Category Archives: Family Issues

Comments on Comments on Miley

August 28, 2013

Watch the video? Or not watch?

Based on all of the comments, I feel like I could pretty much choreograph Miley’s VMA dance…even not having seen the dance. Everybody seems to have something to say about Miley Cyrus. Lots of bad comments. Some good comments…or perhaps…comments only attempting to point to a redeeming good.

But, from this Monday morning quarterback, with all of our eyes glued to Miley, we are failing to see the bigger picture. Where are the more important comments directed to Miley’s audience?

I decided not to watch. Miley. Reading all of the comments on Miley “grabbing her crotch,” multiple times…this is visual enough for me.

I didn’t watch, even though I know that I am now committing a modern American sin. I am commenting on something I did not see firsthand.

In America, we have hundreds of reasons for watching anything and everything. We’re bored. Curious. We have to be able to talk with our coworkers about it tomorrow. And if none of that pulls us in, we must watch on YouTube, the day after, just to prove that we have the right to have an opinion about a 20-year-old’s lascivious tongue-wagging, crotch-grabbing on-stage embarrassment. The modern sin is not watching.

I have not watched many things that were much-watched in America. The first time I felt somewhat apologetic about not watching was a few months after May 25, 1977. Everyone was talking about Star Wars. My blank stare outed me every time. “You mean you haven’t seen Star Wars?”

At its release, I had been busy. Work, rehabbing a house, camping under the stars and road trips to Tennessee occupied all of my time. Doing seemed so much more fun than sitting…sitting and watching someone else do all the doing. Star Wars just didn’t make it to my radar. I was not making a political statement…a cultural statement…a statement of any kind. I just figured I would get around to watching it when I had time.

In 1977, movies came…and movies went. There was no VCR, DVD or Net Flix. Eventually, Star Wars left the scene…without me…and people stopped talking about it. At that point, it just didn’t seem worth thinking about Star Wars any longer. And I didn’t.

Things were fairly quiet on the movie front…for three years…until the 2000 release of…you guessed it…Son of Star Wars. Now, I ask you, if I had not seen the first Star Wars, how could I possibly see Son of Star Wars? That would be a sequential disaster, trying to understand the “son” without knowing his “father.”

I had survived my first period of Not Watching. So the stages of reaction to my Not Watching were familiar as they repeated:

You mean you haven’t seen Son of Star Wars?
You mean you have to wait for the first Star Wars to be re-released?
You’re kidding, aren’t you?
Head-scratching.
Eventually…next year…a movie is released that I do see, Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Nobody is talking about Son of Star Wars.
Nobody remembers that I did not see Son of Star Wars.
Nobody cares…if they ever did.

The greatest lesson about Miley at the VMA is not about Miley, or her choreographer, her dance partners, her parents, her agents, the VMA show producers…or anyone else having to do with Miley. The greatest lesson is about our own compulsion to watch.

We watch anything, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever. We carry our little portable phone watcher machines with us. And if we lose the signal in the subway, we watch multiple times at home on YouTube. Watching is a cultural disease.

Not Watching- that is an art. I didn’t see Miley because when I saw MTV for the first time…years ago…it had already degraded into a popular medium for teaching pre-teens how to lap dance. I take my Not Watching seriously enough that I cornered the gym manager to ask why children had to group-watch MTV in the lobby of the gym. We were there to create healthy bodies. What about healthy minds?

Not Watching – I no longer watch SuperBowl half-time shows. Janet Jackson convinced me that I don’t need half-time shows. Not just Janet…but the whole media complex that winks and profits from this type of cultural pollution. I don’t care who is on stage or how much money went into the production or how much hype is put into getting me to watch. There are better things to do.

This is the perfect age for Not Watchers. Cable TV offers 1000 channels. If only 20 are worth anything, that is five times more than the four channels I had as a teen…20 more than the zero channels my parents grew up with. Netflix is a virtual library of anything a watcher could watch. Even if you are picky, that is a lot of watching.

And what about the Doing? What are we missing about Doing in a culture addicted to Watching?

Janet Jackson, Lady Gaga, Miley…if I never watch any of them…I can have a wonderful, fulfilling life. It is one life…one chance on earth…one opportunity to feast my eyes on the beautiful, the creative, the brilliant, the honorable…the redemptive.

I can’t agree with many of the comments made by Justin Timberlake in defense of Miley. But when I agree with JT, it is a big high-five agreement. “It’s the VMAs, what did you guys expect?”

If Americans have anything to learn from this “shocking” performance of Miley’s, it is this…there is much to be gained by learning how to Not Watch.

Not Watching – You will survive. Next week, nobody will know if you watched…or not. The week after that…they won’t care. If it’s worth it, and if you have the time, five years from now you can download it.

Your eyes are the gateway to your soul. Healthy bodies, healthy minds. Try Not Watching.

You will survive!

Risking Death

April 22, 2013

Jane Jimenez

Summer is the time to celebrate health! We are heading into the season for flip flops, sun screen and watermelon. And with all of our attention on health and fun, what better time is there to consider the possibility of risking death?

In the summer of 1975, moviegoers huddled together in dark theaters, watching death unfold on Amity Island. The new Sheriff in this small beach community discovered the remains of a shark attack victim. And horror exploded on the screen, leading to three sequels of JAWS and a theme song that, forty years later, children can hum with glee.

Sharks…and death…what is your risk this year? According to OCEANA, only about a dozen of the approximately 500 shark species should be considered potentially dangerous to humans. White, tiger and bull sharks are responsible for more than half of all shark attacks. In five years (2006-2010), an average of 4.2 fatal shark attacks took place each year world-wide. Between 2006 and 2010, a total of 179 shark attacks occurred in the U.S., resulting in three fatalities.

Bathtubs…and death? You might want to take your baths in the ocean with the sharks. In 2003, 320 U.S. citizens died in the bathtub…no sharks involved.

How many ways are there to risk dying? LiveScience on the web has saved us much work, speculating on 10 Easy Paths to Destruction. Saying Amen to Rocker Tommy Lee who once said, “[W]’re not here for a long time, we’re here for a good time,” they warn us away from the ten “easiest catalysts to self-destruction.” Are you surprised when you learn you should not eat junk or smoke cigarettes?

Junk food…and death? Are you thinking candy bars and deep-fried Twinkies? Think again.

Researchers analyzed the diet, health and death data on 37,698 men and 83,644 women over two decades. Participants completed questionnaires about their diets every four years. During the study follow-up period of more than two decades, almost 24,000 of the participants died, including 5,910 from heart disease and 9,464 from cancer.

Death…by eating red meat? Here are the facts. Over 10 years, eating the equivalent of a quarter-pound hamburger daily gave men in the study a 22% higher risk of dying of cancer and a 27% higher risk of dying of heart disease. Overall, one serving per day of processed red meat increased risk of cancer by 16%.

Death…and eating chicken? Using a statistic model, the researchers estimated that replacing one serving a day of red meat with one serving of with poultry would decrease the risk by 14%; nuts, 19%; beans, 10%; low-fat dairy, 10%; whole grains, 14%, and fish, 7%.

Sharks…red meat…are vegetables starting to look better on the grill?

The largest study of its kind found vegetarians have healthier hearts than those who eat meat or fish. According to two large studies, vegetarians are a third less likely to need hospital treatment for heart disease or die from it, and the diet could mean living nine additional years than you might consuming meat based diets.

So…let’s get real. And let’s get serious.

Do you know someone who has breast cancer? While Americans are planning trips to the beach this summer, do you know someone who is undergoing chemo and meeting with the attorney to write out their end-of-life wishes?

What if you knew important information about risks that lead to breast cancer? And what if that information could make a difference for you, your wife and your daughters? Would that gain your attention just as much as the stats for death by shark attack, bathtubs and eating red meat?

As reported in the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute Newsletter, “This past February, the news media widely covered a study in JAMA which showed that the incidence in breast cancer had almost doubled over the past 34 years, 2% per year, compounded. This represents an over 90% increase in women between 20 and 39 years old. The cancers they were citing were invasive and had already spread outside of the breast which are life threatening. The Author, Rebecca Johnson, had been diagnosed herself at age 26 with breast cancer.”

So…let’s consider. What is contributing to this dramatic increase in the incidence of breast cancer? Swimming with sharks? Eating hot dogs and steak?

If swimming with sharks led to breast cancer, you can be sure we would be reading about it in The New York Times. They would lead with this story at least once a month, and NFL football players would have decals of Pink Sharks on their helmets this year.

Instead, this crisis of life is being ignored. We have all the pretty pink ribbons…and NONE of the facts.

If you want to know the facts, they are available. The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute has followed this issue for years. Thanks to the Internet, we no longer have to wait for the facts in The Times. Here they are:

Non-invasive breast cancer, in-situ cancers, has risen by 300% since 1975.
In-situ cancers, treated with mastectomy, radiation, and hormonal therapy, progress into invasive cancers if not treated.
Invasive cancers have risen about 40% over 35 years.

And if it is not sharks…and not red meat…what is leading to all of this cancer?

The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute provides a chart of 70 professional studies investigating elective abortion as it relates to breast cancer. Of these studies, 33 demonstrate a statistically significant correlation between induced abortion and breast cancer. In total, 55 of the 70 studies present a positive correlation between induced abortion and breast cancer.

Our mothers and daughters are being sold down the river…the shark-infested river.

Unwilling to speak truth, abortion proponents prefer to sell pink football gear to the players and to ask for your money at the grocery counter…”for breast cancer research.” Why?

We have research! We can educate women…and the men who REALLY care about women. Abortion is a real link to women and death by cancer.

Summer…fall, winter and spring…this matters! Check out the information. Share it with those you love. This is not political. It is personal. It is about saving the lives of people we love.

Sharks, red meat…and abortion…truth is truth, no matter what. If we are afraid of one shark eating our child this summer, we should fear for the lives of our wives, daughters and friends being sacrificed in silence to shield abortion from critical evaluation.

Summer is coming on. You have time to read. If you care about the women in your life, there is no better time than now to read and learn what we can do to save their lives.

Risking death? Not if we don’t have to. This is a summer for life. Take time to read and to enjoy time with the ones you love!

*****************************

BREAST CANCER RISKS

Want more information? Check out the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute publications that give a full picture of this link of breast cancer to induced abortion.

Illinois Teaches Teens How to Do Safe Sex?

April 15, 2013

Jane Jimenez

We can all agree on the problem with teens and sex. We have too much of it, along with the attendant problematic results: STDs, single parent homes, absent fathers, abortion, economic challenges, and more. Since the 1960s and the start of the sexual revolution, we have watched these problems escalate. We have wrung our hands. And we have sought solutions.

Illinois legislators think they have the solution. And in their eagerness to “solve the problem,” they are preparing to mandate the “solution” that many believe is one of the problems that got us into the fix we are in.

For half a century, we have explored ways to address the problems associated with teen sex. Sadly, the first problem is our inability to even agree on the problem at hand. Do we…

Suffer from Puritanical sexual standards, or
Believe that sex has no meaning other than the actual physical encounter…
Welcome babies as the blessing of our fertility, or
Dispose of babies as inconvenient byproducts of sexual pleasure…
Address the different sexual needs of men and women emotionally and physically, or
Maintain that gender has no significance based on our “sexual equality”…
Help parents in their roles as educators for their children on sexual values, or
Bypass parents as ignorant stewards of their child’s sexual health…?

This list of conflicting values and beliefs could fill up a spiral student college notebook. Not surprisingly, the supposed “solutions” to the problems of teen sex could fill up ten spiral student college notebooks.

In Illinois, legislators have put their collective finger on the solution. They have decided to bet on condoms and contraception. But they are not betting with their own lives.

Legislators are betting the lives of all Illinois school children on a pipe dream, betting these young lives on a “solution” that is actually a problem gift-wrapped in wishful thinking. They want all Illinois sex education programs to instruct students on how to use a condom and on how to take birth control.

They are not the first to throw condoms at kids, and they won’t be the last. But, after 50 years of condoms in baskets, free for the taking, we have not solved anything. Indeed, the very real possibility is that we have made the problem worse. It is a conundrum that perplexes many.

How could we possibly go wrong in teaching children the use of condoms and contraception? Let us count the ways:

The language of safe and protection is used to sell condoms. True safety is always safe – 100% of the time. Medically accurate information reveals that condoms and contraception fail…even with experienced users. [See testimony linked below for detailed information.]
The singular “problem” that concerns legislators is pregnancy. How do they prevent babies? Many young people do not see babies as a problem. In fact, for many young people, babies can be a solution for these teens to their own set of problems totally ignored by adults.
Condoms and contraception address one primary problem: pregnancy. They are not the solution to STDs and can even magnify exposure to STDs. STDs are not simply “cured” with a few antibiotics. They lead to sterility, serious lifelong health problems, cancer and death.
Classroom educators who promote condoms and contraception through their demonstrations are giving medical advice and instruction to minor children. These teachers are not subject to the professional medical standards that govern any other area of medicine: credentialing, supervision and medical liability.
Condom and contraception instruction lacks any serious follow up with minor children: testing for their understanding, their retention of information or the appropriateness of information for their individual situations.
Condom and contraception instruction is often conducted “in the shadows,” in such a way as to distance children from parents and important adults in their lives. In some cases, parents are characterized by instructors as ignorant, out of touch, and untrustworthy.
Condom and contraception instruction empowers people who prey on children, implying that teen sex is appropriate and isolating children from true protection in their families and from medical professionals.
Abortion is the unspoken fallback option promoted – and sold – for any failure of a condom or contraception. It is no surprise that many of the same businesses that sell abortion are lead advocates for and teachers of contraception.

These are serious drawbacks to the proposed mandate in Illinois. But the greatest problem with the solution is its failure to actually and directly teach students the healthiest choice of all.

The proposed legislation withholds truth from our children. The bill “makes changes to provide that all classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual intercourse in grades 6 through 12 shall emphasize that abstinence from sexual intercourse is a responsible and positive decision.” [underlining added]

This statement is worded to suggest that there is a long list of responsible and positive decisions about sex that students can use to choose the one they like best. It suggests that abstinence is just one of many decisions the student is free to choose from They can responsibly consider no sex…or they can responsibly consider sex with a condom. Either…or…both decisions are on the list of “responsible sex” given approval by the instructor.

Consider that a sixth grade student is 11 to 12 years old. Is that what you want a stranger to be teaching your child? Do you want the teacher to tell your 12-year-old daughter that she can have “safe” and “responsible” sex if she uses a condom and that abstinence from sex is just one option of many “good choices?”

Condoms and contraception are mechanical fixes used to address a condition of the heart and soul. Children want love. They want acceptance and affection. These are not sexual needs. They are heart needs.

We can teach children healthy approaches to life, and we can guide them in those choices. We do that in the areas of diet, smoking, driving and drugs. It is time to step up to the plate and truly safeguard the sexual health and future for our children.

Illinois…Illinois legislators…the children of your state deserve the best and truest options of all. If education is not directed to the highest and best goals for our children, then we will get the problems that we deserve. Unfortunately for our children, we are playing with their lives and with their futures. They deserve better.

**************************

NOTE: Detailed testimony presented by Scott Phelps to the Illinois State Legislator presents research and professional evidence, including CDC guidelines, supporting a commitment to abstinence until marriage education for students in grades 6 to 12.

*************************

ARCHIVES – RELATED COLUMNS

August 13, 2004: Only

April 16, 2004: One Stop Shopping

Marriage Redefined

April 8, 2013

Jane Jimenez

Poor Jeremy Irons. Poor, poor Jeremy.

He asked a basic question arising from the demands of same-sex couples to get the same tax breaks as married couples. He asked a tax question…if we’re going to change the law so that people don’t have to pay inheritance tax…how can I get myself in on the deal?

In an interview with the Huffington Post, the 64-year-old actor said he doesn’t have an opinion either way on gay marriage, but he then asked, “could a father not marry his son?” Later, after attacks by angry liberals, he tried to ameliorate the impact of his comment by claiming it was just a playful jest.

You can tell that Irons tapped into a very real and very raw nerve. Just look at the outrage and listen to the invectives spewed at him across the tabloids and on news shows.

Just when everyone was shouting “equality,” Jeremy pointed out that “equality” is being measured by the “dollars and cents of tax breaks.” If gay activists think that Jeremy is the only one working with the financial inquisitiveness of a CPA…they have another think coming.

When the Post interviewer objected on the grounds of incest, Irons argued by referring to the gender issues being ignore. “[I]ncest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don’t breed.” Coming back to the core issue at hand, Irons piqued the public by asking if he were to marry his son…would it allow him to pass on his estate to his son without being taxed?

The gays have been “outed” in the truest sense. For, most of the “debate” about gay marriage has been a diversionary tactic to redirect our sympathies to the emotional pain of gay people. In truth, the underlying drive for same-sex equity is driven by money. If there were no financial gains to be had, the crowds at the Supreme Court would dwindle to a trickle.

In a key case at the Supreme Court, 83-year-old Manhattan resident Edith Windsor sued Uncle Sam because she was made to pay estate taxes after the death of her wife, Thea Spyer, that heterosexual widows would not have had to pay. This case represents the core financial element of claiming marriage for same-sex relationships.

So why the tax breaks? The government is never shy about collecting taxes. Tax breaks and marriage certificates mattered from the day they were created because legislators recognized the social benefit of stabilizing the lives of families for the sake of their children…all accruing to the benefit of our civilization. Tax breaks mattered because children mattered.

If we continue to deconstruct the institution of traditional marriage between men and women, then we have trouble identifying where to offer our social support for the benefit of children. We have spent the past fifty years questioning the value of men and women, married with families, and toying with the idea that this isn’t important to us. Same-sex marriage is just grabbing at the coattails of the cultural revolution.

Jeremy is asking the obvious question. If marriage is not limited to one man and one woman, then what are the limits? And if taxes are at stake…why stop with a marriage of two people? If we are in charge of defining marriage to “anything we want it to be,” then all options should be on the table.

Tax experts are expert at maximizing tax breaks. That is why Nevada and Delaware do a booming business as the states of preference for incorporating businesses in all fifty states. That is why off-shore accounts are favored for large sums of cash. And that is why out-sourcing your corporate call center to India or Ireland makes financial sense.

Supposedly, equality means my marriage is equal to yours, even if I am not married to one person of the opposite sex. So…can we extend “equality” even further? Is there any justification for limiting the definition of marriage to two people?

Why not group marriage? This is customary in some Muslim countries…one man with multiple wives. Why not?

Why not the “other kind” of group marriage? Why not permit one woman to be married to multiple men? We already approve of multiple sexual partners for women. Why not marry all of them?

Why not inter-family marriages? Could a brother marry a sister? We have ruled out the need to plan for children inside of a marriage. We have multiple methods of avoiding and getting rid of children. So genetic issues do not have to be an issue here. A brother and sister? Why not?

Jeremy’s off-the-cuff question is just one more in the list? Why not a parent and child in marriage?

Why not two friends? We don’t have to prove our bedroom habits in court; we don’t have to be gay lovers. We can just be two friends with wonderful retirement plans. Voila. Married, we do not pay inheritance taxes. We receive our spouse’s retirement in total, every single penny of it. Even if we are not gay. We can still get married. Why not?

What about a marriage club? If someone has an inheritance exceeding one million dollars, they can join our “group marriage club.” We will all inherit from everyone.

Don’t think these questions can predict reality? Think again. Fifty years ago, who would have thought that men could marry men? Social changers have learned to bypass public wisdom and to press their claims in court…and if we entertain the redefinition of marriage, these questions will all wind their way into our social fabric, one legal challenge at a time.

If we are going to change the definition of marriage, what are the outside boundaries? What makes two gay women or men more privileged than any other combination of human beings who claim their “right” to be married?

If we are talking about marriage equality…we already have that. Any man can marry any woman, one at a time. Society allows the privilege of spousal inheritance as a benefit to those who are open to the possibility of children as the natural consequence of married love between a man and a woman. It is as simple as that.

****************

April 1, 2013: Marriage Defined

March 15, 2013: All Things Being Equal

Marriage Defined

April 1, 2013

The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding. ~~Albert Camus

Jane Jimenez

From the beginning of time, there has been a special relationship between men and women. From the beginning of time, this special relationship has produced children and families. And from the beginning of time, culture has acknowledged the special value that this relationship between men and women has for creating healthy families and building civilization.

Obvious? Of course. Without any need for explanation, the average person recognizes that we are speaking of marriage. Thus has been the definition of marriage since the beginning of time… the special union of a man and woman through which we create and nurture children for the survival of our civilization.

This being true, it is surprising…and unfortunate…that the discussion of the issue of same-sex marriage has been characterized as a debate between those who have compassion and those who hate decent gay people and want to deny them their rights.

Researching the issue of marriage on the Internet, most headlines use the word Equality to frame the debate. It is rare to find a writer that discusses marriage as a matter of Definition. And by ignoring the definition, we ignore the very heart of the matter.

The definition of marriage is not arbitrary. Biology does matter. Marriage is based on the created distinctions of man and woman. It is based on the importance of fathers and mothers for the children who come into their lives. The marital institution has provided for fathers and mothers, helping them in the roles of protecting, teaching and guiding children into adulthood.

On websites and in papers, discussion of same-sex marriage gives a brief nod to children and families. But, when stripped to essentials, the key focus in the bid for redefining marriage is money. How do gay people in relationships maximize their financial benefits of two incomes, two retirement plans and two inheritances?

Same-sex marriage proponents may be well-intentioned. But they will find that their generosity in redefining marriage as a mere business construction will have long-lasting results for our children. “Equality” as applied to marriage in the current debate is simply a strategic tool, useful for winning by infusing the debate with an emotional accusation. If someone opposes same-sex marriage, they will be accused of being mean and hateful and bigoted.

If same-sex marriage is legally accepted, the term “equality” will ultimately be redirected from financial equality to gender equality. Gender is barely acknowledged at this point in the battle for same-sex marriage. But the ultimate goal of the most strident same-sex proponents is to declare an equality that does not exist. When the last chips fall, these same-sex advocates will insist that every person in the culture must agree that men and women are “the same.”

Men and women, mothers and fathers, no longer will be celebrated for their separate and unique qualities. They will be considered interchangeable units in the family. At the very moment that we are now coming to acknowledge the negative results of absent fathers in families, we will lose our ability to address this as a valid social concern. Our culture will no longer have any ability to deal with the biological differences that are significant in raising children.

Mothers and fathers have unique and distinctive gender qualities that help their children develop healthy self-images. But it won’t matter. And the courts will once again be the venue for this battle.

Already, those in education have seen the fall-out of a culture that no longer values families built through the bonds of men and women who commit to each other in marriage.

Sex educators bristle at the notion that boys and girls look at the sexual act through a different lens.
For these educators, it is “offensive” to suggest that male and females have different biological and emotional needs related to sex and relationships.
The suggestion that fathers – men – are an essential ingredient in the recipe for families is decried as sexist.
Terminology in schools has been scrubbed of references to sexual differences. Men and women are “people.” Husbands and wives are “partners.”
Children in elementary schools are being encouraged to “try out” gender to see whether they prefer being a boy or a girl.

These attitudes are being used to push social agendas that negate the regular natural desires of boys and girls to be just that…boy and girls. Consider just one case. Last year a Rhode Island school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. In the future, only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.

Dennis Prager in his column, Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage, points to the shallow nature of our discussions about the potential redefinition of marriage.

The history of left-wing policies has largely consisted of doing what feels good and compassionate without asking what the long-term consequences will be; what Professor Thomas Sowell calls “Stage One Thinking.” That explains, for example, the entitlement state. It sounds noble and seems noble. But the long-term consequences are terrible: economic ruin, a demoralized population, increasing selfishness as people look to the state to take care of their fellow citizens, and more.

From the beginning of time, culture has acknowledged the special value of the unique relationship between men and women in creating healthy families and building civilization. There are long-term consequences for our children and grand-children in creating a society that no longer wants to acknowledge the significance of our biology.

Marriage between a man and woman is a definition that has meaning…and significance. It is most certainly worth defending.

**********

March 15, 2013: All Things Being Equal

May 14, 2004: Order in the Courtroom!

From the Home Front

DEFENDING THE FAMILY WITH ETERNAL TRUTH

Category Archives: Family Issues

Comments on Comments on Miley

Risking Death

Illinois Teaches Teens How to Do Safe Sex?

NOTE: Detailed testimony presented by Scott Phelps to the Illinois State Legislator presents research and professional evidence, including CDC guidelines, supporting a commitment to abstinence until marriage education for students in grades 6 to 12.

Marriage Redefined

Marriage Defined