Forgive the vulgarity. But this is what Montana is proposing to teach ten-year-olds in public schools, so we guess we have to be willing to post about it. More evidence of the new regime's intentions. Parents in Montana are protesting what CNN describes as "gay-friendly progressive health-education." What does that mean? Read and weep:

Hundreds Debate Gay-Friendly, Progressive Health-Education Plan
Hundreds of parents turned up at a recent school board meeting to debate a proposed comprehensive health curriculum in Helena, Mont. At the heart of the debate surrounding the curriculum, which includes plans for teaching disease prevention, anatomy, nutrition, and more, is an extensive chart that details what elements of human sexuality will be taught to which students. If implemented, students in kindergarten would learn to properly identify and name body parts. The next year, in first grade, they would be introduced to the concept "that people 'can love people of the same gender and people of another gender.'" By second grade, the students would learn that using anti-gay slurs is hurtful. In fifth grade, students would discuss homosexual relationships and learn that sex "includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration." In middle school, students would cover sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, leaving sexual orientation for high school. Some parents, who argue that the new plan starts teaching students about sex when they're too young to learn about it, want to know "where that age-appropriateness comes from." Brian Ackerman, a parent with three daughters in the Helena school system, told HLN's Prime News that "parents should be told 'who decided this, when did they decide it and how did they decide it?'" CNN reported. But the plan also has its supporters. "It sounds like they are teaching body parts and things that are facts of life," said Cathy Areu, publisher of a women's magazine and former high-school teacher. "I feel more comfortable with my daughter learning about this in a classroom than from a boy in the hallway."

Read more.

Read the original story at CNN.com.

Official response (in Spanish) from Argentines for the Children on next steps:

Lo que pasó:

Lamentamos profundamente la aprobación de esta ley, porque estamos convencidos de que no es buena para la sociedad y de que daña a la familia y al interés superior del niño. Los argumentos ya los expusimos y los debatimos.

Lamentamos, quizás todavía más, la forma en que esta ley se ha sancionado.

Read more.

After a massive outpouring of public opposition, the government fought back by pressuring, bribing or simply getting out of the country, senators. What was allegedly a free vote became in effect a party loyalty vote. The Senate voted 33 to 27 to pass gay marriage. Our correspondent in Argentina writes:

"We had a sad night, although we are convinced that this is the beginning of something bigger and we are ready to fight. The best of us will show during the following years."

CBS News caught up with Princeton Professor and NOM Founding Chairman Robert George to discuss the recent DOMA ruling from Boston federal judge Joseph Tauro.

The Gay Marriage Ruling: What Now?
CBS News

Yesterday, a federal district judge in Boston declared that the federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriage - as articulated in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA - is unconstitutional.

The judge, Joseph Tauro, based his decision on the notion that states, not the federal government, have jurisdiction over the definition of marriage. If his decision holds up through appeals - and that's a big if - it would mean that the federal government would likely have to recognize those same-sex marriages already recognized by states, and thus provide benefits like Medicaid to same-sex partners. . . .

Robert George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University as well as the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, which works against same-sex marriage efforts, said in an interview with Hotsheet that he believes the Massachusetts decision was wrong. He cites examples in which the federal government recognizes marriage for various purposes, such as the filing of tax returns.

"I believe that the federal government does have the power to define marriage for purposes of federal law," he said - even if it doesn't have the power to define it for the purposes of state law.

Read more.

More coverage of the Argentina marriage rally, including video footage, from the Clarin newspaper (Spanish language):

http://www.clarin.com/sociedad/matrimonio_homosexual_0_297570462.html

This went up on one of the demonstration organizer's facebook page:

1. Declaración de la Presidente de la Organización Nacional en favor del Matrimonio, Maggie Gallagher (Estados Unidos):
“Lo que están haciendo este día es un servicio extraordinario, no solo para su país, sino para otros países de Sudamérica y del mundo. Aplaudimos su coraje para defender la verdad sobre el matrimonio. El matrimonio es la unión de hombre y mujer, porque esa es la única unión que puede dar vida y crear un vínculo de amor de esos chicos con su madre y su padre. Esto no es intolerancia. Esto no es odio. Esto es sentido común, y preocupación por el bien común. Felicitaciones por negarse a ser indiferentes y por no permitir que una pequeña elite sin representación transforme el matrimonio en la Argentina. Los ojos del mundo están puestos sobre ustedes. Son inspiración para muchos.”