Let me ask you a question: Do you believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman? If your answer is “yes,” then you, dear reader, are a hate-mongering bigot — at least that is what the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a self-described “civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry,” would call you. The scary thing is, a chilling new FBI video begs the question: Who’s spewing hate?

Remember the Family Research Council (FRC) shooting last year? Floyd Lee Corkins, a disturbed 28-year-old man dressed as an intern walked into the FRC headquarters and shot FRC security guard Leo Johnson. Corkins has stated, “I wanted to kill the people in the building and then smear a Chick-Fil-A sandwich in their face … to kill as many people as I could.” Thanks to the heroic efforts of Johnson, Corkin’s deadly plot failed.

In the FBI video, an investigator asks, “How did you [come to] this building, this organization. Did you, how did you find it earlier?  Did you like look it up online?”  Corkins then admits, “It was a uh, Southern Poverty Law, lists, uh anti-gay groups.  I found them online.”

The FRC atrocity hits close to home for those of us at Concerned Women for America (CWA). FRC staff members are not only our allies in the pro-family battle, they are our close friends. These men and women are honest citizens with compassionate hearts and a career calling to uphold Christian values in public policy.  But these admirable qualities were conveniently overlooked by the SPLC when it deemed FRC a “hate group” on the basis that the organization respects the institution of marriage.

If any non-profit, business, or individual stands for the purity of marriage, the sanctity of unborn life, or the constitutional protection of religious freedom, then they are counted among SPLC’s “hate groups.”  In fact, the SPLC has named CWA as one of “a dozen major groups [that] help drive the Religious Right’s anti-gay crusade.”  Skeptical?  Then go to SPLC’s website and click on their “hate map.”

Even Bill Maher, the liberal HBO host known for his anti-conservative rants, doesn’t buy the notion that Christians are as “dangerous” as liberal society is attempting to paint us.  Maher invited Brian Levin, the director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, on his show to discuss hate and violence as a result of religious institutions.  When Levin tried to argue that Jews and Christians commit terrorist acts, Maher retorted:

“Um that’s liberal bull****. … Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam. … So, you know, I’m just saying, let’s keep it real.”

One can only hope that those who profit from this type of misinformation would “keep it real.”  But they are not interested in truth.  The SPLC knows Christians are not “hateful,” but they know they can exploit the sentiments of a significant part of the population for their obscene profit with minimal work.  By simply labeling them “hateful,” they hope to intimidate Christians into silence, whatever the unintended consequences.  The FRC incident actually helps the SPLC’s cause.

But Christians, including those of us at CWA, will not be intimidated.  And we will never tiptoe around certain Biblical principles or cherry-pick our moral values.  No amount of harassment, demeaning messages, or preposterous labeling will ever cause us to renounce our faith and forgo the Christian principles that laid the foundation for our nation and its success. Ever.  

According to the Seattle PI, State Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit against Arlene’s Flowers & Gifts after owner Barronelle Stutzman declined to supply flowers to a homosexual couple’s wedding. Now, while the radical Left is screaming “discrimination,” “bigotry,” and “hatred,” it is important to note that Stutzman never denied service due to discrimination based on Richard Ingersoll and Curt Freed’s “sexual orientation.” In fact, the two men were pleased with Stutzman’s services, as they were repeat customers for nearly ten years.

No screaming matches or harassing phone calls or e-mails transpired when Stutzman declined to service Ingersoll and Freed’s event. Reportedly, Stutzman recalled, “He (Ingersoll) said he decided to get married, and before he got through, I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.’ We hugged each other and he left, and I assumed it was the end of the story.”

Peace, love, and civility, as it should be. Live and let live, as it should be. In the example of Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz, “It’s a free country.” What’s the problem? You can buy flowers somewhere else, right? But the options — or opinions — of the Looney Left aren’t available to conservatives, apparently.

Ironically, the same liberal thinkers who infused my college experience with the important lesson of small business owners unquestionably rallied behind Starbucks, a multi-billion dollar “greedy” corporation, when its CEO implemented a company policy based on his ultraliberal worldview. But I guarantee they will not support this small business woman for simply choosing to respect the sanctity of marriage. Nor have they supported Oregon’s Sweet Cakes owners, a young couple with three small children who declined to fill a wedding cake order for a homosexual wedding. In retaliation, these “progressives” marched with hostile picket signs in front of this bakery every Saturday to picket and harass the owners, their customers, and their partnering businesses.

And it is not just small businesses. Remember when Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy merely mentioned his personal — not corporate — policy on same-sex “marriage?” Goodness knows we had city mayors threatening to ban Chick-fil-A stores from Chicago and Boston. (And we all know how successful that plan was.)

So, once again, let us all put our money where our mouths are. Buy your values. This time for the sake and sustainability of small business owners.

Feminists are, predictably, having what we in the deep South used to call a “hissy fit.”  They are reacting with rage and bombast to a letter published in The Daily Princetonian that advised coeds not to waste their college years where they are surrounded by a high “concentration of men who are worthy of you.”  Susan Patton, a graduate of the Princeton class of 1977, reminded the students that “the man you marry” will be “inextricably linked” to their future happiness. No. Really?

As a 20-year-veteran of the political arena in Washington, D.C., I have seen several generations of college graduates come to the nation’s capital, where bright and intelligent men and women are overworked and underpaid to pursue their dream of making a mark on the world.  Invariably, they are steeped in the current myths about “establishing their careers” and “becoming financially stable” before even thinking about marriage. When they finally — and belatedly — get around to pursuing a life-time partner, many find, however, a dearth of desirable potential husbands or wives (i.e., eligible in terms of equal/superior intelligence and education with compatible values and good prospects as a friend, mate, and parent). As each year passes, chasing professional advancement, the odds worsen for women of finding Mr. Right, even in this era of supposed gender equity.  The cold hard facts are that men who’ve become established in their professions can usually much more easily than women find a pool of potential mates (usually younger) from which to choose.

Mark Regnerus pointed out in, Premarital Sex in America, there is a two-fold problem for women: First, the young men who chose not to sleep around tend to find a mate early; those who are left carry a lot of baggage from years of promiscuous sex with numerous other girls. Second, it is mainly the guys pushing “casual” sex, but it is the women who pay the larger price in terms of emotional costs, STDs, and the results of increased numbers of partners.

Successful marriages are based on mutual respect and common interests and values. Being “unequally yoked” (whether in intellect, education, faith, status, potential, or prospects) often makes for shaky, dysfunctional, and/or doomed relationships. Nobody wants to go back to the days where women went to college solely for the “Mrs.” degree, but it is foolish for women to ignore the fact that after college they likely will never again be surrounded by as many guys who meet their criteria for marriage.  Nor is it wise for young men to ignore the fact that they will never again have the opportunity to evaluate the characteristics of so many young women and choose one to cherish and grant the privilege of carrying their name, bearing their children, and sharing the ups and downs of life together.

In today’s “hook-up” culture, young men and women have to buck not only the anti-marriage biases of their generation, they also have to buck the “sex without consequences” myths that short-circuits their ability to bond and creates emotional (and often physical) “baggage” that hurts their chances for the happy, fulfilling, life-time marriage that the majority ultimately want.

Here is a personal assessment by my husband of 50-plus years: “I don’t get the controversy today.  In college, I pursued — with great persistence — the girl I wanted to be my wife.  Smartest thing I ever did.  We were both 22-year-old virgins and flat broke when we married fresh out of college; all we had was the $100 my dad gave me as a wedding gift plus $300 my older brother loaned me.  Persevering through the ups and downs, we built a wonderful and meaningful life that has been full of challenges and equally full of passion, joy, and the satisfaction of walking side-by-side, pursuing our career ambitions together, raising two great kids, and now enjoying our seven terrific grandchildren.”

A new survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, in partnership with Religion News Service, and reviewed in the Washington Post, shows that Valentine’s Day is still a big deal among Americans, whether young or old, married or not.  Nearly two-thirds (63%) of Americans will celebrate Valentine’s Day this year.  Many men say they will likely spend at least $100; men (60%) more than women (47%) plan to go out to dinner for their Valentine’s celebration.  Traditionally, a Valentine’s Day celebration does involve the couple going out to dinner or watching a romantic movie.

Surprisingly, the survey shows profound differences have developed between men and women regarding the ways that they view Valentine’s Day — specifically, the links between romance, sex, and money. Overall, those who spend more money on Valentine’s celebrations are more likely to say they will probably have sex.

Not surprisingly, men are more likely to link their Valentine’s celebration to sex (57% say they’ll have sex, compared to only 37% of women).

In an interesting — and very revealing — twist, far more couples say that an unsatisfactory sex life is an obstacle to a successful marriage or romantic relationship (54%) than say that different religious beliefs are an obstacle (3 in 10, or 29%) or that political differences cause problems (1 in 5, or 17%).  Even so, a majority of those who are religiously unaffiliated (57%) say they’ll likely have sex on Valentine’s Day, compared to 51% of Catholics, 48% white evangelicals, and 40% mainline Protestants.  Republicans (38%) are more likely than Democrats (22%) or Independents (29%) to say that having different religious beliefs pose a problem in their relationships.  Likewise, Republicans (25%) are more likely to say political differences cause problems than are Democrats (13%) or Independents (15%).

For religious groups, an unsatisfactory sex life is the biggest potential problem for couples.  The major exception to that finding is with white evangelical Protestants, who report that different religious beliefs pose as big an obstacle to happiness as an unsatisfying sex life.  Interestingly, men (61%) are more likely than women (48%) to identify unsatisfying sex as a major problem in their lives.

Couples are far more likely to celebrate Valentine’s Day in a new relationship (60%) compared to those in longer-term relationships (45% for those in 20-plus year relationships).

To paraphrase Ogden Nash, Valentine’s Day seems to be a matter of compatibility — with the ideal being a man who has income and a woman who is “patable.”

How many times have we heard about our tax dollars paying for government workers who spend their days watching porn at work?

Which city in the United States is home to the most pornography viewers? The answer is Washington, D.C., the seat of the nation’s power players. Do you ever wonder why the Department of Justice does not enforce obscenity laws? Could the viewing habits of D.C.’s denizens influence the lack of enforcement?

The source of this information is PornHub, a XXX website. The New York Daily News carried the story about the study and noted that the rate of online pornography watched in D.C. is 14.18 videos per person in a year. While that may not sound like a lot to some, consider that the D.C. rate is nearly twice the rate of the second highest porn viewing state, Hawaii, where it is 7.57 per person.

We know that not everyone watches pornography, so that means the people actually watching online pornography in Washington are watching a lot more videos than 14.18 each. Who is watching them, and are they doing so at work? Does it influence their work?

How many times have we heard about our tax dollars paying for government workers who spend their days watching porn at work? One Washington Times article lists these agencies that have employees with porn problems: Pentagon, Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Missile Defense Agency. The article quotes a cyber-security expert who warns, “Many pornographic websites are infected and criminals and foreign intelligence services such as Russia’s use them to gain access and harvest data.”

You would think that national security nugget would be a good enough reason for prosecuting obscenity producers and purveyors, but evidently it is not.

In 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder shut down the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, which was established under Pres. George W. Bush’s Administration. A Politico article quoted Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in reaction to this move:

“Attorney General Holder told the Judiciary Committee last year that this task force was the centerpiece of the strategy to combat adult obscenity,” Sen. Hatch told POLITICO in a statement Friday. “Rather than initiate a single new case since President Obama took office, however, the only development in this area has been the dismantling of the task force. As the toxic waste of obscenity continues to spread and harm everyone it touches, it appears the Obama Administration is giving up without a fight.”

According to the PornHub statistics, obscenity blankets Washington. The lack of adult obscenity prosecutions is harming everyone. While the Department of Justice focuses on prosecuting cases of child pornography, those who are watching adult pornography may turn to child pornography when the adult material no longer excites them. If adult pornography prosecutions are non-existent, a gateway to child pornography is left in place to ensnare new viewers.

So, while some of D.C.’s denizens turn a blind eye to punishing the producers and distributors of obscenity, others are glued to their porn-filled computer screens. The key to why obscenity, while illegal, thrives in D.C., and beyond may be one mouse click away on screens hidden behind closed doors and cubicle walls in offices throughout Washington.

Let’s face it; everyone has something they wish they could say to a younger version of themself.  As a 20-something, I already have an extensive list.  For instance, when you are eight years old, don’t cut your hair up to your chin.  With your curls, it will look awful!  Also, don’t wear that hideous outfit for your sixth grade class picture, and don’t go see that scary movie just because that boy is cute; you won’t be able to sleep for a month!

Then there are the more specific events, the ones where you wish you could just jump into a time machine and change or, at the very least, be able to impart bits of wisdom to your younger, more foolish self.  Those are, more likely than not, moments when you were “following the crowd.” Little did you know that by sitting with your friends while they read a Cosmopolitan (Cosmo) magazine out loud, regardless of the Disney star on the cover, you were really stripping away your innocence, a precious piece of yourself that you could never get back.

Teens are curious.  Most teenage regrets stem from a lethal combination of curiosity and a desire not to seem naïve.  It happened to me when I was younger, and it happens today.  I’m older, wiser, and I hope to help the younger generation avoid the same trap that got me.  Girls gather around to read the latest edition of Cosmo, a magazine that peddles sex tips to minors, who quickly get caught up in explicit descriptions of what can only be categorized as porn.  This magazine places teen pop culture stars like Dakota Fanning, Selena Gomez, and Demi Lavato on the cover of its pages.  Cosmo uses these stars to entice 8-14 year-olds, who are just beginning to blossom into womanhood, to open the lust-filled pages of this magazine.  If I could go back in time and tell my younger self to get up out of that group and walk away, I would.  But, alas, they’ve still not built a time machine.  Disappointing, I know.  So, instead, I’ll do the next best thing; I’ll tell others what I wish someone had told me.

Ready?  Here we go: Ladies, whether you’re my age, older, or younger, stop reading that filth! Don’t fill your heads and thought lives with the pages of Cosmopolitan magazine.  The hyped-up “articles” amount to little more than cheap marketing — shock value, nothing more.  So take your hard-earned money — and what’s left of your innocence — and walk away.  In the long run, you’ll be happy you didn’t trash your mind with explicit porn tips from a magazine who promotes the empowerment of women through “one-night stands.”

What Cosmo doesn’t tell you is that if you follow the advice they give, you’ll end up with the results of some questionable life decisions and more baggage than Louis Vuitton.  Cosmo pushes the whole “FWB” (friends with benefits) angle, where a guy and girl get together without being in a relationship and use one another for sexual “favors,” and it promotes fooling around with guys to gain confidence and experience.  The Bible, a book I trust a ton more than Cosmo, says “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” (Proverbs 4:23).  Don’t be the girl that fools around with fornication.  In other words, don’t do what married people do until you’re married.  Preserve yourself.  Do not waste your money and time — and don’t throw away your innocence.  Trust me, I’ve heard stories of women who have learned the hard way — horror stories from people who call Cosmo their “Bible” — and it’s not as glamorous as they make it out to be.  As you’re following the “tips” Cosmo gives, you’re playing into a lifestyle that encourages guys to use and abuse you.  The only results this type of lifestyle will yield is men leaving you once they find a “good girl” they want to settle down with.  Yep, I said it.  Act like a Cosmo girl, and they’ll take you to their beds, but they’ll never take you home to their mothers.

Cosmo needs to clean up its act.  Until Cosmo gets cleaned up, we should demand that they give it the Playboy treatment, bagged and placed on the top shelf for an older audience.  Frankly, Cosmo’s content is even more pernicious than Playboy’s.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to tell you that teens, who buy Cosmopolitan magazine, can easily access the little “sealed section” in the back filled with erotic material.  A so-called “warning label” is not sufficient to keep minors from reading the section that is “off limits.”  All adults know that if you tell a child not to do something it makes it that much more appealing.  So control yourselves, ladies.  Next time you are in the hair salon, tanning salon, or waiting in line at the register, remember that it was your brain that helped you make that money, got you that job, and helped you nail the interview.  It wasn’t your sex appeal.  It is God’s great blessing of femininity that enables you to take on the world and grants you worth, not the cheap, smutty facsimile of it that Cosmo peddles.

Thankfully, we’re not a lone voice.  Others have already spearheaded the initiative to bag Cosmo.  Victoria Hearst, a member of the famous Hearst family, who owns the publishing company that distributes Cosmo, met with Concerned Women for America staff to alert us to the need to rally young women to stop supporting this filth.  Former model Nicole Weider has a petition and campaign to spread the word.  Click here to sign the petition, and watch her videos on why Cosmo needs to be bagged.

Together, maybe we can make the need for time machines a thing of the past.

UPDATE: Helen Gurley Brown, the editor of Cosmo — and the woman credited with dragging an originally wholesome magazine into the era of “sexual freedom” — passed away at age 90.  One of the original 60s feminist power brokers, she authored, “Sex and the Single Girl.”  Her contributions to the modern feminist movement cannot be understated.

So here’s a little story about the time I blushed, well, fifty shades of red.  You can’t miss the smash hit, Fifty Shades of Grey.  You see women reading it on every bus, subway, and in every hair salon.  So what’s a girl to do?  Read the book to see what all the hype is about, right?  Sure, I thought.  So I flipped through a couple of pages to check it out.

Yeah.  Instant regret.

Two pages in, I had to put the book down and ask God for forgiveness!  Talk about “mommy porn.”  I thought books like this were only found in some women’s homes on a hidden book shelf next to covers of Fabio, a horse, and some buxom beauty. Put a glossy new cover on it, and it’s a best seller?

American women are in dire straits. Our country’s national debt is sky rocketing; women account for 92% of the jobs lost under this administration, and our children’s and parents’ health care is in dire jeopardy of being run by Washington bureaucrats obsessed with taking away our right to “shop” for this commodity.  It’s no wonder women need an escape, but while Fifty Shades of Grey may seem like a simple “escape” from the real world, it’s more like jumping from the frying pan into a nuclear reactor.

And what’s it going to get us?  Nothing.  It’s erotica, sexually themed fantasy, quasi-intellectual word candy that’ll rot our brains … and maybe our souls.

Christian women, we need to wake up!  This country needs us. It needs our passion, our intensity, our desire to defend ourselves and our families.  It needs the $22.50 we spent on “Fifty Shades of Grey” to be invested in a cause or campaign in which we believe (click here for a good place to start).

But women everywhere are politically and spiritually asleep, lulled into a cultural obsession with Christian Grey, an abusive therapist who seduces a college senior.  And some men are even buying it on the advice of women as a lesson book for what women like.  I recently heard a male bus driver say he wants to get this book on audio!  (I’ll bet you do, ya perv!)

Is this what we’ve come to: Women — Christian women — flocking to bookstores in droves to buy morally reprehensible tripe?

Why are we falling headlong into this grey area, where Hollywood tells us that all we should care about is stepping outside of reality and filling our heads with hormone-driven daydreams of men to whom we are not married?

Do you remember being afraid of the dark as a child?  (Ninety degree turn, I know.  But stay with me.)  Do you remember the day you stopped being afraid?  It was probably when you learned that darkness is simply the absence of light.  Have you thought about that?  While we can study light, we can’t study darkness.  Why not?  Well, how do you measure how dark a room is?  You measure the amount of light present.

Now let that sink in for a moment. What in your life is dark? What is light? We can only measure darkness in our lives by looking at how much light is in it.

And somewhere, in this struggle between light and dark, we have the annoying issue of “grey,” that fuzzy middle ground in which we find such a false refuge from condemnation, but which in reality God hates so very much.  And we need to ask ourselves, “What is grey for me? Facebook? The music I listen to? The movies? What about the books I read? What about Christian Grey?”

Sisters and fellow Christians, if we’re honest with ourselves, we have to admit that Fifty Shades of Grey is merely a pornographic pleasure for our minds, and, as we know, the Bible commands us to guard our hearts, for everything we do will flow from it (Proverbs 4:23).  By investing our energy in smut, we are tearing down these walls of protection around our hearts.

The Lord has given us a clear, black-and-white example of true love.  The images that are depicted in Fifty Shades of Grey are full of lust and give a false perspective on how men and women should present themselves.

While Christians are still to be a part of the world, we must not conform to its patterns. Anne Frank once said, “Look at how a single candle can both defy and define the darkness.” Ironically, sometimes we have to be that candle. Let us choose to defy and define darkness in our lives. It just may shine light on a grey area in your life and maybe in the life of another.

Let us resolve to keep our eyes, our money, and our time away from morally questionable pursuits, and, instead, let us focus on the God of true love, who is fifty shades of great.  Let those of us who are single resolve to wait for a man who knows our value is not in how much you can service him, but how much we can serve the Lord.  Let us wait for a man who knows that true love is black and white, not shades of grey.

Today’s guest blogger is actually two women. This piece was authored by Alison Howard, Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) Executive Assistant to the CEO, and Amy Clemenson, an intern with CWA’s Ronald Reagan Memorial Internship Program.

Few people have had such a profound influence on American culture, yet Judith Wallerstein was not a household name.  When her book, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (2000), was published, it prompted a national debate over the effect on children when their parents divorced.  Beginning in 1971, Mrs. Wallerstein interviewed 131 children from 60 divorced families every 5 years for 25 years.  She found, not surprisingly, that the children were “extremely distressed” after their parents’ divorce; she also found that the children’s problems continued for 10 to 15 years with half of them suffering permanent damage.  She found that the grown children of divorced parents often become “worried, underachieving, self-deprecating, and sometimes angry young men and women.”

More recent research by Elizabeth Marquette and others has corroborated Wallerstein’s analyses. In addition, Wallerstein continued to write about the affect of divorce on children, publishing 70 articles in professional journals and five books. In a PBS interview in 2000, she said, “It’s hard for me to believe that 45 percent of marriages are so bad that they really need to divorce, and that’s what’s happening in this country.” Among her findings: children of divorce have a harder time forming intimate relationships (half the rate of those in the general population) and were more likely to divorce than are children from intact families.  In her second book about divorce, Second Chances: Men, Women and Children a Decade After Divorce (1989),  Wallerstein offered advice to couples who divorced, including ensuring that custody arrangements were beneficial to the children rather than convenient for the parents.

With divorce rates relatively stable, but still too high and no-fault divorce still an option in many states, Wallerstein’s research (and that of numerous others corroborating her findings) needs to be introduced to a new generation who have grown up hearing that divorce is better than living in an unhappy family.  Wallerstein showed, through her careful longitudinal research, that casual divorce is not always the best solution for children.

The National Encyclopedia building at Ångbåtsbron in Malmö (Sweden).

Right after International Women’s Day, a new pronoun, “hen,” was added to the online version of Sweden’s National Encyclopedia.  The entry defines hen as a “proposed gender-neutral personal pronoun instead of he [han in Swedish] and she [hon].”  A heated debate was sparked by the publication of Sweden’s first ever gender-neutral children’s book, Kivi och Monsterhund (Kivi and Monsterdog). It tells the story of Kivi, who wants a dog for “hen’s” birthday.

Sweden takes pride in being “the best country to deal with gender equality.”  What they are doing, however, is more than creating gender equality or gender neutrality; the measures they are instituting completely eliminate gender distinction.

Social Democrat politicians have proposed installing gender-neutral restrooms, so that members of the public will not be compelled to categorize themselves as either ladies or gents.  Several preschools have banished references to pupils’ genders, instead referring to children by their first names or as “buddies.”  So, a teacher would say “good morning, buddies” or “good morning, Lisa, Tom, and Jack” rather than, “good morning, boys and girls.”  They believe this fulfills the national curriculum’s guideline that preschools should “counteract traditional gender patterns and gender roles” and give girls and boys “the same opportunities to test and develop abilities and interests without being limited by stereotypical gender roles.”

According to Slate, one clothing store in Sweden got rid of its “boys” and “girls” sections, and a Swedish toy company, Leklust, has received attention for reversing the typical gender roles in its latest catalog — a boy in a Spiderman costume is pictured pushing a pink baby carriage, and a girl outfitted in denim is riding a tractor.  Boys will be allowed to have names like “Lisa,” and girls will have names like “Nick.”  The Swedish Bowling Association has announced plans to merge male and female bowling tournaments in order to make the sport gender-neutral — all will be unisex.

Jan Guillou, one of the country’s well-known authors, declared that the pronoun “hen” is “silly, because it doesn’t change anything. … And I don’t think that my gender has anything to do with my equality because that is a political matter,” she said in an interview.  She referred to gender-neutral lobbyists as “feminist activists who want to destroy our language.”  Others have suggested this new initiative could be both psychologically and socially damaging for Sweden’s children.

Elise Claeson, a columnist and a former equality expert at the Swedish Confederation of Professions, worried that school-aged children would become confused by talks of a third gender, the one referred to as “hen,” at a time when they are developing both physically and mentally.  “Adults should not interrupt children’s discovery of their gender and sexuality,” Claeson insists.

In the kindergartens in Sweden, when pupils play house, they are encouraged to include “mommy, daddy, child” in their imaginary families, as well as “daddy, daddy, child”; “mommy, mommy, child”; “daddy, daddy, sister, aunty, child”; or any other modern combination.  This indicates that the Swedish social engineers not only want to educate children about gender neutrality, but they also want to teach children that homosexual families are acceptable, with a goal of eventually being an approved part of mainstream culture.

While the goal of teaching children to treat people equally is laudable (and Biblical), it is just as important to teach them that gender differences are natural, God-given traits that people are meant to celebrate, not repress.  

Editor’s Note: This article was first printed on The Baltimore Sun, August 06, 2009.  It’s underlining message is as appropriate today as it was then.  Today, marking the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade desicion and as we prepare for the upcoming elction, we thought it important for you to read throught Penny’s pice once again.

The battles on Capitol Hill over Sonia Sotomayor and health care have convinced me that pro-life Americans should take a cue from a popular chick flick. A hit movie newly out on DVD recently proclaims a shocking truth to women who make excuses for the bad behavior of men they date. That fact is: If he lies, cheats and treats you disrespectfully, “he’s just not that into you.”

The movie evokes cringes as one recognizes realistic scenes of bright women and men making humiliating mistakes and errors in judgment. In 2008, many pro-life Americans made a horrific error in judgment. Exit polling from the presidential election sponsored by Beliefnet.com showed that 20 percent of those voting for Barack Obama defined themselves as “pro-life.” According to Christianity Today, 25 percent of self-identified evangelical or born-again Christians voted for President Obama.

Why? Most of these same folks turned out in both 2000 and 2004 for George W. Bush. The reasons for this change of heart are complicated, as in any breakup. They may have been reacting to the war or overspending by Republicans or any number of scandals. Maybe the spark was gone. Or maybe they were seduced!

It’s OK, admit it. He’s cute, he’s smart, he’s likable and he’s charismatic. He promised change and attention to issues men and women of faith care about, such as poverty. One Christian conservative professor even wrote a book proclaiming that truly living like Jesus includes a vote for Mr. Obama. (Good to know.)

However, pro-lifers have been wronged. This lover who showed so much original ardor lied to you – and it started on the honeymoon. On the president’s third day in office – one day after the 36th March for Life – he issued an executive order reversing U.S. policy that prohibited the use of U.S. funds to promote or pay for abortions abroad.

In March, he restored funding to the United Nations Population Fund that had been frozen due to its support of organizations that promote and even coerce poor women in other countries to have abortions. He opened the door for the federal funding of research that requires the destruction of human embryos and canceled the Bush “conscience clause” regulation that protected health care workers from being penalized for refusing to participate in providing abortions.

The president has meticulously chosen advisers and top administration officials who have outstanding pro-choice credentials, including Kathleen Sebelius, who is in charge of the nation’s health care system as secretary of Health and Human Services. Make no mistake; in Washington, people are policy.

Then, of course, there is his appointee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, who said in her Senate confirmation hearing that Roe v. Wade is settled law and that there is a constitutional right to privacy. Americans United for Life’s research of her record warns that she is far more radical then even former Justice David Souter.

There are many other “indiscretions,” but let’s cut to the Mac daddy of all slights: heath care reform.

The Obama administration is pushing relentlessly and recklessly for government-run health care that would force almost all health care plans to include unlimited numbers of abortions for any reason and would make Americans complicit in these abortions due to the pooling of premiums. The legislation on the table amounts to the largest expansion of abortion in U.S. history.

How could he, you say? My fellow pro-lifers, grab a tissue and listen up. The truth is, he’s not scared to get into a relationship, he hasn’t lost your number, and he is not simply busy. Noooo. He is in bed with someone else. That’s right! President Obama loves the abortion lobby. He takes their money and their calls, but more importantly, he does their bidding.