Gender and sexual orientation issues are at the heart of many current public policy battles affecting the family in the United States and throughout the world. Sexual orientation is the current term used to refer to homosexual, bisexual, and transgender activities and their advocacy. Liberal orthodoxy requires an acknowledgement, acceptance, and embrace of all forms of sexual orientation. This embrace is referred to as tolerance. Tolerance toward sexual orientation requires the elevation of dangerous sexual practices to a place equal to traditional monogamous heterosexual norms.
United Families International believes that gender confusion has a devastating effect on individuals and their ability to lead healthy, productive lives and to form stable nuclear families. In order to stem the tide of homosexual activism, to thwart the attempts to redefine marriage in an effort to reestablish society based on alternative family forms, and to preserve and protect marriage and the family, United Families International presents a
Guide to Family Issues: Sexual Orientation.
This document continues through 42 pages to describe gays and lesbians as inferior, degenerate, unstable pedophiles. This isn’t just about marriage, this is bigotry. It is impossible to replace this minority group with any other, (Jew, Black, Hispanic, Brazilian, women) in this document and not find these statements to be terribly offensive.
If it can be determined that Ms Busse is indeed the same Ms Busse who was involved in distributing this document, should we separate a candidates views from their ability to serve in a capacity that is not affected? Does it affect their ability to perform on the Planning Board or any other Board if they are predjudiced against a segment of our town? Is the town sanctioning or elevating these prejudices through a political appointment? Or is as was originally stated, is it wrong to judge a candidate by the views they hold.
Below is a quote from Ms Busse’s blog:
Yes, it’s always, “let’s get back to the real issues”-like healthcare, the economy, the war in Iraq, and so on. While I do not quarrel with the gravity of these issues, I cannot understand why personal issues are not relevant, why in fact these are not the relevant points of information, particularly in the prolonged Democratic campaign where the two candidates have remarkably similar positions on many of the major issues.
And then as a way to make certain individuals acceptable as political candidates, we are told that a candidate’s personal life should have nothing to do with his/her ability to govern. But the way a person has behaved in his/her family, business affairs, and community is exactly what has built their character. Examining a candidate’s political as well as personal behavior should be fair game, not for entertainment value, but for serious consideration as we look to the future….
Thus although candidates may urge us to simply “focus on the issues,” we also must discern which of the latest-revealed details of a candidates’ life merit serious consideration and which simply reflect harmless personal foibles, accidental missteps or past misdeeds for which apologies have been issued and from which characters have changed for the better. A daunting task, to be sure, but important nonetheless, to our being effective participants in a democracy.