Gay, And Lesbian Teenagers Are More Likely To Be Involved In A Teenage Pregnancy

Ramban Devarim 29-18

. . . ופירוש למען ספות הרוה את הצמאה - להוסיף השבעה עם המתאוה, כי נפש שבעה תקרא רוה, כענין ורויתי נפש הכהנים דשן ועמי את טובי ישבעו (ירמיה לא יג), והיתה נפשם כגן רוה (שם פסוק יא), והמתאוה תקרא צמאה, צמאה לך נפשי (תהלים סג ב). והטעם, כי נפש האדם הרוה שאיננה מתאוה לדברים הרעים לה, כאשר תבא בלבו קצת התאוה והוא ימלא תאותו אז יוסיף בנפשו תאוה יתירה ותהיה צמאה מאד לדבר ההוא שאכל או שעשה יותר מבראשונה, ותתאוה עוד לדברים רעים שלא היתה מתאוה להם מתחלה. כי המתאוה לזמת הנשים היפות, כשיהיה שטוף בזמתן תבואהו תאוה לבוא על הזכר ועל הבהמה, וכיוצא בזה בשאר התאוות, וכענין שהזכירו חכמים (סוכה נב ב) משביעו רעב מרעיבו שבע. ולכך יאמר הכתוב בהולך בשרירות לבו, שהוא אם ימלא נפשו בתאוות השרירות והחזקות עליו אשר היא צמאה להם, יוסיף נפשו הרוה עם הצמאה, כי יתאוה ויצמא למה שהיה שבע ממנו וכאשר השביע נפשו בו. ולפי שהזכיר "שרש פורה" אמר בלשון הזה, כי יוסיף השרש הוא כפתו אשר היא רוה ורעננה עם הצמאה ותשובנה כולם צמאות:

 

We see that "gays" have higher rates of teenage pregnancies which can be explained by the above Ramban that men who are very promiscuous for women may eventually develop desires for men.

 Notice that chart show that the more gay you are the more likley you are to be involved in a teenage pregnancy

This was from a gay website (and I can give many more studies that show this same phenomena)

Higher Pregnancy Rate for LGBT Youth

The pregnancy rate for teenagers who identify as lesbian or as bisexual is two to seven times greater than their heterosexual counterparts, according to a 2007 British Columbian study  “Not Yet Equal: The Health of Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual Youth in BC.”  While the average teen birth rate is currently at an all-time low due in part to improved sexual education, this sexual education may be biased toward heterosexuals.  The fact that sexual harassment and substance abuse has been found to be more common in lesbian and gay youth may also contribute to this disparity.

Popular shows like “Teen Mom” make the pregnancy rate seem like it is forever increasing.  However, the overall rate of teenage pregnancies decreased 9 percent from 2009 to 2010, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Research suggests that the reason for this decline may be an increased use of contraceptives and dual protection.  A focus on sexual education in high schools has helped teenagers become more aware of the risks and choices that go along with sex.

Why, then, is the rate of teenage pregnancies for lesbian and bisexual youth so high?  One major reason could be a greater likelihood of harassment and discrimination which may lead to risky behaviors involving people they claim not to be attracted to?.  “Not Yet Equal: The Health of Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual Youth in BC” found in a survey of 30,000 LGBT and heterosexual youth in British Columbia that lesbian and bisexual females who had been involved with a pregnancy were at least twice as likely to have experienced sexually-oriented "discrimination" in the past year.  Similarly, gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) youth who said they experienced family rejection during their childhood were 3.4 times more likely to have had unprotected sex than youth who did not experience family rejection, according to a 2009 Pediatrics report.  According to “Not Yet Equal: The Health of Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual Youth in BC,” this type of psychological abuse can lead to coping behaviors that include risky sexual decisions.

Further, a greater propensity toward substance use may also have an effect on the higher rate of teenage pregnancies.  In one study, more GLB youths reported alcohol use before their last sexual encounter than did heterosexual youth, according to a report in the American Journal of Public Health.   The authors theorized that this may in turn lead to a decrease in the likelihood of using contraceptives and thus an increase in the pregnancy rate.  A different study found that GLB youth use contraceptives less frequently.

To counteract this, it is necessary for schools to put a greater emphasis on sexual education that caters more toward the needs of LGBT youth.  A major reason that lesbian and bisexual youth are less likely to use birth control is that sexual education that is directed toward them rarely emphasizes the need for birth control.  There is a biased idea that these adolescents do not need information about birth control simply because they are LGBT, but this is clearly not the case. if there truly not attracted members of the oposite sex how can they get pregnant?  

The importance of GLB-sensitive sexual education in schools was made evident through a study conducted by the report in the 2001 American Journal of Public Health that was previously mentioned.  This report found that GLB youths who attended schools that had sexual education that was specified for their needs had sex less recently, had fewer sexual partners, and reported less substance use than did GLB youths in other schools.

It should therefore be a priority of schools to enact a system that does not discriminate against LGBT youth.  this mean that normal people in schools will be more exposed to this perversion Clearly these adolescents are more likely to become teenage mothers than their heterosexual counterparts.  Measures need to be taken, particularly in the school system, to address these needs so that teenage pregnancy can be consistently addressed for all young people.

(impactprogram.org) highlights my additions

 How can someone see this information and not realize that homosexuality is a choice? (though usually subconscious)

Why Don't We Say the Same??????

The sign that started it all. (Marie Viljoen)

A local preacher of the Westboro Baptist Church of New York City has no problem saying the truth openly.   When asked if he actually advocates the stoning of gay women and men, or if it’s just rhetoric to illustrate his point, Manning responds calmly, stating that he believes gay people should come to physical harm.

“Should we demonstrate some constraint if a person is repentive [sic], if a person is willing to leave that lifestyle? Absolutely,” he tells Vocativ. “However, I do think that anyone who promotes that as a lifestyle and tries to make it a national and international event and create warfare upon everybody else, then the appropriate response would be to stone them back to the Stone Age, or stone them back to hell.”

An unidentified man removed the lettering from the sign and spray-painted the words “God Is Gay”—neither of which has dissuaded Manning.(Philip Montgomery)

 “The liberals and progressives, the gays and others are of the mind-set that everything is wonderful and lovely, and there’ll be no wrath of god,” says Manning.

The pastor hasn’t always been so obsessively focused on the lives of lesbians and gay men. His interest in the gay scourge that, according to Manning, is currently plaguing the U.S., can be traced back to President Obama, who unleashed “homo demons” during his “second illegal inaugural address” by suggesting that they be afforded equal rights under the law. “In my estimation, that was an official release of the demonic spirit,” he says. “Because homosexuality is a demonic spirit, such as cannibalism or other kinds—even pedophilia is a demonic spirit—and it’s these wicked manifestations that are in our universe that inhabit people and cause them to act in one way or the other. And he released them.”

Manning on stage at his pulpit. (Vocativ/Philip Montgomery)

Since then, he has been vigilant about keeping an eye on the ghoulish gays he says are currently infiltrating society at all levels. He conflates them with pedophiles at several points throughout the interview. “In the Catholic Church, the homosexual spirit is imminent, it is powerful, but it is also degrading. It seeks out the innocence of young boys and preys upon them where it moves from homosexuality to pedophilia,” he says. “That same spirit runs around here in New York City. It’s on television. They’re in movies, they’re in sports—there’s Jason Collins and Michael Sam and a bunch of other people as well. They’re just not Catholic and they’re not priests, but it’s the same identical thing.”

“Homosexuals are the most intolerant of all people I've met. I've encountered Ku Klux Klan members who are more tolerant of people opposing their point of view."

“The white homo who now lives in the community—and there are a lot of them that moved up here—they brought their restaurants, they brought some of their lifestyle, they brought their Starbucks coffee with them…and like anybody else, they prey on black men, they convert black men,” he says. “Not only those who live here, but in the office buildings all over New York City and places around America where homosexuals have supervisory positions.”

Manning continues: “Just like in the Jungle Fever movie by Spike Lee, about the black man and the white woman in the office leaving the black woman who’s up in the hood and the white woman takes her man. The white homos are going to take the black woman’s man.”

Manning sits on his throne. (Vocativ/Philip Montgomery)

But it’s not just white guys who are to blame, according to Manning. Describing prisons as “incubators for homosexuality,” he argues that the increasing acceptance of same-sex relationships means that straight-identifying men of color who engaged in gay sex on the inside will no longer be ashamed of their actions upon their release. That’s when, presumably, they’ll become more susceptible to the siren song of the gay, white male and less likely to reintegrate back into their communities “as leaders, as fathers, as men.”

When it’s suggested that he might try preaching tolerance and inclusivity if he is genuinely interested in improving social cohesion in his community, Pastor Manning is utterly incredulous. “Homosexuals are the most intolerant of all people I’ve met. I’ve encountered Ku Klux Klan members who are more tolerant of people opposing their point of view,” he says, adding that he supports recent anti-gay legislation in Uganda and Russia. “You talk about inclusive—including what? Including evil? Why don’t I include Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy as a part of our elder board? Why don’t we let them preach sermons? No, nothing could be more ridiculous.”

So why are our gedolim ashamed of saying the same? 

Gay Terrorists Boycott Firefox After Pro True "Marriage" CEO Takes Office

"LGBT Developers Boycott Firefox After Anti-Gay CEO Takes Office"

By Lauren C. Williams on March 26, 2014 at 1:36 pm

Firefox developers started boycotting Tuesday after the Web browser’s parent company Mozilla hired a new CEO with a history of opposing marriage equality.

The Mozilla Foundation, which funds the Firefox browser, announced Monday that the company’s co-founder Brendan Eich would take over as the new CEO. But in 2008, Eich made a personal $1,000 donation to support California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative to ban same-sex "marriage" statewide.

The Javascript creator’s hiring prompted a backlash from Mozilla employees and the general public. To protest Eich’s appointment, Firefox app developer Hampton Catlin told Mozilla in an open letter that he and his partner, who is also a Firefox developer, were boycotting all Firefox projects, “until Brendan Eich is completely removed from any day-to-day activities at Mozilla.” Catlin runs the tech startup Rarebit and had developed Wikipedia’s mobile site and the Dictionary! and Color Puzzle apps. He did not immediately return a request for comment.

The developers are pulling their apps from the marketplace and won’t issue updates to existing products. In a blog post, Catlin detailed how he and his partner were affected by Prop 8:

As a gay couple who were unable to get married in California until recently, we "morally" cannot support a Foundation that would not only leave someone with "hateful" this would also include every single Orthodox Jew views in power, but will give them a promotion and put them in charge of the entire organization. Many people are outraged in a political way, and Michael and I thank all of you for being so supportive. But, for us, this is very, very personal.

Many supporters of the boycott have taken to Twitter saying that they’re boycotting all Mozilla products and switching to Firefox’s competitor, Google Chrome. Ironically, Google is also Mozilla’s biggest revenue source thanks to royalties from a three-year deal that makes Google Firefox’s default search engine. Per the arrangement, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $274 million in 2012 — nearly 90 percent of the company’s annual revenue, according to its earnings report. The rest of Mozilla’s revenue comes from product sales. Google’s deal with Mozilla expires in November.

In a statement Mozilla released Tuesday, the company said it was “deeply committed to honoring diversity in sexual orientation and beliefs within our staff and community, across all the project’s activities,” emphasizing that it provides equal health care benefits to employees in same-sex partnerships. The response, however, didn’t mention the boycotts nor Eich’s promotion.

Eich hasn’t commented on the matter this week, but when news of his donation first surfaced in 2012, he said that he wasn’t going to engage in a public discussion over Prop 8 and that personal ideals are divorced from his professional work at Mozilla.

“People in any group or project of significant size and diversity will not agree on many crucial issues unrelated to the group or project,” Eich wrote in a blog post at the time, “so I do not insist that anyone agree with me on a great many things, including political issues, and I refrain from putting my personal beliefs in others’ way in all matters Mozilla, [JavaScript], and Web.”

Update

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich issued a statement Wednesday afternoon outlining his commitments to the company’s LGBT "community". The statement didn’t comment on marriage dequality or Eich’s Prop 8 donation, but instead specified how he would work with LGBT members and allies to advance the company’s anti-discrimination policies.

My personal commitment to work on new initiatives to reach out to those who feel excluded or who have been marginalized in ways that makes their contributing to Mozilla and to open source difficult…I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.

(ThinkProgress) highlights my additions

Religious people are now getting targeted from holding high level jobs, but according to the Aguda, OU, Satmar, Lakewood Vaad, and of course New Square we should still support all supporters of gay "rights".

This is why the gays are winning they care about homosexual perversion, more than we care about God.

The reason gay rights is winning is because in the war of good versus evil, both evil and those who claim to be good both support evil.

Poll Shows 28% Of Americans Want To Force A Rabbi To Preform A Same Sex "Wedding"

Poll showing majority of all Americans support forcing religious people to violate their religion by helping a same sex "Wedding

This was a poll taken last year released in JULY 2013
Granted this is a liberal poll and thus biased, and 26% is nowhere near a majority but remember same sex "marriage" has smiler poll numbers 15 years ago
the rest of the is quoted from Third Way.org highlighted portions are our additions for clairty

COMMITMENT CAMPAIGN


JULY 2013


Americans Agree: "Marriage" for Gay Couples "Doesn’t" Threaten Religious Liberty


By Sarah Trumble, Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, and David Stacy


After the Supreme Court’s historic decisions striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and restoring "marriage" for gay couples in California, a full 30% of Americans now live in a state where gay couples can make the lifetime promise of "marriage", and for the first time the federal government must respect those unions. Support for "marriage" has grown astronomically over the past few years, and a wave of leaders from both sides of the aisle has followed that progress. But the shrinking group of politicians who still oppose allowing gay couples to "marry" often argues that doing so would infringe on the religious liberty of "marriage" opponents. Third Way and the Human Rights Campaign joined with researchers at Anzalone Liszt Grove to conduct a nationwide poll to better understand how Americans believe "marriage" and non-"discrimination" laws impact religious liberty. The results are clear: voters know that our laws and the Constitution already robustly protect religious liberty, they do not "think" "marriage" or non-"discrimination" laws threaten Americans’ religious beliefs or practices, and they do not believe that allowing gay couples to "marry" requires passing new laws to allow businesses or individuals to deny services to gay people or couples.  this means that majority of Americans believe there is nothing wrong (morally or legally) with forcing a kosher Caterer to cater a same sex "Wedding"


SUPPORT FOR "MARRIAGE"

2013 will be remembered as a pivotal year in our country’s "evolution" to full "recognition" for gay and lesbian couple: the year the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down as "unconstitutional", the year California’s Proposition 8 was "permanently" invalidated, the year 30% of the country lived in one of the now 13 marriage states, and the year support for "marriage" became unquestionably the majority position among Americans nationwide. Our national poll, conducted just prior to the Supreme Court’s decisions, found 53% support for allowing gay and lesbian couples to "marry", which included 63% of non-white voters, 56% of Independents, 50% of people without a college degree, and 58% of Christians under 50 years old.

Surpassing 50% support nationwide can be at least partially attributed to the public’s "evolving" understanding of gay couples and their relationships. Twenty years ago, only 42% of Americans said they knew someone who was gay or lesbian, but today that number is 87%.  And according to our poll, a full 35% of the country now knows a gay couple who has either "married" or held a "commitment" ceremony.

  One of the main indicators of support for "marriage" in our previous research has been the belief that gay couples want to join the institution of marriage as opposed to changing it. Third Way has been asking voters this question since 2009, and the evolution of perspective has been stark: In 2009, 50% of Americans said gay couples wanted to join the institution of "marriage", compared to 41% who said gay couples wanted to change it—a margin of 9 points. Two years later, our 2011 poll found 54% believed gay couples wanted to join "marriage", and only 34% believed gay couples wanted to change the institution—a margin of 20 points. And this year, 58% of the country answered that gay couples want to join the institution of "marriage", while only 27% said gay couples want to change it—a stunning margin of 31 points. This belief that gay couples simply want to join the institution of "marriage" and wed for the same reasons as any other couple spans all demographic groups, including 55% of whites, 74% of non-whites under 50, 53% of non-whites over 50, 47% of Republicans, 57% of Independents, and 55% of Christians.


SUPPORT FOR NON-"DISCRIMINATION" LAWS AND OPPOSITION TO LAWS DENYING SERVICES


Americans are not only solid in their support for allowing gay couples to "marry", but they are strongly supportive of non-"discrimination" laws and opposed to any new legislation that would allow services to be denied to gay individuals or couples. In fact, when it comes to religious exemptions, voters are clear that they should only be limited to places like churches and synagogues and people like pastors, priests, and rabbis. not you


By and large, Americans already believe it is illegal for business owners to refuse to provide products or services to a gay customer—only 16% of respondents believed that such an act would be legal in their state. And public support for such non-"discrimination" laws can be seen both in the states that have already enacted them and in those that have not. Currently, 44% of Americans live in one of the 21 states (and the District of Columbia) with non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation.  But even Americans who live in states without non-"discrimination" laws thought it was already illegal to deny a gay person service—more than half of those who believed it was illegal were incorrect and actually live in a place that doesn’t yet prohibit such discrimination (30% of respondents overall thought it was illegal in their state when it wasn’t).

When asked about creating new laws which would allow government employees, businesses, organizations, or individuals to refuse to serve gay people or couples based on religious objections, voters were decidedly averse. Americans "recognize" the need to both protect gay people and religious liberty but gays will define religious liberty, gays think they can pasken what is and is not allowed, but they believe that we’ve already achieved the latter in current law. They supported 28% opposed this as we will see later existing protections that ensure that clergy and churches need not perform any marriage that conflicts with their faith, but they think religious exemptions should be limited to those circumstances so they are against the first amendment for Bakers, Caterers, Photographers, Therapists etc..

As this poll demonstrates, most Americans do not think non-"discrimination" laws infringe on religious liberty because they refine the meaning of those words just like marriage, and they are opposed to passing new laws or creating exemptions or loopholes that would allow "discrimination" against gay individuals or couples. Sixty-seven percent—two-thirds of voters—said they agreed with the statement that “our laws already strike the right balance when it comes to religious liberty and small business, and we should not change that.”


Denying Services as Government Employees

The public is most adamant about this principle when it comes to government employees. By a stunning margin of 48 points, 71% to 23%, Americans say that a county clerk should not be able to refuse to issue a "marriage" license to a gay couple in a state where that "marriage" would be legal so 71% of Americans think Kiryas Yoel and New Square's town clerk should be required to give out same sex "marriage" license. By a margin of 46 points, 69% to 23%, voters say that a federal employee should not be able to refuse to review an immigration application for a "spouse" of a gay American citizen, a situation that would be possible for the first time now that the Defense of Marriage Act has been struck down. These statistics illustrate the strongly held belief that government should treat everyone but religious people equally under the law, and that the individual religious beliefs of any individual agent of the government shouldn’t stand in the way.


Denying Services as Private Actors


When it comes to non-government entities, the public is just as clear. Americans oppose allowing businesses or individuals to ignore non-"discrimination" laws because of their religious beliefs. Sixty-nine percent of Americans don’t think a business owner should be allowed to refuse to provide products or services to an individual because that person is gay or lesbian, compared to an incredibly small 15% that do. And when asked about small business owners in particular, a full 68% of Americans don’t think they should be able to refuse service to gays or lesbians, regardless of their religious beliefs. This supermajority included 55% of Republicans, 75% of Independents, 67% of people without college degrees, and 68% of Christians.

Around 70% of the country is against the first amendment

Denying Wedding-Related Services to Gay Couples


For the most part, voters feel the same way about the provision of commercial services for a gay couple’s "wedding" as they do about providing services for gay individuals in general see chart on the top: the majority of respondents said that gay and lesbian couples should be treated "equally" in all aspects of life, including when shopping for contractors for their "weddings". When asked if they would favor or oppose a law that would allow businesses or organizations to deny services to gay and lesbian couples based on religious objections, 67% of voters were opposed—52% of them strongly—compared to only 25% who would be in favor of such laws. This opposition was nearly universal, regardless of race, gender, religion, or education level. Even Republicans, who had the lowest level of opposition at 48%, were not in favor of new laws allowing businesses and organizations to deny services to gay couples—only 39% supported such laws.


When asking specifically about wedding-related services, like catering, flowers, or cakes, being provided by small businesses, these numbers hardly changed at all: 64% of voters were still opposed to new laws that would allow small businesses to deny wedding-related services based on their religious beliefs, compared to 31% in favor. That’s a 33-point margin of opposition. Again, not a single demographic group favored such laws more than they opposed them. Support was highest at 48% among Republicans—still a point below the 49% in opposition. This is why you can't vote straight Republican This is because most voters don’t consider wedding-related services to be unique, and they don’t think their providers need any special loopholes in the laws to allow them to avoid providing commercial services for weddings of gay or lesbian couples. A full 54% of respondents believe it is wrong for a business to deny wedding-related services to a gay couple, while only 15% agreed that “wedding-related services are different and people should be allowed to refuse for religious reasons.” Those who believe weddings are different, were torn, or said they didn’t know trended more towards Republicans, voters over the age of 50, Catholics, and people without college degrees. But still, 52% of Christians, 61% of non-Christian religious believers, and 65% of the non-religious did not think providing commercial services for a wedding was in any way deserving of special exemptions to non-discrimination laws. That’s because unlike a clergy member performing a ceremony, only 10% of respondents actually thought that when a business provides services like flowers or food for a gay couple’s wedding, that the business is telling the world it supports "marriage" for gay couples, compared to 57% who say that doing so is simply fulfilling a contract for services.

Even when we dug deeper and asked about specific services and professions, respondents still overwhelming believed that businesses should not be able to deny services to gay customers—largely regardless of whether they were purchasing services as an individual or as a couple for a "wedding":



• By a 47-point margin (69% to 22%), Americans said a doctor should not be able to refuse to treat a gay patient this can include a psychiatrist who could be required to try and "help" a homosexual couple (listen to what Rav Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik had to say on this topic), and by 41 points (66% to 25%) they said that a doctor should not be able to refuse to deliver a baby for a married lesbian couple.


• By a 32-point margin (60% to 28%), Americans thought that an accountant should not be able to refuse to file taxes for a gay person, and by 34 points (62% to 28%) they said that an accountant should not be able to refuse to file a joint tax return for a legally "married" gay couple.


• By a 27-point margin (60% to 33%), respondents said a restaurant owner should not be able to refuse to cater a gay person’s birthday party, and by 21 points (56% to 35%) they said that a restaurateur should not be able to refuse to cater a gay couple’s "wedding" . Fifty-five percent said that a waiter should not be able to refuse to work at a gay couple’s wedding if the caterer has agreed to do so, while only 36% thought he or she should be able to refuse.


• By a 32-point margin (63% to 31%), Americans said a florist should not be able to refuse to sell flowers to a gay person, and by 23 points (59% to 36%) they said that florist should not be able to refuse to sell flowers for a gay couple’s "wedding". Fifty-four percent also said that a photographer should not be able to refuse to photograph a gay couple’s wedding, while only 38% thought he or she should be able to refuse.


• By a margin of 15 points (52% to 37%), respondents said that a religious charity should not be able to refuse to provide health care benefits to the spouse of a legally "married" gay employee. 

read this paragraph carefully
The only situation in which majority of respondents felt someone should be allowed to refuse to provide a "wedding"-related service for a gay "couple" was when the provider was a church or clergy member and that service was the religious solemnization of that "marriage"—the actual performance of the "wedding" ceremony. In that case, only 61% of voters felt the clergy member or church should be able to refuse to perform the ceremony, compared to 28% who felt they should not. As it turns out, this tracks perfectly with the current liberal interpretation of law, because the First Amendment of the Constitution—and the "marriage" laws in states that have allowed gay couples to "marry"—already protect any church, clergy member, or religious leader from being forced to recognize, solemnize, or celebrate any "marriage". the fact that 28% of the country is for forcing rabbis to be a a misader kidashin (not kiddushin) is very troubling because 10 years ago it we would have had similar numbers regarding caterers and photographers, and 10 years before that in regarding to same sex "marriage" all together Americans drew a sharp line between religious services, which a person has a right to decline, and commercial services, where all customers who are able to pay should be able to purchase the service.


CONCLUSION


The lessons learned from this poll will only become more important as our country continues to move "forward" toward the day when all gay couples can make a lifetime commitment to each other in a fake "marriage". Ours wais a nation built on the principle of equal protection under the law, and the public believes that current laws provide appropriate protections according to atheists for those with religious objections to "marriage" without creating an untenable situation in which people can simply ignore existing non-"discrimination" laws. evil Americans don’t believe that religious liberty is infringed by allowing gay couples to "marry", because they "know" that the First Amendment protects only clergy and churches from being forced to recognize or celebrate any "marriage" to which they object and currently Liberals believe that the first amendment only applies to clergy and houses of worship. And there is widespread opposition to the creation of new laws, exemptions, or loopholes that would allow government employees, large or small businesses, or organizations to refuse to provide commercial services to gay individuals or couples, regardless of whether those services are directly related a wedding and forces them to violate their religion. Above all, Americans believe everyone but religious people should be treated equally under the law.

The Real Face of a Republican

As readers of this blog already know; Republican candidates promise to fight toeva, and once they are elected they do just the opposite.Now the GOP is changing course.

In an interview with Mike Spikes, Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul was asked the following:

There was a consensus among young people at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference that the GOP needs to get out of social issues. Do you agree?

I think it’s partly that. But I also think young people are very concerned with privacy. I think most young people’s lives revolve around their cellphones. They communicate with their parents by cellphone even when they’re in the house. And I think they are horrified by the idea of the government searching their records and being in possession of their records when they’ve not been suspected of a crime.

Right. But it seems what they’re saying is that the Republican Party should stay out of issues like gay marriage.

I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.

As a libertarian, you believe in the sovereignty of the individual. But when it comes to the right for gays to marry, you said it should be left up to the states. Isn’t that a contradiction?

On issues that are very contentious, that involve social mores—I think that allowing different parts of the country to make their decision based on the local mores and culture is a good idea. But when it comes to taxes and benefits, the [federal] government out to take a neutral position—a way where marriage wouldn’t have an effect, positive or negative, on those things.

America's Top Foreign Policy Regarding Human Rights Is Promoting "Gay Rights"

 This is from the White House's website on Obama's "Human Rights" Agenda. I edited out other areas and marked where I did so, The first item on the agenda was "LGBT-Rights"

Fact Sheet: Obama Administration Leadership on International Human Rights

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

2013-12-04

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
December 4, 2013
“People everywhere long for the freedom to determine their destiny; the dignity that comes with work; the comfort that comes with faith; and the justice that exists when governments serve their people — and not the other way around. The United States of America will always stand up for these aspirations, for our own people and for people all across the world. That was our founding purpose.”
President Barack Obama, September 25, 2012

“Advancing democracy and respect for human rights is central to our foreign policy. It is what our history and our values demand, but it’s also profoundly in our interests. That is why the United States remains firmly committed to promoting freedom, opportunity and prosperity everywhere. We stand proudly for the rights of women, the LGBT community and ethnic minorities. We defend the freedom for all people to worship as they choose not freedom of religion, and we champion open government and civil society, freedom of assembly and a free press.


We support these rights and freedoms with a wide range of tools, because history shows that nations that respect the rights of all their citizens are more just, more prosperous and more secure.”
Ambassador Susan E. Rice, December 4, 2013

On December 4, 2013, Ambassador Susan E. Rice delivered an address outlining the Obama Administration’s global leadership on human rights. This fact sheet provides further detail on a number of the Administration’s key human rights initiatives highlighted in her remarks.
Advancing LGBT Rights at Home and Abroad

• Domestically Advancing LGBT Equality: In his first term, President Obama and his Administration took significant steps toward equality for the LGBT community. The President signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that included important new protections for the LGBT community. The Obama Administration also issued important guidance to ensure visitation rights for LGBT patients and their loved ones at hospitals receiving Medicare or Medicaid payments, implemented the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, and prohibited discrimination against LGBT people in federally funded housing programs. Finally, the President also ended the legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act and has directed his Department of Justice to work with other departments and agencies to ensure the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor is swiftly implemented, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations.

• International Initiatives to Advance LGBT Rights and Nondiscrimination: In December 2011, President Obama signed the first-ever Presidential Memorandum on International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of LGBT Persons read this link, requiring that federal agencies work together to meet common goals in support of the human rights of LGBT persons globally. Consistent with these goals, the United States assists activists and individuals under threat around the world through public statements, quiet diplomatic engagement, and targeted programs. Through the Global Equality Fund and the LGBT Global Development Partnership, the United States works with government and private sector partners to support programs that combat discriminatory legislation; protect human rights defenders; train LGBT leaders on how to participate more effectively in democratic processes; and increase civil society capacity to document human rights violations. Additional programs and research focus on protecting vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers.

• Combating Criminalization of LGBT Status or Conduct Abroad: Working with our embassies overseas and civil society on the ground, the United States has developed strategies to combat criminalization of LGBT status or conduct in countries around the world.

• Engaging International Organizations in the Fight against LGBT Discrimination: The United States works with our partners to defend the human rights of LGBT persons through the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and in other multilateral fora. In addition to supporting resolutions specific to LGBT issues, such as cosponsoring the historic June 2011 UN Human Rights Council resolution on the human rights of LGBT persons, the United States works to ensure that LGBT persons are included in broader human rights resolutions and statements.

• Promoting Action and Coordination: The United States will host in 2014 a global gathering of donors and activists to pursue ways we can work together to strengthen protections for LGBT persons around the world, including by ensuring assistance in this area is strategic and coordinated with our like-minded partners.

More detailed information on U.S. leadership to advance equality for LGBT people abroad is available here read this link too.

Edited out section here

Strengthening Multilateral Human Rights Mechanisms

• Leading at the UN Human Rights Council: Since joining the UN Human Rights Council in 2009 and following our re-election in 2012, U.S. leadership has helped muster international action to address human rights violations worldwide and make the HRC more credible and effective. The United States supported the establishment of international commissions of inquiry to investigate human rights violations and help lay the groundwork for accountability, including in Syria, North Korea, and Qadhafi’s Libya. We led the creation of a UN special rapporteur on Iran to highlight the deteriorating human rights situation. U.S. co-sponsorship helped adopt the first-ever resolution in the UN system on the human rights of LGBT persons. We built a global coalition to advance freedom of assembly and association worldwide, including by facilitating the establishment of the first-ever Special Rapporteur for these issues and by underscoring the important role civil society plays in promoting and protecting human rights. And we worked across historical divides to win adoption of a landmark resolution calling on all states to take positive measures to combat intolerance, violence, and discrimination on the basis of religion or belief, while protecting the freedom of expression.
  

More detailed information on U.S. accomplishments in the UN Human Rights Council is available here. Edited out section here

(White House's web site) highlights are this blogs additions

עסקנים ,ממגילה מנלן?Askonim In The Megillah

Where do we have a hint to askonim (Skver, Satmars, Agudas Yisroel, Orthodox Union etc.) in Megillas Esther?

כִּי נִמְכַּרְנוּ אֲנִי וְעַמִּי לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרוֹג וּלְאַבֵּד	Because we are sold, I and my Nation, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish.

Man Who Thinks He's A Woman Sues To Be Allowed Into Women's Sports Competition

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A transgender woman in Northern California has sued the company behind the popular CrossFit workouts for refusing to let "her" compete in the female division of its annual fitness competitions.

The lawsuit brought Thursday by Chloie Jonsson, 34, accuses CrossFit Inc. of violating "her" rights under a California law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

Jonsson's complaint says she was born male but has been living as a woman since she was a teenager and underwent sex reassignment surgery eight years ago. The surgery, coupled with the female hormones she takes, satisfied the state's requirements for her to be recognized as female on her birth certificate and other official documents.

Her lawyer, Waukeen McCoy, said Jonsson, who works as a personal trainer and is an avid CrossFit practitioner, first spoke to company representatives about "her" background a year ago after a teammate learned that participants in the Reebok CrossFit Games were required to register according to their gender at birth.

"They said she has an advantage over "other" women because of the sex she was born with, and that is completely "un"true, scientifically," McCoy said, noting that the International Olympic Committee and other sports governing bodies allow athletes who have undergone surgery, taken hormones and secured legal recognition to compete in the category that corresponds to their affirmed "gender".

CrossFit's general counsel, Dale Saran, would not comment on the lawsuit, which seeks $2.5 million in damages. Saran directed The Associated Press to a CrossFit online discussion board, where he posted that Jonsson had never supplied medical documents to back up "her" assertion that she was a "woman". He also dismissed McCoy's suggestion that transgender athletes are engaged in a struggle as valid as the one black baseball players waged to be accepted in the major leagues.

"The fundamental, ineluctable fact is that a male competitor who has a sex reassignment procedure still has a genetic makeup that confers a physical and physiological advantage over women," Saran wrote in a letter to McCoy that's linked to the discussion board. "That Chloie may have felt herself emotionally, and very conscientiously, to be a woman in her heart, and that "she" ultimately underwent the legal and other surgical procedures to carry that out, cannot change that reality."

Saran said CrossFit may create a separate division for transgender athletes if enough step forward to compete.

"Our decision has nothing to do with 'ignorance' or being bigots - it has to do with a very real understanding of the human genome, of fundamental biology, that you are either intentionally ignoring or missed in high school," he said.

CrossFit is headquartered in Washington, D.C., but its founder, Greg Glassman, launched it in Santa Cruz, Calif. in the late 1990s. The company has 7,000 affiliate gyms around the world where classes offer an intense, military-style mix of weight-lifting, core conditioning and cardio exercises, according to its website.

Individuals and teams compete every year in the timed CrossFit Games to determine who can complete the most repetitions of various exercises.
(AP)

Gay Group Wants To Send A "Purim" "Children's" Book With Two "Dads" To Your Children

Children dressed as superheroes, queens, and football players ate pastries and listened to the story of Purim at Boston Children’s Museum on Sunday.

The early Purim event was organized by the PJ Library, a nine-year-old nonprofit that gives free books to Jewish families with young children, in collaboration with the Jewish Community Centers of Greater Boston and Combined Jewish Philanthropies.

But one Purim book has incited some controversy for the PJ Library recently.

“The Purim Superhero,” written by Elisabeth Kushner and illustrated by Mike Byrne, was the winner of a contest for "Jewish"-themed books with gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender characters. It tells the story of Nate, a boy whose friends are all planning to wear superhero costumes to their school’s Purim festival. Nate, who wants to dress as an alien, is conflicted about his choice, and goes to his two "fathers" for advice.

In late February, the PJ Library announced it would offer the book only to families that requested it. Winnie Sandler Grinspoon, a trustee for the Harold Grinspoon Foundation, explained in a blog post that while organization officials would like to offer books that reflect different types of "families", they know homosexuality and same-sex marriage are taboo for some of their subscribers.

‘They said . . . making it partially available was better than making it not available at all.’

PJ Library subscribers requested every available copy of the book — about 2,200 — within about 36 hours, said Marcie Greenfield Simons, director of the PJ Library, in a phone interview Sunday.

“The Purim Superhero” tells the story of a boy conflicted over his choice of a costume for his school’s Purim festival. He goes to his two " fathers" for advice.

Idit Klein, executive director of Keshet, a Jamaica Plain-based advocacy organization for LGBT Jewish people, which held the book contest, said her organization has been talking to the PJ Library about the book since its release nearly a year ago.

Klein said she believes the PJ Library’s decision-making process was “thoughtful and heartfelt,” and that offering the book at all was a “positive step.” But she said she was also disappointed.

“I told them that this is demeaning to same-sex couples and their families — that there’s something so threatening and wrong about our families that children can only see them in a book if a parent requests it,” Klein said in a phone interview Sunday. “They said that this is the best they can do at this time, and making it partially available was better than making it not available at all. And I agree with that.”

Greenfield Simons said the PJ Library gave a “tremendous” amount of thought to the matter.

“I think that we are aware that there are many people who would like the PJ Library to send out ‘The Purim Superhero’ as a regular PJ Library collection, and all of that is up for conversation going forward,” Greenfield Simons said. “[When stock ran out] within about 36 hours, we again contacted the publisher and made a commitment to do a reprint of the book after the order cutoff date, which is March 13, to ensure that every family that wants the book will, indeed, get it. And we are very happy to provide the book to, at this point, the thousands of families that have requested it.”

In the story of Purim, written in the biblical Scroll of Esther, an adviser to King Ahasuerus named Haman plans to kill all Jewish people in Persia. Esther, a Jewish member of the king’s harem who became queen without revealing her religion to Ahasuerus, persuades him to spare her people with guidance from her cousin, Mordechai. Haman is hanged, and the Jewish people celebrate.

Today, Jews celebrate the holiday by wearing costumes, sending food-filled gift baskets to friends, and rattling noisemakers at the mention of Haman’s name. The holiday this year begins the evening of March 15 and ends at sundown March 16.

The PJ Library — the name is a nod to pajamas and bedtime stories — was founded in 2005 by Harold Grinspoon, a Western Massachusetts philanthropist who made his money in real estate, to encourage literacy and a sense of community in Jewish families.

In January the organization, which operates in the United States, Canada, Israel, Australia, and Mexico with plans to expand into more countries, gave away its 5 millionth book in North America to a 3-year-old in Natick. Starting next month, it will deliver 130,000 books a month to Jewish families in North America, Greenfield Simons said.

It has also started sending books to 45,000 Israeli-Arab children through its new initiative, Maktabat al-Fanoos, “Lantern Library” in Arabic.

In a crowded Children’s Museum on Sunday, Mark Sokoll, president and chief executive of the Jewish Community Centers of Greater Boston, greeted children; he was dressed as King Ahasuerus, wearing a purple velvet cape and a magnificently long false beard.

“Look who’s here!” he said, spotting Elena Weber of Cambridge in a frilly dress and pink crown. “The queen! The queen is here! I’ve been waiting for you.”

Elena, who turns 4 next week, hid behind her father’s leg and slipped to the floor. She was tired from a day of dressing up in costumes and seeing a Purim-themed puppet show.

Elena’s parents, Sarah and Tom Weber, are Scotland residents and PJ Library subscribers visiting Cambridge on an academic sabbatical. They try to expose their daughter to her Jewish culture whenever they can, Sarah Weber said.

“The Jewish community in Aberdeen, [Scotland,] where we normally are, is quite small. It’s nice to be in a thriving Jewish community like Boston,” Tom Weber said.

(Boston Globe)

Massachusetts Court Says Photographing Up A Womans Skirt Is Legal

(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person's clothing -- a practice known as "upskirting" -- prompting one prosecutor to call for a revision of state law.

The high court ruled that the practice did not violate the law because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude.

"A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is 'partially nude,' no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing," wrote Justice Margot Botsford of the state Supreme Judicial Court.

CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin said the law has not caught up to technology and called it an assault on a woman's right to privacy.

"I think the courts got it wrong," Hostin said. "The spirit of the law makes it clear it is about the person's privacy."

The ruling stems from the case against Michael Robertson, 32, who was arrested in 2010 and accused of using his cell phone to take pictures and record video up the skirts and dresses of women on the trolley, according to court documents.

Two separate complaints were filed against Robertson with the transit police. Authorities then staged "a decoy operation" to catch Robertson, who was eventually arrested and charged with two counts of attempting to secretly photograph a person in a state of partial nudity. Police observed him point a cell phone video camera up the dress of a female officer, court documents state.

Wednesday's ruling reversed a previous decision by a lower court, which had denied a motion by Robertson seeking the dismissal of the case, said a statement from the Suffolk County district attorney's office.

"In sum, we interpret the phrase, 'a person who is ... partially nude' in the same way that the defendant does, namely, to mean a person who is partially clothed but who has one or more of the private parts of body exposed in plain view at the time that the putative defendant secretly photographs her," the high court ruled.

The ruling that state law "does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed and, in particular, does not reach the type of upskirting that the defendant is charged with attempting to accomplish on the MBTA."

Prosecutors had argued that the current statute, which prohibits secretly photographing or videotaping a person who is "nude or partially nude," includes upskirting, according to documents.

But Robertson's lawyers argued that the female passenger on the trolley was not "nude or partially nude" and was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, according to court documents.

"Every person, male or female, has a right to privacy beneath his or her own clothing," Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley said in a statement Wednesday. "If the statute as written doesn't protect that privacy, then I'm urging the Legislature to act rapidly and adjust it so it does."

Robertson's lawyer, Michelle Menken, did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Robertson faced misdemeanor charges punishable by up to two and half years in prison.

(CNN)

10 years ago these same geniuses allowed same gender "marriage"

House Speaker Robert DeLeo said this afternoon that the Legislature would immediately begin looking at ways of closing the loophole in the law.

“The ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court is contrary to the spirit of the current law. The House will begin work on updating our statutes to conform with today’s technology immediately,” DeLeo said in a statement.

(Boston.com)

"Orthodox" Gary Schaer And Lakewood's Robert Singer Voted To Allow Children To Change Their Sex On Their Birth Certificate

This is the official Statement explaining the purpose of the bill

ASSEMBLY HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE

STATEMENT TO

ASSEMBLY, No. 4097

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

DATED:  JUNE 10, 2013

      The Assembly Human Services Committee reports favorably Assembly Bill No. 4097.

      This bill revises the requirements for obtaining an amended certificate of birth due to a change in sex.  To obtain the amended certificate, a person would be required to submit:  1) a form provided by the State registrar of vital statistics and completed by the person's licensed health care provider which indicates that the person has undergone clinically appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition, based on contemporary medical standards, or that the person has an intersex condition; and 2) a certified copy of a court order indicating the person's name change, if the person has changed his or her name.  The application may be submitted on the person’s behalf by a parent or guardian, if the person is a minor.  The State registrar is to issue the amended certificate which shows the sex and, if applicable, the name of the person as it has been changed.

      Under current law, a person is required to undergo sex reassignment surgery to receive an amended birth certificate, and to submit to the State registrar a medical certificate from the person’s physician indicating that his or her sex has been changed by surgical procedure.  In addition, the law requires submission of a copy of a court order indicating the person's name change, while the bill provides for such submission, if there has been a name change.

      Current law further requires the State registrar to place the original certificate of birth and all papers pertaining to the amended certificate of birth under seal, which is not to be broken except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction.  This bill would permit the seal to be broken upon the request of the person who is the subject of the certificate of birth, or upon the request of the parent or guardian, if the person is a minor.

      The bill also provides that in the case of a resident of this State who was born in another state or in a foreign jurisdiction, if such other state or foreign jurisdiction requires a court order in order to amend a certificate of birth to reflect a change in sex, a court in this State would have jurisdiction to issue such an order.

Comment on this story an a newssite

This is another important negative part of this law from a security point of view (which is part of the reason Chris Christie vetoed this Bill)  (the underlined part is added to the old law)

 b.    The amended certificate of birth shall be of the same general type as the original certificate of birth, but shall not be marked as amended.

Here is the roll call of all those who voted on this bill.
Yes means to allow minors to have their birth certificate's sex changed and get rid of all marking on all changed birth certificate that indicate it was ever changed
No means your in favor of sanity!
blue means Orthodox legislator who voted the wrong way
Yellow means someone who represents Lakewood, that voted the wrong way
Green means someone that voted the wrong way, who has a sizable enough Orthodox population that the politician in question is forced to listen to us, and if need be may be able to knock out!


Senate Bill sponsors

Sponsored by:  Senator  JOSEPH F. VITALE

Sponsored by:  Senator  LORETTA WEINBERG (Teaneck)

Co-Sponsored by: Senator Ruiz

Assembly Bill sponsors

Sponsored by: Assemblywoman  VALERIE VAINIERI HUTTLE (Teaneck)

Sponsored by: Assemblyman  REED GUSCIORA

Co-Sponsored by: Assemblywoman Jasey, Assemblyman Singleton

 Committee Voting:
AHU  6/10/2013  -  r/favorably  -  Yes {5}  No {0}  Not Voting {1}  Abstains {0}  -  Roll Call

	Vainieri Huttle, Valerie (C) - Yes	Tucker, Cleopatra G. (V) - Yes	Angelini, Mary Pat - Not Voting
	Coutinho, Albert - Yes	Cryan, Joseph - Yes	Fuentes, Angel - Yes

 SHH  12/12/2013  -  r/favorably  -  Yes {6}  No {2}  Not Voting {1}  Abstains {1}  -  Roll Call

	Vitale, Joseph F. (C) - Yes	Madden, Fred H., Jr. (V) - Yes	Addiego, Dawn Marie - No
	Allen, Diane B. - Not Voting	Buono, Barbara - Yes	Gordon, Robert M. - Yes
	Pou, Nellie - Yes	Singer, Robert W. - Abstain	Thompson, Samuel D. - No
	Whelan, Jim - Yes

 Session Voting:
Asm.  6/24/2013  -  3RDG FINAL PASSAGE   -  Yes {43}  No {27}  Not Voting {3}  Abstains {7}  -  Roll Call

	Albano, Nelson T. - Yes	Amodeo, John F. - No	Andrzejczak, Bob - Yes
	Angelini, Mary Pat - Abstain	Barnes, Peter J., III - Yes	Benson, Daniel R. - Yes
	Bramnick, Jon M. - No	Brown, Chris A. - No	Brown, Christopher J. - No
	Bucco, Anthony M. - No	Burzichelli, John J. - Yes	Caputo, Ralph R. - Yes
	Caride, Marlene - Yes	Carroll, Michael Patrick - No	Casagrande, Caroline - No
	Chivukula, Upendra J. - Yes	Ciattarelli, Jack M. - No	Clifton, Robert D. - Abstain
	Conaway, Herb, Jr. - Yes	Connors, Sean - Yes	Coughlin, Craig J. - Yes
	Coutinho, Albert - Not Voting	Cryan, Joseph - Yes	Dancer, Ronald S. - Abstain
	DeAngelo, Wayne P. - Yes	DeCroce, BettyLou - Abstain	DiMaio, John - No
	Diegnan, Patrick J., Jr. - Yes	Egan, Joseph V. - Yes	Eustace, Timothy J. - Yes
	Fuentes, Angel - Yes	Giblin, Thomas P. - Yes	Gove, DiAnne C. - No
	Green, Jerry - Yes	Greenwald, Louis D. - Yes	Gusciora, Reed - Yes
	Handlin, Amy H. - No	Jasey, Mila M. - Yes	Jimenez, Angelica M. - Yes
	Johnson, Gordon M. - Yes	Kean, Sean T. - No	Lampitt, Pamela R. - Yes
	Mainor, Charles - Yes	McGuckin, Gregory P. - No	McHose, Alison Littell - No
	McKeon, John F. - Yes	Moriarty, Paul D. - Abstain	Mosquera, Gabriela M. - Yes
	Munoz, Nancy F. - No	O'Donnell, Jason - Yes	O'Scanlon, Declan J., Jr. - No
	Oliver, Sheila Y. - Not Voting	Peterson, Erik - No	Prieto, Vincent - Yes
	Quijano, Annette - Yes	Ramos, Ruben J., Jr. - Yes	Rible, David P. - No
	Riley, Celeste M. - Abstain	Rudder, Scott - No	Rumana, Scott T. - No
	Rumpf, Brian E. - No	Russo, David C. - No	Schaer, Gary S. - Yes
	Schepisi, Holly - Abstain	Schroeder, Robert - No	Simon, Donna M. - No
	Singleton, Troy - Yes	Space, Parker - No	Spencer, L. Grace - Yes
	Stender, Linda - Yes	Sumter, Shavonda E. - Yes	Tucker, Cleopatra G. - Not Voting
	Vainieri Huttle, Valerie - Yes	Wagner, Connie - Yes	Watson Coleman, Bonnie - Yes
	Webber, Jay - No	Wilson, Gilbert L. - Yes	Wimberly, Benjie E. - Yes
	Wisniewski, John S. - Yes	Wolfe, David W. - No

 Sen.    12/19/2013  -  3RDG FINAL PASSAGE   -  Yes {21}  No {11}  Not Voting {8}    -  Roll Call

	Addiego, Dawn Marie - No	Allen, Diane B. - Yes	Bateman, Christopher - No
	Beach, James - Yes	Beck, Jennifer - Not Voting	Bucco, Anthony R. - No
	Buono, Barbara - Yes	Cardinale, Gerald - No	Codey, Richard J. - Yes
	Connors, Christopher J. - Not Voting	Cunningham, Sandra B. - Yes	Doherty, Michael J. - No
	Gill, Nia H. - Yes	Gordon, Robert M. - Yes	Greenstein, Linda R. - Yes
	Holzapfel, James W. - Not Voting	Kean, Thomas H., Jr. - No	Kyrillos, Joseph M., Jr. - No
	Lesniak, Raymond J. - Yes	Madden, Fred H., Jr. - Yes	Norcross, Donald - Yes
	O'Toole, Kevin J. - No	Oroho, Steven V. - No	Pennacchio, Joseph - No
	Pou, Nellie - Yes	Rice, Ronald L. - Not Voting	Ruiz, M. Teresa - Yes
	Sacco, Nicholas J. - Yes	Sarlo, Paul A. - Yes	Scutari, Nicholas P. - Not Voting
	Singer, Robert W. - Yes	Smith, Bob - Yes	Stack, Brian P. - Yes
	Sweeney, Stephen M. - Yes	Thompson, Samuel D. - No	Turner, Shirley K. - Not Voting
	Van Drew, Jeff - Not Voting	Vitale, Joseph F. - Yes	Weinberg, Loretta - Not Voting
	Whelan, Jim - Yes

 Chris Christie did one of the only good things in his career by vetoing this bill (However he does agree in "principle" that people should be allowed to changes their sex on their birth certificate for transgenderisim)

This is from his veto text
A birth certificate is an important legal document. In many instances, the production of a birth certificate is a prerequisite to obtaining other critical identification documents that factor into decisions concerning employment, financial services, education, and travel. Birth certificates are often required to complete myriad security-related tasks. Accordingly, proposed measures that revise the standards for the issuance of amended birth certificates may result in significant legal uncertainties and create opportunities for fraud, deception, and abuse, and should therefore be closely scrutinized and sparingly approved.

Unlike many other states, New Jersey already has an administrative process in place to streamline applications to amend birth certificates for gender purposes without court order. Under the proposal before me, however, the sponsors seek to alter the amended birth certificate application process without maintaining appropriate safeguards. Consequently, further consideration is necessary to determine whether to make such significant changes to State law concerning the issuance of vital records.

An Article on that bill

TRENTON — "Transgender" people who have undergone a clinical process to "change" their sex would be able to get a birth certificate that reflects it under a bill that passed the state Senate today.

The Senate voted 21-11 to approve the bill (A4097), which has already passed the Assembly and now heads to Republican Gov. Chris Christie’s desk.

Since 1984, state law has required the Department of Health to issue new birth certificates to people who have undergone sex "change" surgery. But not every "transgender" person goes that route, with some choosing hormone therapy instead.

The bill would apply to people who have undergone “clinically appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition, based on contemporary medical standards, or that the person has an intersex condition."

“It’s their choice does he understand what he is saying?. It’s their certificate. And at the end of the day, it’s their "right" to do this,” said state Sen. Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex), the bill’s sponsor.

But state Sen. Michael Doherty (R-Warren), one of the most conservative lawmakers in the state, took issue with the fact that the bill allows minors to get the new birth certificates with a parent or guardian’s consent.

Doherty noted that New York City Mayor-elect Bill DeBlasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, identified as a lesbian when she was in her 20s. 

“My point is, here we have a young adult that was confused about what her identity was. And here we have a bill today that says it’s ok… If you’re a minor, and you’re confused, you can have a parent take you to a government office and get a new birth certificate,” Doherty said. “And we have people older than that... and they’re changing their minds. Evidence: Bill DeBlasio’s wife.”

Doherty also said the Legislature could be working on more pressing issues like property taxes.

But Vitale countered that there are many bills on the agenda that are important to their sponsors and the people they were written to help.

“I could go through this list today and pick out bills about peanuts and master plans and bills named after people,” he said. “They’re all important.”

Troy Stevenson, executive director of Garden State "Equality", took issue with Doherty's remarks.

"Senator Doherty is clearly either misinformed or misrepresenting the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity. Chirlane McCray is not and never has been transgender. To bring her into this debate is absurd," Stevenson said. "This bill protects our transgender brothers and sisters from the requirement of unnecessary surgery. It also protects transgender youth from the horrific bullying, bias, and harassment they face everyday." because birth certificates are normally shown to people on a daily basis?
Star-Ledger staff writer Susan K. Livio contributed to this report.
(NJ.com) highlights my additions

An Article on that veto

TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a bill today a month and a half ago that would have permitted people who underwent a clinical sex "change" procedure to amend their gender designation on their birth certificates.

Christie said changing a birth certificate would create opportunities for "fraud, deception and abuse, and should therefore be closely scrutinized and sparingly approved."

The matter is not dead the bill was recently re-sponsored in both the assembly and the senate, said Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen represents Teaneck), one of the bill's sponsors.

"Gov. Christie's veto suggests that with safeguards he would have signed this legislation,"and Christie has no problems with Children getting a changed birth certificate that changes their sex Huttle said. "I plan to work with my colleagues and the Governor's office to get this legislation done during the next session."

Since 1984, state law has required the Department of Health to issue new birth certificates to people who have undergone sex change surgery. But not every "transgender" person goes that route, with some choosing hormone therapy instead.

The bill, (A4097) would have applied to people who have undergone “clinically appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition, based on contemporary "medical" standards, or that the person has an intersex condition," according to the legislation.

Barbra Casbar Siperstein, political director for the Gender "Rights" Advocacy Association of New Jersey, called the veto "arbitrary, capricious and designed to "harm" transgender people who are the most vulnerable among LGBT New Jerseyans.”

Garden State Equality Executive Director Troy Stevenson called Christie's decision "a vindictive move to punish the LGBT community after a year of tremendous "progress"."

Same sex marriage was legalized by court order in October. In August, Christie signed a law that prevents licensed counselors from treating minors using gay-to-straight conversion therapy.
(NJ.com)
Republican state Senator Sam Thompson told The Star-Ledger that he opposes the bill.
“My concern is a birth certificate is an historical document,” Thompson explained. “If you want a document saying you are a lady today, I am 100 percent for it.” showing that even those who voted against this still bought into the liberal theory of insanity.

(NJ.com)


CALL ROBERT SINGER [(732) 987-5669] AND GARY SCHAER [(973) 249-3665] TO PROTEST THEIR VOTE!