.

They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliyâ’ (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allâh (to Muhammad ). But if they turn back (from Islâm), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliyâ’ (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.

We next discover a sidewalk interview in which the death penalty for apostasy is mentioned. Supremacism is openly expressed, followed by a series of news headlines. 8:39 follows.

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

Next we hear a cleric saying that “Islam is a religion that wants to rule the world.”. He is followed by confirmation from the President of Iran. Other expressions of supremacism & triumphalism follow.

The video continues with Dutch demographics & politics, with more images including lapidation & hangings. What part of Fitna is not true? The Qur’an quotes are easily verified and confirmed by the most widely accepted exegeses. I have shown you one tafsir, you can search for the others at http://www.qtafsir.com.

The hadith quoted is also easily verifiable. We have seen most of the images in magazines and on the internet. The ranting & raving Imams are available in Memri’s archives.

Jorge Sampaio’s assertion of “deliberate incitement to discrimination, violence and hatred” is egregious hypocrisy. Wilders reports part of what Allah said and his obedient slaves do in obeying his word. Wilders did not incite his viewers to discrimination, violence or hatred against anyone. Fitna did not incite Kuffar to engage in anti-Muslim pogroms; nor was it intended to.

The second slur is extremely telling: “racist, discriminatory and xenophobic language” accurately describes what the Imams were saying about massacring the Jews, it does not accurately describe the video at which it was directed. Islam is not a race; it began by victimizing Arabs, but it expanded to victimize Jews, Africans and Asians. Most Muslims are descended from Asians who were give a choice: convert or die.

The hypocrisy of Ambassador Khan’s accusations is exposed through dissection of other outrageous statements he made to the UNHRC September 21,’06. [See the list of links in my previous post.] Allah commanded his slaves to make war upon the entire non-Muslim world: 8:39 commands fighting pagans until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped. 9:29 commands making war upon people with scriptural religions until they are subjugated and submit to extortion. Those two links are to Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir, which displays the ayeh along with confirming hadith. Abu Dawud Book 14.2526 prophesies that Jihad will continue to Judgment Day. Abu Dawud 23.3455 curses Muslims if they take up farming instead of Jihad, which it calls their “original religion”.

In consideration of insult & defamation, I leave you with a list of relevant ayat from Allah’s book. After reading these, you will understand why Islam has no moral standing on which to make its outrageous demand.

Hints of Compulsory U.N. Censorship

Yesterday I received a fund raising email from the American Center for Law and Justice. The following inflammatory paragraph was included in that missive.

Meanwhile, at the United Nations, a drastic move is reportedly underway to make the anti-Christian measure, ”Combating Defamation of Religions,” BINDING – MANDATORY – for member nations, including America.

It would criminalize proclamation of the Gospel around the globe. Speaking out against Islam, for example, would be an international crime.

The inordinantly curious can find a copy of the missive at Free Republic. I spent several hours searching for more detailed information with little success. Most of the information traces back to one blog: U.N. May Try to Criminalize Criticism of Islam which contains the following interesting paragraph.

In November, when the most recent version of the anti-blasphemy resolution was introduced, Pakistan’s Ambassador Masood Khan told the Human Rights Council the OIC wants to see a “new instrument or convention” that addresses the issue of blasphemy, one that would be binding on member states, according to Canwest News Service.

I was unable to find any evidence of such a message being delivered last November. Instead I discovered a statement delivered by Masood Khan April 1 of ’08, which includes the quote cited above. [Emphasis added.]

We fear that such incidents are the tip of the iceberg. We should not let them spin out of control. Collectively, we should use political and legal instruments, and develop new ones, to stop willful and mischievous defamation of religions. The Council should explore new space to address this issue beyond condemnations and adoption of resolutions. The OIC has consistently called for drafting a new instrument or convention to combat defamation of religions. [Statement of Ambassador Masood Khan]*

In reality, the statement on behalf of the O.I.C. only mentions one “incident”: the publication of Geert Wilders’ Fitna. [First Ed. 03/27/08] Both Fitna and the Danish Cartoons have been alluded to in recent resolutions.

UN Watch issued a press release today.

Geneva, March 11, 2009 — A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. (See full U.N. text below.) [Emphasis added by UN Watch.]

While the press release recognizes the fact that the proposal is in the form of a non-binding resolution, it states that the resolution:.

would pressure U.N. member states — at the “local, national, regional and international levels” — to erode free speech guarantees in their “legal and constitutional systems.”

It is my understanding that U.N. resolutions & conventions are only binding on those states who sign & ratify them. Why should the U.S.A. sign & ratify a blasphemy convention which would contravene the first amendment? Do Islam the U.N.H.R.C. have any pedestal of moral suasion to stand upon?

*[To read my detailed dissection of a previous screed by Masood Khan, visit Islamophobia Exposed and read Jihad Means, Violence is Alien to Islam, Extremism is Integral to Islam, Terrorists Don’t Speak for Islam, Violated Islamic Law, Islam Forbids Violence, Spread by the Sword, and Moe’s Legacy of Violence.]

Specter’s Payoff?

Senator Specter’s payoff for betraying his party: betrayal of his state Blogburst logo, petition We now know one of the payoffs that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter received for being one of three Republican Senators who allowed President Obama’s trillion-dollar Spendulus bill to become law. WPXI in Pittsburgh reports that Specter has a 5.5 million dollar earmark for the crescent-shaped Flight 93 memorial in the omnibus spending bill just passed by the Senate. Much as the people of Pennsylvania want to see a fitting memorial built, they yanked support for the crescent design in August 2007 after Tom Burnett Sr., father of Flight 93 hero Tom Jr., started warning the country that the memorial design is STILL packed to the gills with Islamic symbolism. Since that time the Memorial Project has hardly raised a dime, and a September 2007 interview with State Senator Jane Orie, who sponsors the Hearts of Steel memorial fund, makes clear that concerns about Islamic symbolism predominate. Here is her exchange with Pittsburgh talk-radio host Fred Honsberger:

Orie: “No matter who it is, and no matter where I went today for 9/11 events, everybody brought up this crescent. Whether it is intentional or not, it is disturbing to people.” Honsberger: “So everyone is bringing it up to you.” Orie: “Absolutely.”

Orie is talking here about the so-called “redesign.” The people of Pennsylvania know that the giant crescent, which the redesign was supposed to remove, is still there. The Park Service calls it “Circle of Embrace” now, but the circle is still broken, and the unbroken part of the circle——what is symbolically left standing in the wake of 9/11——remains exactly as it was in the original Crescent of Embrace (pictured above). Architect Paul Murdoch’s design is still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca. Pennsylvanians have voted with their pocketbooks to reject this memorial to the terrorists, but Arlen Specter is determined to cram it down their throats anyway, the same way he helped Obama cram a trillion dollars of socialist pork down America’s throat. Specter knows better than any other politician not just that the giant Islamic-shaped crescent is still there, but that it points to Mecca Our group was actually very hopeful back in 2007 that Senator Specter might put and end to the memorial debacle. After Mr. Burnett’s public appeal, Specter’s office wanted a briefing on the Islamic symbolism that we have found in the crescent design. One of our most knowledgeable people then spent 45 minutes with Stan Caldwell, Executive Director of Senator Specter’s Pittsburgh office, explaining in detail the Islamic and terrorist memorializing symbolism. Caldwell had no trouble understanding our graphical proof that the giant crescent points almost exactly at Mecca: QiblaOverlaidOnCrescent,400pxA person standing between the tips of the Crescent of Embrace and facing into the center of the crescent (red arrow) will be facing within two degrees of the Muslim prayer direction (qibla), which is calculated as the great circle direction to Mecca. (Green qibla graphic produced by the Mecca-direction calculator at Islam.com. Another calculator is available at QiblaLocator.com.) Caldwell also had no trouble understanding that the giant crescent is still there. All the redesign did was place an extra arc of trees out behind the mouth of the crescent, an arc of trees that according to the Park Service’s own website explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle: Crescent-BrokenCircle animation, 400px Animation starts with the bare naked Crescent of Embrace. The re-colored Circle of Embrace site plan is superimposed on top, then everything but the changes are removed. The only change is extra arc of trees (flashing) that explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle. Every particle of the original Crescent of Embrace design remains completely intact. Our man also explained the significance of the Mecca orientation: that it turns the giant Islamic-shaped crescent into a mihrab (the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built). The planned memorial is actually the world’s largest mosque, and Arlen Specter’s office is fully aware of it. Do Specter and Caldwell have some explanation? The press will never ask, but we can:

DC Phone: 202-224-4254 DC Fax: 202-228-1229

Another Washington Post cover-up Dan Eggen reports how Families of Flight 93 (an adjunct to the Memorial Project, representing only those families who are backing the crescent design) have been in Washington seeking federal money. He includes no mention of WHY the private fundraising effort has failed. But State Senator Orie’s discussion of her fundraising difficulties is not hard to find. Any reporter doing a story on the memorial’s fundraising problems would presumably start here: Google search for fundraising+problems+Flight+93+memorial The whole first page of search results is our blogburst post about Orie. (“Fundraising difficulties” yields the same result.) Either Dan Eggen is completely incompetent, or the Post is taking sides, refusing to report the facts that don’t support the terrorist memorializing side. Perhaps ombudsman Andrew Alexander should weigh in on this. The Post has NEVER reported on Mr. Burnett’s long battle to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Islamic-shaped crescent atop his son’s grave. Mr. Burnett left a long comment on Dan Eggen’s article which Eggen simply ignored, along with private offers to talk. So which is it Mr. Alexander? Is the Post incompetently ignorant of a controversy that has raged for years, or is it intentionally suppressing the facts about the giant Mecca-oriented crescent? To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url. 1389 Blog – Antijihadist Tech A Defending Crusader A Fine Line Between Stupid and Clever A Liberal’s Worst Nightmare ACT Golden Gate Al Salibiyyah All American Blogger Almost Midnight in the West American Commentaries And Rightly So Anne Arundel Maryland Politics Alamo City Pundit ARRA News Service Atlas Shrugs Auntie Coosa Campfire Journal Bare Naked Islam Battle Dress U Because I’m Right Best Destiny Big Dog’s Weblog Big Sibling Blackboot Jacks blogito, ergo, sum Bob McCarty Writes Boston Maggie Cao2’s Weblog Cao’s Blog Chaotic Synaptic Activity Chester Street Chicago Ray Christmas Ghost Classic Liberal Clay Ritter Clay’s Rants and Musings Cocked and Loaded Colonel Robert Neville Always Dresses for Dinner Common Sense Junction Concrete Bob Covertress Creeping Sharia DC Protest Warrior Democrat = Socialist Dr. Bulldog and Ronin Error Theory EW1’s Intercept Log Faultline USA Flanders Fields Flopping Aces Founding Fathers of the Vast Right Wing Four Pointer Francase Place Freedom’s Enemies Freedom Warrior Fried Green Onions From My Position On the Way! Ft. Hard Knox Freedom Ain’t Free Garbanzo Toons General Rachel’s weblog GM’s Corner Green Country Values Gunservatively Haid Dasalami Hard to Swallow Holger Awakens Hollywood Conservative Hoosier Army Mom iOwnThewWorld.com Ironic Surrealism v3.0 Ivy League Conservatives Jack Lewis Jihad Press Jim-Rose – the Libertarian Popinjay Judge Right Just Barking Mad kae’s bloodnut blog Kender’s Musings Lemur King’s Folly LGF 2.0: Little Green Blogmocracy Maggie’s Notebook MELAMPUS’S MENAGERIE!!!! Miss Beth’s Victory Dance Monkey in the Middle Muslims Against Sharia My Own Thoughts Neoconstant Nice Deb No Apology No Compromises When It Comes To Being Right! Noli insipientium iniurias pati Not A Sheep Redesigned Flight 93 memorial still an Islamo-fascist shrine Ogre’s Politics and Views Old Soldier Papa Mike’s blog Part-Time Pundit Political Islam Principally Political Protest The Church Protest The Left Publius’ Forum Race, Politics, and Religion in the USA Rayra.net Republican Attack Machine Right on the Right Right Truth Ron’s Musings Rosemary’s Thoughts Sarah Palin in Español Seattle Express Sharia Finance Watch Sheepdog Barking Shot in the Dark Sad Old Goth Smooth Stone Space 4 Commerce by Brian Dunbar Stix Blog Stop the ACLU Teen Pundit the Avid Editor The Conservative Guy The Gadfly The Great Lie of Islam The Grid The Hinge of Fate Liberalguy The Loyal Eagles The Midnight Sun The Mountain The Paradigm Shift The Political Octagon The Renaissance Biologist The Sanity Sentinel The Sisyphus Files The Strata-Sphere The Truth of Islam The View From the Turret The Wide Awakes Talk Wisdom Thunder Run Tizona’s Weblog Tough Girl 101 Traction Control United Conservatives War of 2 Worlds We Have Some Planes Yes, but can I dance to it?

California To Get Rid Of Marriage

by Findalis


Why is it that I am not surprised at the tactics that Gays and Lesbians will go to force the idea of Gay marriage on the nation. On November 4, 2008 the voters of California passed Proposition 8 which states:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

This passed 52.3% to 47.7%. Thus the voters of California spoke saying no to Gay marriage.

This is not the end of the arguement. The supporters of Gay marriage are not going to take that lying down. They have a new tactic. Get rid of marriage. No I am not joking.

California’s top election official says supporters can start collecting signatures for a proposed ballot measure to strike the word “marriage” from all state laws.

Supporters of this ballot measure want to replace it with the term “domestic partnership,” while keeping all the rights of marriage in place.

Read the full story here.

Domestic Partnership is not the same as Marriage. In a partnership, one can just leave the partnership without legal recourse. In a Marriage it takes a divorce to dissolve it. One can have multiple partners in a Domestic Partnership. In a Marriage a person can have only one spouse at a time.

Forcing all people in California to give up Marriage in favor of Domestic Partnership is wrong. But knowing the liberals, idiots, nincompoops in California they will now pass this idea overwhelmingly and sound the death knoll of the American Family.

If this measure passes how long do you think it will be before it is brought to every state in the US?

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. If it was a right the government would have to supply each and every person in the nation with a spouse. They don’t. And a couple planning on marrying should not have to go and get a Domestic Partnership license but a Marriage license.

Changing the name of Marriage to Domestic Partnership is just a bad idea.