 |
          
  |
|
|
|
Janice
Shaw Crouse reports on the diminishing numbers of African American males
who graduate high school and connects the dots to the absence of fathers. This directly contradicts what Jude Walker
wrote in his opinion overturning California’s democratically approved constitutional
amendment protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Excerpt:
A new report from the Schott Foundation
reveals that only 47 percent of black male students earn a high school diploma
on time. Ironically, this report came out shortly after Judge Vaughn Walker
ruled regarding Proposition 8 in California. If the statements on which Judge
Walker based his ruling are “facts,” how do we explain what is happening
educationally to boys in the black community where a large majority are growing
up without fathers?
Nancy Pearcey, in an article on American
Thinker, identified certain “facts that Judge Walker claims are now established
by the ‘evidence’ presented in his courtroom.” Those “facts” presumably will be
deemed as “truth” far beyond the courtroom. Among those “facts,” the following
three are especially relevant for young black boys’ futures:
• “Gender no longer forms an essential part
of marriage.”
• “The gender of a child’s parent is not a
factor in a child’s adjustment.”
• “Having both a male and a female parent
does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.”
Those three general false principles that
Judge Walker supposedly established in his arguments in favor of so-called
“same-sex marriage” are equally faulty when applied to the more than 40 percent
of today’s children who are born to single mothers. They are doubly relevant
when the majority of those children are black.
Former
Attorney General Ed Meese explains.
Excerpt:
Even some who support same-sex marriage
worry that, in striking down California's voter-approved proposition defining
marriage as between one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker
went too far. They are right -- and not the only ones who should be concerned.
Walker's ruling is indefensible as a matter of law wholly apart from its
result.
By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme
Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to
the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the
requirements of a traditional decision. This opinion is arbitrary and
capricious, and its alarming legal methodology and overtly policy-driven tenor
are too extreme to stand.
The
editors at National Review find rare
praise for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for suspending same-sex
marriages in California until the case is settled.
A
Federal Judge in California, after a lengthy show-trial, has ruled that the
Constitution guarantees a right
to same-sex marriage and that the democratically approved California
Marriage Amendment is
unconstitutional. The worldview
expressed by Judge Walker evinces a clear disregard
for the facts.
Liberal
activists are already cheering the decision as step toward nationally
imposed same-sex marriage. They
shouldn’t count their chickens before they are hatched. This ruling will be appealed to the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals and could ultimately go to the United States Supreme
Court. Also, liberals should remember
that state constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage have ultimately
been passed democratically every time they’ve been on the ballot. Allowing activist judges to do their dirty
work will only illustrate the need for an amendment to the federal constitution
to protect and define the traditional definition or marriage.
The
Washington Examiner reports. The
people of the District of Columbia have been repeatedly denied the right to
express their views on the issue of same-sex marriage by unelected judges. Now their only hope is an appeal to the
Supreme Court. Fortunately, groups like
the Alliance Defense Fund are preparing to charge “once more into the breach.”
Ed
Whelan explains why the federal judge who conducted a recent show trial on
California’s democratically-approved Marriage Protection Amendment was biased
toward same-sex marriage and should have recused himself from even hearing the
case. Instead, the judge held a high
profile trial designed to promote same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.
In
an act of judicial activism, a federal judge has struck
down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
This ruling shows why constitutional amendments (at the state and
national level) are necessary to prevent unelected judges from institution
same-sex marriage by judicial fiat, and it demonstrates the dangers of judicial
activism.
Hadley
Arkes comments
at NRO. Excerpt:
Judge Joseph Tauro, in the federal district
court in Boston, took it upon himself to strike down the 1996 Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA). With that stroke he would remove one of the key barriers
standing in the way of imposing same-sex marriage on the nation as a whole. And
it would be done through the power of judges alone, without the need to agitate
the community in any political controversy, and without citizens or legislators
needing to do such unseemly things as voting.
If ever there was a shining example of the
need for greater school choice for parents, this article is it.
Last
Wednesday a federal court in California heard closing
arguments in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state's recent voter-enacted
constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. This is an attempt by radical liberal
activists to subvert the democratic process and force their radical
anti-marriage agenda on the citizens of California.
Maggie
Gallagher comments. Excerpt:
This is the trial that never should have
been, by a judge who has systematically telegraphed his sympathy for one side.
The lawyer for the plaintiffs is Ted Olson,
once a GOP advocate for judicial restraint. Yet this week, he will be pleading
with the judge to nullify the votes of 7 million Californians -- and, by
extension, the votes of millions of Americans in other states who have
exercised their right to vote for marriage as the union of husband and wife.
Rich
Lowry explains how one 45 year old report remains relevant for today’s
breakdown of the family, particularly in African American families. Excerpt:
“There is one unmistakable lesson in
American history,” Moynihan wrote, “a community that allows a large number of
men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any
stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring rational expectations
about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos.” It’s a statement
just as true and nearly as unwelcome as it was four decades ago.
An anonymous writer at NRO explains the social science on the dangers of pornography and gives a heartbreaking account of how pornography ripped apart her marriage and family.
Star
Parker examines the Obama administration’s education policy and suggests that greater
school choice is what kids and parents need. Excerpts:
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said
recently, "Our K-12 agenda can be summed up in one word: reform."
If only it were true. But what Duncan calls
reform is indeed putting lipstick on a pig. In this case, the pig is
Washington's never changing formula for solving everything: spending
ever-increasing sums of taxpayer's money.
"Reform" means generating new
ideas about how to spend and coming up with clever new titles for programs.
…
In normal markets, customers drive the
quality of the product. In the case of the public education monopoly, the
customers -- kids and their parents -- are pawns in the game. Anything that
would give the customers power -- such as school choice -- government and union
bureaucrats fight.
The Obama administration, with all its
lofty rhetoric about reform, quietly has allowed congressional Democrats to
kill the successful Washington D.C. voucher program. The program has
demonstrably given 1,300 inner-city kids a better education in private schools
at a third of the cost their counterparts are getting in D.C. public schools.
Even the liberal Washington Post has
editorialized to save the program, as President Obama and Secretary Duncan turn
deaf ears.
Duncan was chastised for recently saying
the "best thing" to happen to education in New Orleans was Katrina.
But education has markedly improved there as parents were given school choice
in the wake of the disaster.
The best thing that could happen to
inner-city education nationwide would be a political Katrina that would give
birth to parental empowerment and school choice.
Michael
Medved explains. Excerpt:
A nasty custody case in Virginia highlights
the way that the relentless push for same sex marriage threatens our core
understanding of the nature of family. The desperate determination to honor gay
rights undermines such fundamental values as the importance of motherhood, and
the states obligation to consider the welfare of the child.
Visit
StopJennings.com to find out what President
Obama’s Safe School Czar wants to teach your children.
Dr.
Miriam Grossman exposes the problems with Planned Parenthood’s sex
education programs. Excerpt:
As a physician who has spent hundreds of
hours with young people with sexually transmitted infections, I’m on a
one-woman mission to expose the falsehood of those claims. Planned Parenthood’s
sexual health education is not comprehensive or medically accurate; to the
contrary, this eminent, federally funded organization endangers lives by
withholding critical biological truths.
While
families are struggling to “make ends meet” in this difficult economy, one
Senate committee thinks American families can afford huge
increases in energy prices.
Veritas
Rex explains how same-sex divorce is a backdoor strategy to institute
same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.
The
AP reports how one Texas judge is trying to push “gay marriage” by
mandating “Gay Divorce” by judicial fiat.
The
Politico reports. The
AP also reports on mounting opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
which prevents activist judges from exporting “gay marriage” from states that
recognize it to states that don’t.
CBN
reports. Excerpt:
While President Obama was just outside
Washington, D.C., Tuesday, telling kids to stay in school, inside the city
protestors were accusing him of hypocrisy.
They are upset over Obama's decision to end
D.C.'s school voucher program-- a decision opponents claim has endangered the
education of hundreds of students.
CNBC also reports.
HT:
AACS
The
Politico reports on the effort of liberal members of Congress to repeal the
Defense of Marriage Act. With the recent
indications that the Obama administration would like to see the law overturned,
this development represents a serious threat to traditional marriage in
America.
The
AP reports. And as our friends at FRC explain, very
few homosexual couples are actually taking advantage of the new policy showing
that the goal is not “gay marriage” but forcing the state to legitimize
homosexuality.
If
DOMA is repealed, expect Vermont’s same-sex marriages to be forced on your
state.
Chuck
Norris explains why parental rights could be threatened by the
Congressional health care “reform” bill.
Excerpt:
…I decided to research the reasons so many
are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I
discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the
1,000-plus page health care bill.
Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about
the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care
and development.
It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of
the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for
families with young children and families expecting children." The
programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child
behavior and parenting skills.
The
Boston Globe reports. Repealing the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would allow judges to easily impose same-sex
marriage on states that do not recognize it.
By pushing to repeal DOMA, Massachusetts is forcing its “values” on the
rest of the nation.
CitizenLink reports. Politicians looking to please radical
homosexual activist groups should consider the political price New Hampshire’s
Governor is paying for opposing traditional marriage.
Dan
Lips reports. Excerpt:
Yesterday, state lawmakers in Indiana
passed a scholarship tax credit program—making the Hoosier state the latest to
offer private school choice. Under the plan, people or corporations who make
donations to non-profits that award tuition scholarships will be eligible for a
50-percent tax credit off their state bill.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
President Barack Obama opened the White
House to hundreds of gay activists Monday, promising them that by the time he
leaves office they would "have pretty good feelings" about his
administration.
During an event to celebrate the 40th
anniversary of what gay activists consider the launch of their political
movement – several nights of violent riots in and around a New York gay bar –
Obama rattled off several policies he plans to implement to please his
homosexual constituency.
"I want you to know that I expect and
hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises
my administration keeps," he said. "We've been in office six months
now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over … you guys will
have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."
Among those promises the president is
pursuing, he said: Overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passing a
law to mandate health-care and other benefits to homosexual domestic partners,
repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and even "rescinding the
discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status."
OneNewsNow also
reports.
The
Wichita Liberty explains how more school choice could help Kansas. Given the early successes seen from school
choice elsewhere, especially the charter schools mentioned in this piece, we
need more school choice across this nation.
The
Washington Post reports. As
does Fox News. Excerpt:
The extended benefits include an option for
employees' domestic partners to be added to a government insurance program that
pays for long-term conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease. They also would be
allowed to take sick leave to care for a sick partner or non-biological child.
CtizenLink
explains how the action threatens traditional
marriage and the rule of law.
Excerpt:
Family advocates say Obama’s action is a
direct violation of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and a big step toward
redefining marriage.
“The president thumbed his nose at the rule
of law and continues to undermine marriage as society’s most pro-child
institution,” said Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public
policy for Focus on the Family Action.
CitizenLink reports
some good news from the front in the battle for traditional marriage. Excerpt:
The number of Americans who support same-sex
marriage has plunged over the last few months, according to a new poll.
The CBS News/New York Times study found
that 33 percent of respondents favor same-sex marriage. That represents a 9
percent drop since April.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
Washington, D.C., elections officials have
blocked a proposal that would let voters decide on whether the nation's capital
will recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the District. The Board of Elections and Ethics has
suggested only Congress and the courts should have input on the issue.
The two-member board said that allowing a
referendum that lets the people decide is akin to authorizing
"discrimination."
CitizenLink
also reports that pro-marriage leaders (led by the African American Pastor
Harry Jackson, Jr.) intend to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Rep.
Howard “Buck” McKeon, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Education and
Labor, recently applauded
the great work being done by charter schools. Excerpt:
“Charter schools are essential to turning
around our nation’s ailing public schools system. They offer choices to parents
and children, many of whom would otherwise be trapped in chronically
underperforming public schools. And they have made great strides in raising
achievement and tackling unique educational challenges from urban centers to
rural areas,” said McKeon. “But despite their many successes, charter schools
are not growing as they should. They face overwhelming barriers to expansion,
from arbitrary state caps to hostile state legislatures.”
CitizenLink reports. Despite a supposed “religious exemption” in
the newly passed “gay marriage” law in New Hampshire, religious liberties are
still gravely threatened. The truth is, state
sanctioned same-sex marriage is inherently dangerous to religious liberties. There is no “religious exemption” that could
change that fact.
And
as OneNewsNow
reports, NH legislators who voted for the same-sex marriage law could face
serious political repercussions in future elections.
The
Heartland Instituted reports.
Excerpt:
South Carolina could become the latest
state to implement a tax credit scholarship program allowing low-income
children to attend the private school of their parents’ choice, if a bill
introduced during the spring session becomes law.
Harry
R. Jackson, Jr. explains the background story behind the need for
Congressional action to protect the traditional definition of marriage in the
District of Columbia and praises the “courageous” Congressmen who proposed the
DC Defense of Marriage Act.
Kathryn
Jean Lopez explains another reason to support the DC Opportunity
Scholarship school voucher program which Congress and President Obama are
trying to kill.
Congressman
Mike Pence (R-IN) proposed an amendment to the Foreign Service reauthorization
bill which would have eliminated mandates that require the State Department to
promote the radical homosexual agenda overseas.
Unfortunately the amendment was defeated. Congressional
Quarterly reports (article for subscribers only). Excerpt:
Mike Pence, R-Ind., who said that the
language would prioritize gay rights over other issues, offered an amendment to
strike the language and replace it with a broad statement of support for
universal human rights that did not mention sexual orientation.
“I oppose mandating that our secretary of
State, diplomatic and consular staff promote a gay-rights agenda around the
globe, over and above other issues,” Pence said.
The amendment fell on a voice vote.
Congressman
Chris Smith (R-NJ) also proposed a pro-life amendment which would have ensured
that the innocuous-sounding
“Office for Global Women’s Issues” contained in the bill would not have
promoted abortion. His amendment
was also defeated.
New Hampshire
In
a surprising but welcome twist, it appears the New Hampshire same-sex marriage
bill might be stopped
in its tracks, at least for now.
Governor Lynch had promised to veto the original same-sex marriage bill
if some protections were not inserted for religious freedom. The NH Senate quickly adopted the changes,
but the NH House rejected the bill by a vote of 188-186. Maggie
Gallagher explains today’s events at NRO as does CitizenLink.
California
The
Supreme Court of California is expected
to soon announce its ruling on whether the recently passed ballot
initiative to ban same-sex marriage will be upheld. Not only is traditional marriage at stake,
but whether judges will be allowed to usurp their Constitutional power and
overrule the clear will of the people regarding the definition of marriage.
Washington, DC
Though
it is not a state (although some would like to treat it like one through
unconstitutional means), the District of Columbia has become an epicenter of
the growing rift over the definition of marriage. The DC City Council recently voted to
institute same-sex marriage in the District and its resolution will become law
if Congress fails to act. While many African
Americans in the District are outraged over the prospect of “gay marriage,”
a bi-partisan group of Congressmen proposed legislation to preserve the
traditional definition of marriage in the District at a press conference
today.
Maine
Voters
in Maine might get the chance
to vote on the traditional definition of marriage if enough signatures can
be gathered. The Maine Marriage Alliance
and others are hoping to collect 70,000 signatures or more so the recent law
enacting same-sex marriage in Maine can be overturned. Click
here for more information on the signature campaign.
The
Boston Herald reports on the grassroots effort to overturn the recently
passed same-sex marriage law by the Maine legislature.
There
is grave concern over how proposed legislation designed to reauthorize funding
for the State Department would promote the homosexual agenda on marriage and hate
crimes and could lead to promoting abortion world-wide. The bill would mandate special benefits for
homosexual members of the Foreign Service and Peace Corps and for their “domestic
partners.” It would also establish other
pro-homosexual policies, and could even lead to the promotion of abortion as a “woman’s
right” as part of American foreign policy.
CitizenLink also
reports.
Congressman
Broun (R-GA) defends his introduction
of the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment in the U.S. House. Considering the all-out assault on marriage
going on in the states and the District of Columbia, a Constitutional amendment
protecting the traditional definition of marriage from unelected judges is
needed now more than ever.
The
Washington Post reports that President Obama is promising a so-called
compromise on the DC school voucher program.
Congress and Obama approved a budget which destroyed the popular and
successful DC Opportunity Scholarship which allowed low-income children in our
nation’s capital to attend the school of their choice. Obama is now saying he will allow the program
to continue for the currently enrolled students but will not allow new students
to apply for or enter the program.
The
president’s hypocrisy on this issue is galling.
If the voucher program is good for the current students, why does the
president not want more underprivileged DC residents to benefit from the school
choice program? Perhaps he just wants to
silence opposition.
The
AP reports. But, as The
Bulletin reports, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is pressing Congress to
leave the decision of the council alone, thus instituting same-sex marriage in
DC by default.
Our
friends at FRC have released
a video grading President Obama on his first one hundred days in
office. The president doesn’t make high
grades on pro-life and family issues. LifeNews also reviews Obama’s
100 days on pro-life issues.
Neal
McCluskey grades the president on education reform. Excerpt:
If you look just at dollar signs or
rhetoric to measure the education success of Barack Obama’s first one-hundred
days, then the President should get an A. Base it on meaningful reform,
however, and he’d be lucky to get a passing grade.
In
a post on his blog entitled “Obama’s
Outrageous Sin Against Our Kids,” black journalist Juan Williams criticizes
President Obama for allowing the successful school voucher program in
Washington, DC to be killed. Excerpt:
This reckless dismantling of the D.C.
voucher program does not bode well for arguments to come about standards in the
effort to reauthorize No Child Left Behind. It does not speak well of the
promise of President Obama to be the “Education President,’ who once seemed
primed to stand up for all children who want to learn and especially minority
children.
And its time for all of us to get outraged
about this sin against our children.
George
Will also comments on this and other misguided
budgetary priorities here.
By Daniel Herbster
 I had the privilege to speak to demonstrators at the St. Joseph County T.E.A. (Tax Enough Already) Party in downtown South Bend, Indiana today. Citing the eminent conservative Edmund Burke, I told the crowd that one of the main reasons we were protesting is to stand up for generations “yet unborn.” We have a responsibility to future generations to be good stewards of our finances, tax policy, and free enterprise system, and must not mortgage our children’s futures so we can have irresponsible spending and policies today. This is a pro-family issue because if we make foolish decisions today it will be difficult, if not impossible, to provide tax relief for families in the future.
It was great to see other dedicated pro-lifers and pro-family activists in the crowd exercising their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and engage in free political speech.
Cal Thomas explains the importance of the TEA Party events in his column, while the Business & Media Institute quotes CNBC’s Rick Santelli (one of the inspirations for TEA Parties) as saying the events are “about as American as it gets.”
Daniel
Herbster reporting
As
AdvanceUSA
blog reported, the Arizona Supreme Court recently overturned that state’s school
voucher program, ruling the program, which had benefited low-income and
disabled children, unconstitutional. The
Institute for Justice is a libertarian legal
organization which defended the Arizona voucher program in court. Tim Keller, the executive director of the
Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter, has been kind enough to share with us
about the Arizona case and his work for IJ.
DH: Tim, how was the Arizona school voucher
program set up, and what kinds of results was it achieving before the court
made its ruling?
TK: Enacted and implemented in 2006, Arizona’s two
innovative voucher programs, for children with disabilities and children in
foster care, offered a genuine lifeline to many families trapped in schools
that failed to meet their children’s unique educational needs. Teachers’
unions immediately challenged both programs in court. The Institute for
Justice filed intervention papers on behalf of parents and children relying on
the programs to defend against the lawsuits. During the more than two
years of litigation, the programs grew numerically and the children receiving
the vouchers grew both socially and academically. To say that parental
satisfaction soared is an understatement. During the litigation, we
actually filed a number of testimonials
with the Arizona Supreme Court typical of the truly life-changing impact the
programs have had on families.
DH: On what grounds did the Arizona Supreme Court
overturn the voucher program? Why do you
feel they wrongly decided this case?
TK: The Arizona Supreme Court declared that the
voucher programs violate a provision of the Arizona Constitution that prohibits
state funds being appropriated “in aid of” private and religious schools. The Court wrongly decided the case because
the programs were not passed “in aid of” schools. The programs were passed “in aid of”
individuals. Just like food stamps do
not aid grocery stores, school vouchers do not aid schools. For decades, the legal test applied by the
Arizona Supreme Court to similar programs challenged under the so-called “aid
clause” has been the “true beneficiary” test.
In this case, as in prior Arizona school choice cases, parents and
children are the true beneficiaries, not private schools.
Moreover, the decision threatens numerous other educational
aid programs that allow students to use public funds to attend private
schools. For example, at the
post-secondary level, Arizona has no less than three separate programs that
award state-funded vouchers or scholarships to students who can choose to use
those public funds at private, even religious, colleges and universities. The decision also jeopardizes a program that
allows public school districts to place children with disabilities in private
schools and use state funds to pay the tuition to those schools.
DH: Your
press release mentioned a young girl named Lexie. How had she benefited from the voucher
program and what will she have to do once it is discontinued?
The
Department of Education has released a report
showing the successes of the Washington, DC school voucher program which was recently
eliminated by Congress and President Obama.
The Senior Republican Member of the House Education and Labor Committee issued a
statement in support of the voucher program, indicating our nation needs
more school choice, not less.
CitizenLink also
reports. Suzanne Fields also mentions
the report in
her column today.
The
Washington Times reports. Excerpt:
Democrats in the Iowa legislature killed
efforts Thursday to bring the gay marriage issue to the ballot, rejecting the
pleas of hundreds of demonstrators who flooded the state Capitol in a bid to
get legislators on the record for one battle in a same-sex marriage war brewing
for the 2010 elections.
 After overriding the veto of the
governor, the
Vermont legislature has successfully instituted same-sex marriage. Vermont now joins states like Connecticut, Massachusetts,
and Iowa which recognize “gay marriages,” but unlike these states, Vermont is
the first state to institute same-sex marriage through legislation.
These
irresponsible actions by courts and legislatures (and the coming action in the
District of Columbia) illustrate the need for a Federal Marriage Protection
Amendment to the US Constitution which would, once and for all, settle the
question of what constitutes marriage in America.
Marriage
is the most fundamental building block of civilization, and must be protected
from redefinition. Furthermore, other
nations which have instituted same-sex marriage are testimony to the decline in
traditional marriage and increase in out-of-wedlock births which are
detrimental to society as a whole. And,
despite what gay marriage advocates might claim, no one’s inalienable or constitutional
rights are violated by plainly declaring what marriage is and is not.
Find
out more about protecting marriage at the AdvanceUSA marriage page.
Today
the Iowa
Supreme Court ruled that the state’s marriage legislation limiting marriage
to members of the opposite sex is
unconstitutional. The unanimous
ruling constitutes, in effect, court imposed same-sex marriage. Iowa is now the third state in the country
currently allowing “gay marriage.”
Ed
Whelan comments on the ruling at his “Bench Memos” blog at NRO.
The Wall Street
Journal reports. Excerpt:
The Vermont House of Representatives
approved a bill legalizing gay marriage Thursday, a divisive measure that now
faces a veto from the state's governor.
 Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Arizona has ruled that the state’s school voucher program is unconstitutional. The program enables parents of disabled or foster children to send their kids to a school of their choice that they would not previously have been able to afford. Because of the Court’s unanimous decision, the only way the voucher program could be resurrected is if voters approve a constitutional amendment protecting it. Jillian Bandes also reports. Excerpt:
State laws that prohibit school boards from giving money to private educational institutions are now the reason disabled kids in Arizona can no longer attend specialized classes that meet their needs.
A unanimous Arizona Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday held that vouchers were illegal in their state, and the children who used them to attend private, specialized schools can no longer do so.
For more information check the website of the Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter which defended the voucher program in court. Also, see this YouTube video (see below) that the Institute created about “Lexie Weck, a six-year-old little girl with autism, cerebral palsy and mild mental retardation who relies on the program for pupils with disabilities to attend the Chrysalis Academy, a small private school in Tempe that specializes in working with autistic children.”
Our nation needs more school choice for parents, not less. Unfortunately, many politicians (including President Obama who recently approved a spending bill which destroyed the successful DC Opportunity Scholarship voucher program) will sacrifice school choice for the sake of a radical ideology and crass political calculations.
The
Hill reports that the US Congress will soon be facing legislation designed
to undermine the traditional definition of marriage and offer special unequal
privileges based solely on sexual behavior.
Diana
Furchtgott-Roth explains at the Reuters Blog. Excerpts:
By raising taxes on upper-income Americans,
Congress would worsen our tax system’s marriage penalty on dual-income married
couples, and Jeanne and Rick would pay even more tax married than single.
…
Tax systems shouldn’t make it harder for
women to work. The penalty falls most
heavily on married women who have invested in education, hoping to shatter
glass ceilings and compete with men for managerial jobs, and the Obama plan
would exacerbate the penalty.
MyWayNews
reports. Once again, gay activists
are making the case for a federal marriage protection amendment to the
Constitution.
FRC
has a handy resource on their website which allows you to quickly chart the
status of marriage across the country, state by state. Click here to view the
map.
Dan
Lips and Robert C. Enlow explain
at National Review Online. Excerpt:
Any doubts about congressional leaders’
priorities on education were erased Monday with the release of the new $450
billion omnibus bill. It includes a provision to eliminate the D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship program, which is currently helping low-income children attend
private schools in the nation’s capital.
If adopted, the measure will basically
ensure that 1,700 of the poorest children in D.C. are forced to leave their
private schools and transfer back into the District’s low-performing and often
dangerous public schools. Angered scholarship parents may wonder why Congress
is moving so quickly to end this $14 million program just as the federal
government is showering money on Wall Street and the auto companies.
The
Washington Post also reports on the attempt to gut the successful DC school
voucher program in the massive omnibus spending bill currently being considered
in Congress.
Check
out WV4Marriage.com for more
information on the campaign to protect the traditional definition of marriage
in the great state of West Virginia.
AdvanceUSA
has learned that a measure in the massive Omnibus spending bill would, for all
practical purposes, terminate the hugely successful and incredibly popular school
voucher program for Washington, DC. It
is appalling that the House would eagerly seek to kill such an important school
choice program. The House will vote on
the Omnibus on Wednesday.
The
website VoicesofSchoolChoice.org
has more information about the stressfulness of the DC voucher program, and
this YouTube video shows allows the children who benefit from the program to
explain what it means to them to be able to attend good schools.
Michael
Steele talks about ways to provide real
economic stimulus for American families.
Excerpt:
Republicans have a better solution: an
economic recovery plan that lets families and small businesses keep more of
what they earn. By our analysis, the Republican plan would create 6.2 million
jobs, twice the number created under the Democrats' plan, at half the cost. We
favor fast-acting tax relief that will boost our economy and create new jobs
not slow-moving, wasteful government spending.
 Michael Steele
Star
Parker has some harsh
words for the resurgence of socialism in American and its negative effects
on the family, especially black families.
Excerpt:
Instead of solving economic problems,
government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems.
The kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility
for their lives over to others.
The legacy of American socialism is our
blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black
families.
Through God's grace, I found my way out. It
was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.
Read
her full
article here.
 Star Parker
Rasmussen
reports. It’s no wonder that public
support for the so-called “stimulus” bill is eroding as more information about
its waste and cultural implications becomes known.
The
stimulus proposal in the Senate would heap massive amounts of new debt on the
American people, debt which would make it nearly impossible to provide
much-needed tax relief for American families.
The Heritage Foundation provides some
helpful perspective on the size of the debt this massive pork bill would
create.
Let
both
your senators know what you think of the stimulus proposal and the massive
debt it would place upon future generations.
Be sure to urge them to particularly oppose the elements which threaten
religious freedom and important social values like life and morality.
UPDATE: National Review Online goes through the stimulus bill "chapter and verse" in their new piece entitled "50 De-Stimulating Facts."
 It has recently come to light that President Obama’s pick for Deputy Attorney General is radically pro-pornography and holds to a loose, activist interpretation of the Constitution. In this post at the Justice Department, David Ogden would be required to enforce obscenity laws (including laws protecting children from the exploitation of child pornography). Having someone in this position who has actively supported pornographer’s (PDF document) supposed “free speech rights” and has opposed common-sense restrictions on obscenity, would be a slap in the face to all citizens with moral decency and would put innocent children at grave risk of exploitation and abuse.
The pornography business is extremely excited about Ogden’s nomination which should make every citizen opposed to obscenity wary. Click here to read a press release from an adult media news service applauding the Ogden nomination (Warning: while there is no pornography at this last link, readers should be warned that it is a pro-pornography news service and other news stories may link to highly offensive and objectionable content).
As if his promotion of pornography wasn’t bad enough, the Heritage Foundation has raised grave concerns over Ogden’s infidelity to the U.S. Constitution.
Also, FRC’s Change Watch website has thorough background information on David Ogden and other Obama nominees.
 “Gay marriage” supporters often dismiss as mindless fear-mongering traditional marriage champions’ concerns over where tampering with the traditional definition of marriage might lead. In a court case in Canada, defenders of a polygamist are citing Canada’s same-sex marriage law as support for a right to polygamy.
When you begin to tamper with marriage, there is no rationale for excluding any sexual arrangement from state-sanctioned marriage. It is not discriminatory to declare that marriage is what it is. Congress should quickly move to pass a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment, as many states have already done, to protect traditional marriage from unelected judges and radical politicians.
Check the AdvanceUSA marriage page for more information.
So
says Dr. James Dobson as CitizenLink reports. See excerpts of Dr. Dobson’s interview with
Bundy before his execution here (or see
below).
For
help battling pornography click here.
House
Republicans, with the input of Grover Norquist, Mitt Romney, and other conservative
economic experts, have released an alternative to the Obama stimulus plan that
claims to be more family-friendly and more supportive of free market
solutions. Click
here to read a summary of the plan.
Yesterday,
Gov. Romney spoke to CNBC about
the alternative plan and his thoughts on economic recovery. “The best medicine for a sick economy is
permanent tax relief” said Romney in committee hearings yesterday.
 During economic downturns families
are forced to make tough decisions and one area of major concern is what kind
of tax burden a family will face.
President-elect Barack Obama is touting a $1 Trillion stimulus package
which now contains tax cuts but would also skyrocket the nation’s debt. Now there are reports that Democrats
in Congress are pushing to eliminate
any tax cuts whatsoever.
In
response to Obama’s expressed desire to consider ideas from all sources,
Republicans in the House are working on an alternative stimulus
proposal which focuses more on tax relief for families and businesses (who
provide jobs). Eric Cantor, John
Boehner, Mike Pence, Mitt Romney, and others will hold hearings
tomorrow to promote a plan that does the following:
1) Support Families
through Tax Relief
2) Provide Economic
Relief for American Businesses and Entrepreneurs
3) Save Future
Generations from a Crushing Debt Burden
Jonah
Goldberg weighs in with a
conservative perspective on the stimulus proposals at National Review
Online.
The
Heritage Foundation has prepared this helpful paper warning
of the serious dangers posed by the CEDAW treaty which unfortunately has
strong supporters in Congress.
The
treaty poses serious threats to morality, family health, and the pro-life cause
in any nation which ratifies it. Here is
an excerpt explaining the pro-life threat:
CEDAW is a much-debated and carefully
negotiated document, and access to abortion is not required, nor even
mentioned. But the committee's actions are an entirely different matter. In its
discussion of women's health, the committee focuses almost exclusively on
contraception and abortion, referencing its own General Recommendation No. 24
to require countries to liberalize their laws regarding abortion.[34] The
committee called on Nigeria "to assess the impact of its abortion law on
the maternal mortality rate and to give consideration to its reform or
modification."[35] Yemen was reminded that "contraceptives should be
free or affordable."[36] One committee member wanted to know whether women
in Lithuania had access to affordable contraceptives, including emergency
contraceptives, and was particularly concerned about a proposalunder
consideration in Lithuania to restrict legal abortion. She warned that,
"If the Government [intends] to restrict abortion, the consequences would
be disastrous for women."[37]
The
Washington Times reports. After
their recent defeats in California, Florida, and Arizona, “gay marriage”
proponents have decided to go after “low hanging fruit” by targeting New
England states. Since Massachusetts and
Connecticut are the only states currently recognizing same-sex marriage, these
radical activists hope to institute same-sex marriage in six more Northeastern states
by the year 2012. Supporters of
traditional marriage will need to be active and vigilant to head off this
threat.
HT:
FRC
Janice
Shaw Crouse explains. Excerpt:
The authors, G.L. Forward, Alison
Sansom-Livolsi, and Jordanna McGovern, stress the fact that a family is more
than merely a group of individuals who live under the same roof. They cite
numerous studies indicating that parents play a crucial role in a child’s
personal and social development. In fact, a child’s relationship with his or
her parents is the single most important factor in predicting that child’s
long-term happiness, adjustment, development, educational attainment, and
success.
In
his column, renowned
economist Thomas Sowell reviewed a book called “Outliers” about the unique circumstances
that allow some people to dramatically excel.
The book cites the incredible achievements of charter schools in raising
academic achievement of minority students far above that of average minority
achievement. Excerpt from Sowell’s
column:
One of the most inspiring chapters in
"Outliers" is about a KIPP charter school serving minority students,
whose academic performances far exceed those of other minority students, even
though these students were selected by lottery, rather than on the basis of
ability.
A lot could be done to support and expand
such schools. But a crucial factor in the success of the KIPP schools is a
commitment by the students and their parents to a demanding educational
program. No politician or bureaucrat can create that.
Indeed, politicians and bureaucrats have
done much that has had the net effect of spreading attitudes that undermine the
prospects of using currently available opportunities.
One
of the best things politicians could do to really improve education for racial
minorities is to allow and encourage the spread of charter schools (and of more
school choice in general).
Congratulations.
Read the Law Suit
By:
Rachel Devamithran
American Association of Christian Schools
Rebecca
Fay could not understand beyond a beginning kindergartener’s math level and a
first grade reading level in the Arizona public school system. Weston and
Montgomery Phipps were both mute, unable to read and write, and couldn’t be
controlled. Hope for improvement was slim, until the Arizona Scholarships for
Pupil with Disabilities allowed them to attend Father’s Heart Christian School.
It
worked. In one year, Rebecca achieved a sixth grade understanding of math,
science, and reading, and the Phipps’ boys were able to write, speak, and sit
quietly.
The
children’s achievements were awarded with lawsuits by the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) that questioned the legality of voucher programs.
CitizenLink comments
on a recent op-ed piece in the Washington Post about a
school in Alexandria, Virginia with a serious teen pregnancy problem. An English teacher at the school writes about
the dangerous incentives to become pregnant out of wedlock that are fostered in
conventional “comprehensive” sex education programs. Excerpt from CitizenLink commentary:
At T.C. Williams, every student is required
to take a "family life" course that teaches about birth control,
sexually transmitted infections and teen pregnancy, Welsh writes. The
Adolescent Health Center, which provides birth control to girls as young as 13,
is just a few blocks from the school.
Yet girls continue to get pregnant. And
taxpayer money continues to fund so-called "comprehensive" sex
education, as well as abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.
Sandy Pickert, executive director of the
Abstinence Education Corp. in Wichita, Kan., told CitizenLink that kids receive
a double message in "comprehensive" sex-education programs. They may
be told abstinence is the best option to avoid getting pregnant, but they also
receive plenty of information on contraception.
Read
the full
article in the Washington Post here.
The
AP reports. Excerpt:
State officials will now let married
same-sex couples list both their names on their children's birth certificates
in a policy shift deeply important to many gays and lesbians.
The decision, which echoes similar
provisions in states that allow gay marriages or civil unions, is one of many
changes since Gov. David Paterson ordered state agencies in May to respect
out-of-state gay marriages.
The state Health Department said Friday it
had agreed to the change, which came after a lesbian couple who are expecting a
baby filed a lawsuit. The change would apply statewide except in New York City,
which is considering revamping its own birth certificate forms to accommodate
same-sex couples.
The
illustrious Heritage Foundation has been issuing policy memos to
president-elect Obama in an effort to work together for bipartisan solutions to
our nation’s urgent problems. One such
memo discusses
education reform. Dan Lips and
Jennifer Marshall of the Heritage foundation write in their conclusion:
You were right to say during your campaign
that "we cannot be satisfied until every child in America...has the same
chance for a good education that we want for our own children." But four
decades of experience with increasing federal involvement has shown that
Washington cannot deliver on that promise. Instead of further expanding federal
authority in education, your Administration should empower those who have more
power to make a difference in children's education, especially parents.
Lips
and Marshall emphasize that the most important component of meaningful
education reform is greater school choice for parents. Now that’s “change we can believe in.” Read the full text of this
important policy brief here.
Pro-family
activists have long decried the negative effects on society from legalized
gambling and sexually oriented business.
They find vindication as CitizenLink reports
that even the Netherlands (where almost everything is legal and taxed by the government)
has decided to increase restrictions on prostitution and gambling. Excerpt:
Amsterdam has unveiled a comprehensive plan
to close up to half of its businesses that "generate criminality,"
including brothels, gambling parlors and marijuana cafes.
The
LA Times and The
Guardian Online report on a film festival official who was forced to resign
his position because of his support, based on religious conviction, for the
pro-marriage Proposition 8 campaign in California.
Also,
Laura Ingram recently interviewed Andrew Breitbart about the reemergence of the “Hollywood
blacklist” over gay marriage.
In
all the confusion over “gay marriage,” Frank
Turek’s article is especially helpful.
Excerpt:
After the passage of Prop 8 in California,
homosexuals are still howling that they don’t have “equal rights.” Hopefully, the California Supreme Court will
respect the equal rights of voters by affirming Prop 8 because the howls of homosexuals
are false. The truth is every person in America already has equal
marriage rights!
We’re all playing by the same rules—we all
have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those
rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the
qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person
has the same right to marry.
Breitbart
reports. Excerpt:
California's highest court agreed Wednesday
to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage
but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.
Radical
“gay rights” activists will stop at nothing to impose “gay marriage” on the
public, even if that means overturning democracy when it doesn’t suit their
purposes. Three lawsuits have been filed
to overturn Prop. 8 (which amends the state constitution to preserve the traditional
definition of marriage) recently approved by California voters. The same Supreme Court which instituted same-sex
marriage earlier this year will now determine the constitutionality of the
voter approved marriage protection amendment.
If the court were to overturn a lawfully approved ballot initiative, it
would be an unprecedented display of raw judicial activism and tyranny.
Daniel
Herbster reporting
Citizens for Community Values of
Indiana is one of the many great organizations in our nation fighting to
protect family values and to oppose pornography and sexually oriented
businesses. I had the opportunity to
interview Patrick Mangan, the Executive Director of CCV of IN, about his work
enabling people to take back their communities.
DH: Patrick, I’ve enjoyed getting to know you and your
organization better over the last few months, so it’s a pleasure to introduce
you to our readers here at AdvanceUSA Blog.
I’ve seen first-hand how your work affects the state of Indiana and
especially my home town of South Bend.
Tell our readers what kinds of issues Citizens for Community Values
works on?
PM: Well our mission is to protect men, women, and
children from the misinformation of sexual activists, and the harms of sexual
addictions, sexual predators, sexually oriented businesses, materials harmful
to minors, broadcast indecency, and the porn/sex industry in all of its forms,
by promoting the principles of the Judeo/Christian ethic which is the
foundation of our nation.
Our vision is to empower concerned citizens and
community leaders to significantly reduce sexual exploitation, promiscuity, and
abuse in Indiana and beyond by:
G.
Tracey Mehan III provides an
important perspective when considering the results of the recent
elections. Excerpt:
This scapegoating of the solid and most
loyal of the three wings of the Reaganite coalition is inaccurate and just
plain wrong. It is self-defeating in the long run. It is rank blame-shifting
and a libel of a GOP constituency which has always supported low taxes, a
strong defense and a constrained judiciary. All it asked for was fair
consideration of its concerns with family and the culture of life.
Read
the full
article here.
HT:
FRC
Kevin
McCullough explains, examining the hatred expressed by the “gay rights”
activists and showing how their position goes against common sense and the
Constitution.
Matt
Barber explains. Excerpt:
With a unified voice amplified several
million-fold through the ballot box megaphone, African-Americans have spoken on
the issues of marriage, family and human sexuality. Whether young or old, male
or female, Democrat or Republican, blacks are justifiably fed up with the
deceptive antics of the self-described and craftily contrived "gay rights
movement."
For decades now, well-organized,
well-funded and highly influential "gay" political pressure groups
have, with impertinence, hijacked the language of the authentic civil rights
movement. In what amounts to a sort of soft racism, self-styled
"queers" have disingenuously and ignobly hitched their lil' lavender
wagons to a movement which, by contrast, is built upon the genuine and noble
precepts of racial equality and humanitarian justice.
Cal
Thomas points out the irony
of Barack and Michelle Obama practicing school choice in Washington,
DC. Excerpt:
Parents who put their children first are to
be admired and emulated. Politicians who are parents and who have the power to
let others make the choices they can make, but refuse to do so, are
inconsistent at best and hypocrites at worst.
Throughout the campaign, Barack Obama
presented himself as a champion of the poor and middle class. Poor and
middle-class parents do not love their children any less than the Obamas love
their daughters. They want their kids to have a good education, realizing it is
their ticket to a better life. But liberal politicians deny them that right. Is
that fair?
The
media has reported that President Elect Barack Obama and his wife are searching
for private schools for their children. Terence
Jeffrey exposes
a classic case of liberal hypocrisy where a politician who denounces school
choice for poor and middle class families makes use of it for himself.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
Lisa Miller is continuing her legal battle
for her daughter, Isabella.
Miller left the homosexual lifestyle and
became a Christian when Isabella was 17 months old. Janet Jenkins, who was
Miller's "partner" when Miller gave birth to Isabella, is seeking
full custody of the 6-year-old.
As the
AP reports, the Supreme Court of Connecticut has just imposed same-sex
marriage on its citizens. As these
stunning instances of judicial activism continue, the need for a federal
marriage protection amendment to prevent the spread of “gay marriage” from
state to state becomes even more apparent.
The
White House issued a statement in response to the ruling, calling
for a such an amendment.
When
you go to the ballot box, consider how your consider the positions your
Congressional and Senate candidates stand on the federal marriage protection
amendment.
TheTruthAboutMarriage.org is a
great resource on the importance of protecting the traditional definition of
marriage in our society. On the website
you will find videos and studies which make the case for protecting marriage in
our public policy. These resource will
give you the ammunition you need to articulate and argue for a strong
pro-marriage position.
The
Daily News Tribune reports. Excerpt:
“We’re very disappointed that the Supreme
Court has turned their backs on this parental rights issue,” said David Parker,
the most vocal plaintiff in the lawsuit. “This clearly has national
significance with profound consequences, and they’re ignoring it. We will look
into [pursuing it in state court]. We will have further meetings with our
attorneys and discuss that option.”
The Parkers and Wirthlins filed suit in
2006 after the Parkers’ son, Jacob, brought home a book as part of the
diversity book bag from his Estabrook Elementary kindergarten class in 2005.
The book, “Who’s in a Family,” showed various family types including a
same-sex-headed household, as well as single parents and grandparents raising children.
The Wirthlins’ son, Joey, who was then in first grade, was in class on a day
that marriage was the topic. At the time, a book on a prince marrying another
prince was read to the class, “King and King.”
Parker said the judges who dismissed the
suit at the district and appellate levels agreed that the intent on using the
books in class was to change children’s minds about homosexuality. He said that
with the Supreme Court decision, books will be used all over the country to do
just that.
“Books and lessons will come into [schools]
to have children affirm it,” Parker said. “They will be coerced to affirm the
correctness and the normalcy of homosexuality, homosexual conduct, and gay
marriage.”
Even
self-described liberal David Blankenhorn, who wrote in the LA Times on Friday,
argues that we
must preserve the traditional definition of marriage. He maintains that traditional marriage is the
best arrangement for children based on his extensive study. Excerpt:
Because I also believe with all my heart in
the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we
as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human
institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that
right and make it real for our children.
Read
full
article here.
Do you know if your state has a
ballot initiative to protect the traditional definition of marriage? Would you like to support the effort to
protect marriage from radical legislatures and activist judges? Standformarriage.com
provides you with information on the efforts to protect marriage across the
country and allows you to support those efforts.
A
New York court has conspired with the governor of New York in bypassing the
legislative branch by declaring
that “gay” marriages must be recognized despite the fact that the elected representatives
on New Yorkers have declared that marriage is only a union of one man and one
woman.
Good
news for the rights of parents to home school their children, as the San
Diego Union-Tribune reports. Also,
the Home School Legal Defense Association also explains the details of
this ruling. Excerpt:
In a unanimous decision, the California
Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District today ruled that “California
statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education.”
Today’s decision stands in stark contrast
to the opinion this same three-judge panel issued in February, which would have
made California the only state in the union to outlaw home education had it
remained in effect.
Yesterday
morning I had the privilege to meet with Rob Staley of The Crossing. The Crossing is an amazing alternative school
program that is helping kids with behavioral or developmental challenges that
require a unique learning environment.
The Crossing is not an alternative to public education but rather comes
along side public school systems and helps meet the needs of at-risk kids while
helping the school system financially and academically. An essential part of the success of The
Crossing is its strong faith-based core values.
With
the serious challenges facing the American educational system, more
outside-the-box faith-based organizations like The Crossing will be
needed. With a little school choice
legislation, these kinds of programs could greatly expand, meeting the needs of
at-risk kids and saving tax-payer dollars.
Find
out more about The Crossing at www.crossingeducation.com.
Daniel Herbster
reporting
One
of the strategies of proponents of same-sex marriage is to push for “divorce
rights” for same-sex couples “married” in other states or countries. As this
sob story from the LA Times shows, the campaign for “gay divorce”
continues.
The California Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit to remove the proposed marriage amendment from the 2008 California ballot. The Alliance Defense Fund called the lawsuit “a desperate effort to keep the amendment away from the democratic process.” Californians will now have the opportunity to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in their state. The San Francisco Chronicle reports. Excerpt:
Californians will get to vote in November on a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, the state Supreme Court decided Wednesday.
In a unanimous order, without comment, the court dismissed a lawsuit by gay rights advocates seeking to remove an initiative sponsored by conservative religious groups from the Nov. 4 ballot. The measure, Proposition 8, would overturn the court's 4-3 ruling May 15 that allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry in California.
The LA Times also reports.
The
1913 Massachusetts law which prevents “gay marriages” in Massachusetts from
spreading to other states is under attack.
On Tuesday, the
state Senate unanimously voted to overturn the law. If the state House and the governor do not
stand up for marriage, Massachusetts will join California as “the Las Vegas of
gay marriage.”
Some are pushing to make the state of Massachusetts the “Las Vegas of gay marriage.” The Massachusetts legislature will soon vote on whether to keep the 1913 law which forbids Massachusetts from recognizing the marriages of out-of-state couples that are not recognized in the couple’s home state. The enforcement of this long-forgotten law by former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney prevented the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling instituting same-sex marriage in Massachusetts from spreading to other states.
Liberal activists will stop at nothing to establish so-called “gay marriage” in every state in the country. This is why it is so important to pass an amendment to amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman only. Call your representative and both your senators today and urge them to cosponsor and vote “Yes” on the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment.
Jennifer
Roback Morse explains. Excerpt:
For many of us, gay marriage isn’t a
referendum on gay people. It is about the meaning of marriage. Advocates of
marriage as a union of a man and a woman do not hate gay people. Rather, the
millions of Americans who pull the lever in favor of marriage are saying
children need a mother and father.
Getting
activist judges to recognize “gay divorce” in states which refuse to recognize “gay
marriage” is one of the subtle strategies of “gay marriage” proponents. CitizenLink reports
on this encouraging news from Oklahoma.
Two
bills (which were combined into one bill, H.R. 2176) which would have expanded gambling
were defeated on Wednesday. Also,
attempts to undermine the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act were also defeated in
the House. CitizenLink reports.
The
AP also reports.
Those
in Congress now trying to kill the effective DC school voucher program would do
well to check out the website www.voicesofschoolchoice.org
where they could see testimonials of people who have been positively impacted
by school choice programs.
As this NPR article demonstrates, when “gay
rights” and religious liberty conflict, religious liberty usually loses. This is an important fact to emphasize as gay
couples are now obtaining marriage licenses in California.
A few examples cited by NPR:
A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered
to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been
sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned
its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with
same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in
California.
A psychologist in Mississippi who refused
to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a
doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose
his pending case before the California Supreme Court.
And then there's the case of a wedding
photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.
Daniel Herbster
reporting
I had the opportunity
to interview Rick Schatz, the President and CEO of the National Coalition for the Protection
of Children & Families, about his work protecting families. Here is my interview with Rick.
DH: What is the
mission of the National Coalition? Are
you primarily concerned with local or national issues?
RS: Our mission
at the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families is to move the people of God to embrace, live
out, preserve and advance the truth of biblical sexuality. We address and
are concerned about pornography, the sexualized messages of the culture,
premarital sex among teens and young adults, marriage and the redefinition of
marriage, and the homosexual political agenda.
We are concerned with both national and local issues. On the national level, we work with
denominations, major corporations, the Department of Justice, Federal
Communications Commission, and CTIA – The Wireless Association. Locally, we work with churches, Christian
schools, para-church ministries and individual believers and their families
through our regional offices located in Atlanta,
Charlotte, Columbus,
Kansas City, New England, Seattle,
St. Louis and here in Cincinnati where our corporate headquarters are located.
DH: How did it get started?
RS: Jerry Kirk was senior pastor of College Hill
Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati.
Through his counseling he recognized pornography and the sexualized culture
were having a devastating impact on marriages and especially young people. He formed the National Coalition in 1983 and
then left the pastorate at College Hill in 1986 to be full time with the National
Coalition.
DH: What are some of your greatest achievements
as an organization?
RS: From a national perspective, we have
encouraged the development, passage and implementation of some of the strongest
legislation in our nation’s history focused on illegal pornography and sex tourism. We have encouraged law enforcement efforts of
the Justice Department and FCC, and have challenged corporations such as
Abercrombie & Fitch, AT&T and General Motors to leave the pornography
business and reduce the sexual content of their marketing efforts.
We have developed some powerful materials, both written and
visual, educating pastors, Christian leaders, parents and young people about
the threat of pornography and the sexualized culture in which we live. In addition, we have brought together the
broadest range of the faith community in the history of our country to address
pornography by forming the Religious Alliance Against Pornography (RAAP) in
1986. RAAP has been used to meet with
two Presidents and five Attorneys General over the years and has played a major
role in educating the faith community in the United States.
Through our regional offices, we have worked with hundreds
of churches and Christian schools across the country through the distribution
of materials, speaking engagements, conferences and retreats. Our website and media and public relations
efforts have reached millions of Americans with the message of the National
Coalition and have encouraged parents to talk to their children about sexuality
and the threats of our culture.
DH: How can people make a difference in their
communities for families and against pornography? What are some practical steps they could take
to make their communities safer and cleaner?
CitizenLink
reports on this
potentially precedent-setting court case.
Excerpt:
Jennifer Siperko and Christine Stadter were
in a lesbian relationship when Siperko had a child through artificial
insemination. Stadter did not adopt the child, and more than a year after the
birth, the couple broke up. Stadter argued she should be considered a "de
facto" parent. The "de facto" parent doctrine has been used by
same-sex "marriage" activists to undermine marriage and weaken the
rights of parents.
Liberty Counsel represented Siperko.
"The decision by the Virginia Court of
Appeals is a model of judicial restraint," said Mat Staver, founder of
Liberty Counsel. "The court affirmed the fundamental right of parents and
recognized that third parties may not interfere with the rights of fit parents
to raise and educate their children.
CitizenLink reports,
concluding that “both candidates could do more for life, marriage, family.”
 In a move the Alliance Defense Fund
describes as “a
vote for nationwide legal chaos” the California Supreme Court has rejected
the pleas of pro-family supporters and state attorneys general and will press
to quickly institute
its recent ruling mandating “gay marriage” despite the expressed will of the
people. The reason this decision means
chaos for other states is that many gay couples from other states will
certainly come to California to take advantage of the “gay marriage” ruling and
then return to their home state and sue for marriage privileges. Given the fact that liberal activist judges
occupy benches in many states, it is almost certain that we will see more
instances of court imposed same-sex marriage in the near future.
Clearly
our nation needs a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment to prevent unelected
judges from instituting “gay marriage” through judicial fiat. Call your
representative today and urge him or her to cosponsor and vote for the Marriage
Protection Amendment.
For
more information on protecting marriage in California check ProtectMarriage.com.
Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) has
reintroduced the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment. The recent debacle in California demonstrates
the need to protect the institution of marriage from activist judges. The
Washington Blade reports (note:
this is a gay publication).
For
more information check the marriage
page.
The New York
Times reports. Excerpt:
Opponents of same-sex unions were pondering
a range of legal and legislative challenges to Gov. David A. Paterson’s new
policy of having state agencies honor same-sex marriages that have been
performed outside New York.
New York Governor David Paterson is
seeking to change state regulations in order to recognize same-sex marriages
from Canada and states like California and Massachusetts. As the assault on traditional marriage
continues the need for a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment becomes all the
more clear. The
New York Times reports. Excerpts:
Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all
state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize
same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts,
California and Canada.
…
Groups that oppose gay marriage said the
governor was essentially trying to circumvent the Legislature.
“It’s a perfect example of a governor
overstepping his authority and sidestepping the democratic process,” said Brian
Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a national
organization opposed to same-sex marriage. “It’s an issue of public policy that
should be decided by the voters.”
Sen.
Sam Brownback and David Blankenhorn write an enlightening piece about the destructive
incentives our government engenders toward the family through its tax
policy and welfare programs and what Congress should do to eliminate the “marriage
penalty.” Excerpt:
We believe that the time is ripe to
transcend the usual partisan politics and implement a plan to stop penalizing
lower-income couples who do the right thing — for themselves and their children
— and get married. That's something all of us, regardless of political
persuasion, should be able to agree on.
Frank
Turek at Townhall.com explains.
Excerpt:
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. That’s the
conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is
a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s
prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a
powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of
Marriage.
He writes, “Across history and cultures . .
. marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother
and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify
this principle in culture and in law.”
NBC Augusta reports that Congressman
Paul Broun (R-GA) intends to
reintroduce the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment. Apparently the recent outrageous decision by
the California Supreme Court convinced Rep. Broun of the necessity of federal action in this
case to prevent unelected judges from spreading “gay marriage” from one state
to another.
We
thank Rep. Broun for his leadership in this issue and encourage our readers to call their
representatives and urge him or her to cosponsor and vote for Broun’s
marriage amendment.
Paul
Weyrich explains. Excerpt:
For many years the teachers unions used
scare tactics to prevent school choice programs from enactment. They claimed
that voucher programs would destroy the public school system. In fact, faced
with competition, school choice has actually strengthened the public schools.
Now that the public is able to see that union propaganda was a big lie citizens
are more willing to consider vouchers. This is especially true now that it is
widely acknowledged that the public school system is broken, graduating young
people who hardly can read or write and who fail math and science.
At a time when conservatives are in a funk,
believing that nothing good is happening in America, it is time to celebrate
this milestone development in Georgia. This is a victory not just for Georgians
but for all parents who are concerned with the state of public education in
these United States.
Fred
Thompson talks
about the recent ruling in California.
Excerpt:
So, more power to the people of California
in their uphill battle for an amendment to their state constitution. But the
real, long-term solution in the future for supporters of the rule of law is
ensuring the selection and election of good judges, judges who know their role
in a constitutional republic, in the first place, and holding them – and the
politicians who appoint and confirm them – accountable.
We
would also point out that the CA ruling illustrates the need for a Federal Marriage Protection
Amendment to permanently protect the traditional definition of marriage
from activist judges who would love to spread same-sex marriage from states
like California and Massachusetts to the rest of the country.
The
Baltimore Sun reports. It is a shame
that such a common sense ruling should be so surprising. In the interests of parental rights and
traditional marriage, let’s hope that the precedent set by the Maryland Supreme
Court will be followed by courts across the country (especially
in Virginia).
As only he can, Dinesh D’Souza aims his intellect and gift for expression at the issue of same-sex marriage arguing that its institution by activist judges is a threat to democracy itself. He also helpfully explains why defending the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage does not threaten the Constitutional rights of homosexuals. Excerpt:
We already know what California citizens think about gay marriage: they oppose it. A referendum outlawing gay marriage was passed with the support of the state's voters. More than 60 percent of voters cast their ballots against gay marriage.
How, then, can a court invalidate the referendum and over-rule the will of the people? Basically through a kind of legal fraud. The court has to pretend that there is a right to gay marriage even though it is nowhere evident in the state constitution. Read the constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it--you won't see a right to gay marriage in there. It is simply not an enumerated right, nor is it a right that can be clearly derived from other enumerated rights.
In issuing its ruling the California court appealed to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basic logic is that gays have a right to be treated like everyone else. But just like everyone else, gays do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex! What gay activists want is something else: the right to marry members of the same sex. This is not a right currently enjoyed by anyone. What these gay activists seek is not equal treatment but rather to change the definition of marriage.
The
AP explains which states have marriage protection amendments, which have
instituted gay marriage or civil unions, and which states could vote on
marriage in November.
To
see a breakdown of this information continue reading:
In a blatant display of judicial activism, four out of seven members of the California Supreme Court have ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriages. In overturning the clear will of the people, California becomes the second state (after Massachusetts) to legalize same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.
This judicial outrage demonstrates the need for a state constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Protectmarriage.com recently submitted thousands of signatures in an effort to place a marriage amendment on California’s 2008 ballot. Check Protectmarriage.com to find out more about protecting marriage in California.
This ruling also shows the need to protect one-man, one-woman marriage on the national level with a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment so that unelected judges in one state cannot impose same-sex marriage on the rest of the country.
For more information on protecting marriage click here.
By Daniel Herbster
 I recently corresponded with Bryan Wickens, president of Reclaim Our Culture Kentuckiana (ROCK), and asked him about the work he does fighting sexually oriented businesses and protecting families. Visit reclaimourculture.org for more information. Below is my interview with Bryan.
DH: Bryan, thanks for taking the time to tell our readers about your work in the culture war fighting against pornography and for families in Kentuckiana. First of all, for our readers who may not be familiar with the term, what is Kentuckiana, and how much area does it contain? Is it basically the greater Louisville area?
BW: Thanks, Daniel. Kentuckiana usually means central Kentucky up to central Indiana and that is definitely where ROCK’s focus began. During the past couple of years, however, as we have expanded our reach and been invited to join in on national initiatives and projects, we are recognized now as ROCK and have interests in projects across the country. Since our staff lives in the Kentuckiana region, we will of course always have the communities that ROCK was born out of at the heart of anything we do. But it is imperative to us that we not confine our work to one geographic circle in that the issues we face today are certainly not confined to one geographic circle.
DH: How did ROCK get started, and how long has it been operating?
BW: ROCK was created in March 2004 in response to a series of articles reporting on the unrestrained growth of sex business in the Kentuckiana area and their related negative effects on the community. As a result, a group of citizens, concerned about the state of affairs of our culture came together to form ROCK. This group simply said “enough is enough” and decided to do something, to get off the sidelines – to change Kentuckiana for the better.
 I was asked to sit on the board of ROCK in 2004 which, at the time, was an all volunteer organization comprised of some incredible individuals. In 2005, ROCK was growing and decided to hire its first full time President. At the time, I was a partner in one of the largest law firms in our region and was feeling a call in my life to use my skills and abilities to stand up against the attacks on our values, our beliefs and our families. But leaving my law firm to become the first President of a non-profit was not really in my plans. But as so often happens, God had a different plan! To the surprise of many, I left my law practice to become President of ROCK in September, 2005. And every person at ROCK has a similar story. It is amazing how that faithfulness has been rewarded and the blessings ROCK has experienced in a short period of time.
DH: How bad was the situation in Kentuckiana when ROCK was first started, and what kind of progress have you seen since that time? What are some of your proudest accomplishments as an organization?
As
the Weekly Standard reports, with an influx of membership in Africa combined
with a growing conservative evangelical movement in the United States, the United
Methodist Church could begin to take more conservative positions on issues
such as homosexuality, abortion, family, and Christian doctrine at its quadrennial
global conference now meeting in Texas.
Already, a well-publicized anti-Israel resolution has been defeated, and
observers are expecting to see more surprising results in the future.
The
United Methodist Church is a global and highly influential organization (with a
large facility right next to the U.S. Supreme Court), and it is encouraging to
think that they might soon adopt a more Biblical understanding of sexual morality,
the family, and the right to life.
Concerned citizens would do well to pray that this influential
organization would cease to undermine traditional morality and the right to
life with its resources and policies.
The
Institute on Religion and Democracy has been watching and reporting on the
developing conservative movement within Methodism, and their
website is a helpful resource for monitoring these developments.
The
While House held a forum on the troubling trend of faith-based schools in the
inner city having to close their doors.
President Bush spoke at the event and you can read his
speech here. Hopefully the forum
will help get out the message that greater school choice for parents and greater
protections for faith-based education are important elements in reforming
American education.
The Tucson Citizen reports that the Arizona Marriage Amendment is back on track after recent difficulties in the state House of Representatives.
Also, the California Marriage Amendment effort gathered an amazing 1.1 million signatures which ensures that a measure to amend the state constitution to protect the traditional definition of marriage will appear on the California ballot in 2008. CitizenLink reports.
As reported earlier at AdvanceUSA Blog, the marriage amendment campaign in Florida is also proceeding with determination.
All
those wishing to institute same-sex marriage in the United States should read Michael
Coren’s article in the National Post.
The disastrous results in Canada he mentions should give our nation
pause before giving into politically correct intimidation tactics that label
any opposition to “gay marriage” as intolerant and evil.
CitizenLink reports. This is a crucially important case not only
for parental rights but for opposing the imposition of gay marriage by
unelected judges. Excerpt:
The Virginia Supreme Court will move a step
closer on Thursday to deciding whether a lesbian woman will win custody of her
ex-partner’s child, a decision that could undermine the state’s marriage
amendment.
Janet Jenkins, who has no biological or
adoptive ties to Lisa Miller’s 6-year-old daughter, Isabella, is seeking
parental rights because she was in a relationship with Miller when the child
was born. Miller got pregnant through artificial insemination from an anonymous
donor, and the couple eventually ended the relationship.
UPDATE: One News Now
offers helpful information about the crucial custody case before the
Virginia Supreme Court.
The
AP has a story today trying to encourage sympathy for members of “gay marriages”
who are seeking to get divorced in other states. This is really
a tactic to spread “gay marriage” from states like Massachusetts to states where
traditional marriage is currently protected.
Homosexual activists are hoping that unelected judges will overturn
marriage amendments or defense of marriage acts as a result of recognizing “gay
divorces.”
 Homosexual activists gathered in our nation’s capital from a few days ago until Tax Day (today) lobbying for what they call “family values.” Their agenda includes supposed anti-discrimination legislation like ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) and instituting laws which provide what substantively amount to marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
Concerned citizens must be careful to clearly state that we do not hate homosexuals or wish to persecute them, but that we strongly object to creating special rights and privileges based on sexual behavior and we believe that organizations and companies should have the right to deem certain behavior unacceptable for their employees.
If these legislative goals proceed they will likely include some sort of “religious exemptions” which only protect churches and other explicitly religious organizations, but which do not cover individual employers such as private companies and certain non-profits. For example, while a Catholic church might be exempted from being forced to hire or accommodate homosexuals or same-sex couples, a Catholic businessman or leader of a faith-based charity would not be protected. The religious freedoms of individuals should be protected, not just the religious freedom of large organizations.
The bottom line is that sexual behavior should not be given preferential treatment under law under the guise of anti-discrimination. Also, the crucial institution of marriage should not be undermined by offering special marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
ACTION: We do not yet know when Congress will consider such legislation, but we encourage you to contact your representative and both your senators to urge them to oppose ENDA and other attempts to give substantive marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
The
Arizona
Republic reports. Despite being held
up in the legislature, Arizona marriage proponents are examining their options
and planning to move ahead with a constitutional amendment to protect the
traditional definition of marriage.
CitizenLink reports
on this troubling development.
AdvanceUSA has also been informed of likely moves to undermine marriage
by offering special rights and benefits to same-sex couples, and will be watching
federal legislation that relates to this issue closely.
Some
hopeful news is
coming out of California for advocates of parental rights, specifically the
right to homeschool. The California
appeals court which recently ruled that parents do not have a right to
homeschool their children has decided to reconsider its decision. Our friends at the Alliance Defense Fund played
a pivotal role in this decision by filing a petition
to reconsider the case, which was accepted.
The Pacific
Justice Institute also reports on the decision. Excerpt:
This means the Rachel L. decision, which has sparked a nationwide uproar, will not
go into effect as it is currently written. The Second District Court of Appeal
has instead decided to re-hear the case, with a new round of briefings due in
late April. It would likely take the court several additional months to
schedule oral argument and issue another decision.
Today's announcement by the court that it will re-hear the case reinforces
PJI's position that homeschooling families should continue their current
programs without fear of governmental interference.
The
Home School Legal Defense fund also issued a statement. Excerpt:
Home School Legal Defense Association will
seek permission to file such an amicus brief and will coordinate efforts with a
number of organizations interesting in filing briefs to support the right of
parents to homeschool their children in California.
"This is a great first step,"
said Michael Farris, chairman of HSLDA. "We are very glad that this case will
be reheard and that this opinion has been vacated, but there is no guarantee as
to what the ultimate outcome will be.
This case remains our top priority," he added.
“Home-Schoolers 'In Shock' Over Court Ruling”
Homeschoolers in California and advocates of school choice endured a sneak attack recently when a California appeals court came out with a sweeping ruling that declares that parents have no constitutional right to educate their children in the home. The Washington Times reports. Excerpt:
National and California home-schooling advocates are banding together to fight a state court ruling they say could essentially outlaw the practice of allowing parents to teach their children at home.
California Supreme Court Hears Marriage Case
As the LA Times reports, the California Supreme Court has heard the challenge to that state’s Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman only. Will the court usurp the will of the people and redefine marriage? We should know in less than 90 days. Excerpt from LA Times story:
The court is deciding four lawsuits brought on behalf of nearly two dozen same-sex couples. A trial judge here ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, but a Court of Appeal rejected that decision on a 2-1 vote. Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger argued in favor of keeping marriage an opposite-sex union, and Christian-affiliated groups joined them.
The California high court invalidated the San Francisco marriage licenses in August 2004, but will decide within 90 days whether gay men and lesbians should be permitted to marry in the future.
HSLDA reports. On their website you can
sign a petition in support of parents’ right to home school their
children. AdvanceUSA thanks HSLDA for
taking legal action in this case.
James Dobson comments here.
Robert
Knight comments on the case before the California Supreme Court which could
have drastic
implications on marriage across the country. Excerpt:
At issue is California’s marriage law,
approved by voters in 2000 by a wide margin, which defines marriage as the
union of a man and a woman. Because of California’s history of liberal legal
activism, court watchers are taking bets over whether the high bench will
sucker punch the electorate and impose “gay marriage” on the state.
Lee
Culpepper chronicles the advantages
and accomplishments of charter schools.
Excerpt:
Charter schools have benefited from a
similar philosophy. They, too, “accomplish more with less.” They entice
committed families and teachers searching for something better in public
education. They also strike fear in the hearts of teacher unions and slippery
politicians.
Overall, charter schools have produced at
least as good -- but typically better results than traditional public schools.
Charter
schools demonstrate that greater choice and greater parental involvement are
important elements of improving education in America. Having worked in a charter school during
college, AdvanceUSA’s Daniel Herbster can attest to the academic quality and beneficial
atmosphere of those institutions.
Commentary by Daniel Herbster
 Last night my pastor gave a report on his recent mission trip to the poverty-stricken nation of Surinam in South America. During the presentation, he happened to mention how the practice of slavery hundreds of years ago has drastically affected the institution of marriage in that land, even to this day.
Apparently, when European colonial powers brought African slaves to Surinam, male slaves were dehumanized to such an extent that they were merely used for breeding purposes without ever being able to behave like actual fathers. This has led to a matriarchal culture where single women are left to raise the nation’s children alone while marriage is often considered unnecessary.
This is sobering evidence of how cultural decisions can have drastic effects on the institution of marriage, and how the deterioration of the family can prevent nations from achieving their full potential. We in America should redouble our efforts to protect marriage by encouraging stable, two-parent families and by protecting the traditional definition of marriage.
 Today the Supreme Court is meeting to decide whether to hear an appeal by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over an outrageous decision by the 2nd Circuit Court. The 2nd Circuit ruled that “fleeting” instances of profanity were acceptable on broadcast radio and TV at any time of day regardless of the likelihood that children were in the audience. Pray that the Supreme Court takes up this case and gives the FCC the power it needs to enforce common-sense restrictions on indecency over the publicly owned airwaves. On Monday, the high court will announce its decision on whether or not to hear the case.
Regardless of the Court’s decision Monday, this issue reveals the importance of passing common-sense legislation in Congress which will clarify that the FCC can do its job (even for so-called “fleeting” instances of profanity). Our thanks to FCC Chairman Martin for his leadership.
Check back with AdvanceUSA for the latest on this important moral and cultural issue.
In preparation for
our “Advance Spotlight” in tomorrow’s “Advance Report” weekly e-newsletter,
Daniel Herbster was able to conduct an interview with Micah Clark who is the
Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana. Below is the text of the interview.
For more
information on AFAIN and the great work they do for Hoosier families, check out
their website (www.afain.net). To subscribe to AdvanceUSA’s email services
and to receive your own issue of the Advance Report, check the “Get Involved”
box in the left margin.
DH: Thanks
for taking the time to share this information with our readers. What is the mission of the American Family
Association of Indiana?
MC: AFAIN
is Indiana’s only statewide decency organization. We exist to educate Hoosiers on the moral,
cultural, and political issues of the day and how those issues impact Hoosier
families. We are a voice for family
values at the local, state, and federal levels.
DH: How
did it get started? How long has it been around?
MC: AFA of
Indiana was founded in Northeast Indiana near Auburn in 1993 as a state
affiliate of the National American Family Association (based in Tupelo, MS). However, AFA IN is a locally funded and
locally governed non-partisan, non-profit 501c 3 organization. AFA of Indiana is a donation-run
organization, which has become one of the leading and most influential
pro-family organizations in the state.
AFA of Indiana was originally...
As
the Towers
Online reports, the outcome of the upcoming ‘gay marriage’ case before the
California Supreme Court could have drastic implication on the national scene
besides it’s obvious effects on the campaign to approve a marriage protection
amendment in California.
For
more information on the California marriage amendment visit www.ProtectMarriage.com.
The
Indy Star reports on this sad
news for marriage defenders in Indiana.
Hoosiers can especially thank State Rep. Patrick Bauer and State Rep. Scott
Pelath for denying them the opportunity to vote on a marriage amendment in
2008.
Calling all Californians and Hoosiers
(“Hoosiers” are folks from Indiana for all you non-Hoosiers out there)
concerned about protecting the traditional definition of marriage from activist
judges and liberal politicians! You have
urgent and important opportunities to defend the sacred institution of marriage
in your states.
Indiana
The
Indiana Marriage Amendment (S.J.R. 7) was passed by the State Senate but is
languishing in the State House Rules Committee.
In Indiana, a constitutional amendment must be approved by two
consecutive legislatures and then approved by the people. If the House continues to delay, Indiana
voters will be deprived of the opportunity to vote on the amendment on their
2008 ballot and the effort to protect marriage in Indiana will be set back
several years. Defenders of marriage in
Indiana are urged to call and email State House Speaker Patrick Bauer and State
House Rules Committee Chairman Scott Pelath.
Contact
information:
Speaker
Pat Bauer
(D-South Bend)
317-232-9628
h6@in.gov
Chairman
Scott Pelath
(D-Michigan City)
317-232-9647
h9@in.gov
HT:
Brian
California
CitizenLink
reports (article: “California Gets
Ready to Vote on Marriage”) that the California Marriage Amendment is off
to a good start with 100,000 signatures gathered to get it on the 2008
ballot. However, a total of about 1
Million signatures will be needed to do so.
If you live in California check out the Protect Marriage website to find out
how to sign the petition and find other ways to help the cause.
Visit:
www.ProtectMarriage.com
Excerpt from Reuters report:
A New York appeals court ruled on Friday that valid same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries must be recognized in New York, the first known ruling of its kind in the country, a rights group said.
Court rulings such as this one powerfully illustrate the need for a federal constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Otherwise, unelected federal judges will spread gay marriage across the country by judicial fiat, all while misapplying the “equal protection” and “full faith and credit” clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
For more information on protecting marriage click here. Check out AdvanceUSA’s 2008 Candidate Comparisons and see how the presidential candidates stand on the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment.
 Last night President Bush delivered his final State of the Union address to a combined gathering of both houses of Congress. His speech touched on a number of important pro-life, pro-family, and religious liberty issues.
The president threw down the gauntlet on stem cell research, telling Congress that we must continue to fund ethical research because human life must be respected. He highlighted the recent breakthrough in obtaining pluripotent stem cells from skin cells as proof that unethical research was unnecessary. The President championed the role of faith-based organizations in providing services and changing lives far more effectively than government alone can do. He called on Congress to allow more flexibility and local control for schools under the No Child Left Behind Act. He also encouraged Congress to maintain “charitable choice” provisions in federal law which protect the religious hiring rights of faith-based organizations (ex: allowing a Catholic charity to hire only Catholics who share that organization’s mission and standards).
The White House website has provided the text of the president’s address along with video links that allow you to watch the address. To read a helpful fact sheet provided by the administration about the agenda outlined in the president’s speech click here. To read helpful summaries of the various topics see below:
 That headline probably isn’t a huge surprise but the timing is interesting none the less.
Former Vice President Al Gore has released a video clip in which he calls for the recognition of same-sex marriage. Possibly Gore is trying to goad the Democrat presidential candidates to “strengthen” their positions on “gay rights.”
It is almost humorous to watch the Democrat candidates pledge their support for “gay rights” while not being able to bring themselves to say they actually support gay marriage. Their reluctance to openly support same-sex marriage is testament to the strong sentiment in this nation to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
For more information on protecting marriage click here.
In the vast majority of instances when Americans are given a chance to vote to support the traditional definition of marriage, they do. Unfortunately, liberal obstructionists fight tooth and nail to keep voters from being able to decide at the ballot box how their states should define marriage. The battle rages on in several states. Here’s an update on what is going on in four of them (PA, IN, FL, and IA):
Florida
AdvanceUSA recently reported that more signatures were needed so that Floridians will have a chance to vote to protect marriage on their 2008 ballot. Now our friends at Florida4Marriage.org are trying to correct the record because of misleading and dated information disseminated by four newspapers and picked up by other news organizations mistakenly claiming that the marriage amendment is already approved for the ballot. Here’s an excerpt of their critique:
In an [sic] stunning display of journalistic confusion, no less than four daily newspapers tied to the EW Scripps Treasure Coast Newspaper Company printed a one month old (and therefore inaccurate) story about the status of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.
…
These stories totally missed the breaking news that was all over the state this week that Florida4Marriage.org needs an additional 22,000 petitions to qualify for the ballot after an unprecedented audit was ordered by the state.
While it appears to be a legitimate and embarrassing mistake, the effects of this mistake in this time of crisis and emergency make it that much more egregious to the effort.
For the record: Florida4Marriage.org is still collecting petitions and we continue to do so without stopping all the way till the deadline of Tuesday January 29, 2008. All petitions must be in the Florida4Marriage.org office no later than 5:00pm on January 29, 2008. (4853 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando FL 32806). For more information visit: www.Florida4Marriage.org
To find out how you can support marriage in Florida, check Florida4Marriage.org.
Pennsylvania
According to http://www.pa4marriage.org/ State Senator Mike Brubaker (R-Lancaster) will soon introduce a marriage protection amendment bill to “protect the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman and prevent creation of civil unions (or other terms used to give all the legal benefits of marriage under a different name).” Concerned Pennsylvanians should contact their state senators (by phone or in person) and urge them to cosponsor Sen. Brubaker’s bill and vote “Yes” on this marriage protection amendment to the Pennsylvania constitution.
For more information on protecting marriage in Pennsylvania, check http://www.pa4marriage.org/
Indiana
Despite the fact that legislative committees frequently consider dozens of pieces of legislation simultaneously, House Rules Chairman Scott Pelath (D-Michigan City) claims there is not enough time to consider the marriage amendment and the property tax issue. If the marriage amendment is not passed by the legislature this legislative term, Hoosier voters will be deprived of an opportunity to support the protection of marriage in Indiana on their 2008 ballot.
Concerned Hoosiers are encouraged to contact state representative Pelath and encourage him to give marriage the attention it deserves.
Check with the AFA of Indiana for more information.
UPDATE: The Christian Post reports that
an Indiana
state senate committee has approved the Indiana marriage amendment.
Now the state house must approve the bill, or it will take six years before the
amendment could be considered again. House Speaker Patrick Bauer (D-South
Bend) has indicated that he will obstruct the bill. Concerned Hoosiers
should let their voices be heard. To find out who your Indiana state house representative is and
how to contact him/her click here.
Iowa
Excerpt from the Des Moines Register:
Hundreds of people gathered Wednesday [January 16] at the State Capitol, asking lawmakers to launch an effort to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.
As AdvanceUSA reported this summer, many Iowans were understandably outraged when a federal judge mandated same-sex marriage in Iowa from the bench. Here’s hoping pro-traditional marriage Iowans are successful in their efforts.
It appears the liberals in Congress will continue their battle to blur the definition of marriage. The latest attempt comes in the guise of providing to same-sex partners of federal employees the same marriage benefits as married spouses. The Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007 (S. 2521 / H.R. 4838), would make a federal employee and his or her same-sex domestic partner eligible to participate in federal health benefits, the Family and Medical Leave program, long-term care, insurance, and retirement benefits. Read the text of S. 2521 here and the text of H.R. 4838 here. Click here and here to see which senators and representatives have signed on to these dangerous bills as cosponsors and hold them accountable. Call your representative and both your senators today and urge them to oppose the Domestic Partners Benefits Act (S. 2521 or H.R. 4838)!
For more information on protecting marriage, check the AdvanceUSA marriage page. To see how the 2008 presidential candidates stand on the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment check the Candidate Comparisons page.
The AP reports on the efforts of pro-marriage activists in Vermont to oppose that state’s recognition of same-sex marriages. Massachusetts is currently the only state that recognizes “gay marriages” but fortunately a nearly century-old law prohibits its spread to other states. If Vermont were to approve same-sex marriage it could initiate a nation-wide domino effect of judicially imposed gay marriages. This precarious situation illustrates the importance of ratifying a federal constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage.
Check out the AdvanceUSA marriage page or see how the presidential candidates stand on protecting marriage in our 2008 Candidate Comparisons.
 Please tell your friends and family in Florida about this important marriage issue. Apparently the state constitutional amendment is approximately 30,000 signatures short of reaching the 2008 ballot. Encourage Floridians who support traditional marriage to sign the petition and consider supporting the pro-marriage organization Florida4Marriage in other ways.
From our friends at Florida4Marriage:
Officials Report 30,000 Petitions Short in Unprecedented Recount: Immediate Action Needed to Collect More Petitions
(Tallahassee, FL) Monday January, 14, 2008. Leaders of Florida4Marriage.org declared a state of "constitutional emergency" today when they learned from Division of Elections officials that due to an "audit" ordered by the Division, the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment fell short by some 30,000 petitions. The state constitutional amendment seeks to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and would prohibit polygamy, group marriage, and same sex marriages in Florida.
According to state officials, only 589,020 petitions were officially certified after the unprecedented audit, leaving the petition effort just under 22,000 short of the needed 611,009 needed to be certified for the ballot in 2008. Florida4Marriage.org State Chairman John Stemberger said, "Right now, we are not interested in whose fault this is. We just want to finish the job -- and finish it immediately."
Amendment leaders are calling upon national, state and local pro-family leaders to alert Floridians to the crisis and to immediately pull out all stops to collect new petitions over the next two weeks. Stemberger said all petitions must be physically mailed or hand delivered into the state headquarters located at 4853 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando FL 32806, before close of business on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 (Presidential Primary Election Day). Under a new law, petitions can no longer be delivered to local county supervisors of elections by individual citizens. Petitions can only be received from the official sponsoring committee of the amendment.
To find out how you can help defend the sacred institution of marriage in the state of Florida check the Florida4Marriage.org website.
Related news articles: AP story in Bradenton Herald, Florida Today, Miami Herald
For more information on protecting marriage, check the AdvanceUSA marriage page. To see how the 2008 presidential candidates stand on the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment check the Candidate Comparisons page.
CitizenLink
reports on the important work going on in states across the country to ensure the traditional
definition of marriage is protected.
These are the states listed in the article:
Likely state constitutional amendment
votes in 2008:
Florida
California
Arizona
Indiana
Working toward future votes:
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Here’s a
piece of encouraging news from Oregon
for the New Year. A judge has halted the implementation of a domestic
partnership law for same-sex couples (which effectively grants the rights and
privileges of marriage to same sex couples) until the citizen signatures
gathered to overturn the law can be reassessed. Excerpt from LifeSite news article:
A federal judge in Portland
Oregon granted a temporary
injunction requested by pro-family activists, halting the implementation of a
law that would see homosexual couples afforded the same rights and privileges
granted to married heterosexual couples. The law was set to come into effect on
January 1, 2008.
The public interest legal alliance, the Alliance Defense
Fund, filed a lawsuit on Dec. 3, 2007, against the Oregon Secretary of State
and several county clerks, alleging that those offices had wrongfully
invalidated voters' signatures on a citizen referendum. If allowed to go
forward, the referendum would place onto the November 2008 ballot an option for
voters to repeal the state legislature's domestic partnership bill, HB 2007.
AdvanceUSA
has previously
reported on the effort of Oregonians to overturn two laws recently passed
by the legislature that provide the rights of marriage to same-sex
couples. The legislature passed these dangerous bills despite the fact
the people of Oregon
had democratically passed a constitutional amendment to protect the traditional
definition of marriage. We are encouraged that the will of the people to
protect the crucial institution of marriage might be heard after all.
For more
news and information on efforts to protect marriage click here.
The AP reports on the latest assault on traditional marriage in the guise of “marriage equality” though same-sex civil unions. Starting January 1, New Hampshire began conducting and recognizing same-sex civil unions for homosexual partners.
Marriage is the crucial foundation of a civilized society and ought to be an important issue in presidential politics. Let’s hope the voters in New Hampshire take the marriage issue into consideration when they head to the polls on Tuesday, January 8 during their “first-in-the-nation” presidential primary.
If you want to find out where the major presidential candidates stand on marriage check out AdvanceUSA’s 2008 Candidate Comparisons.
 We don’t often emphasize state issues here at AdvanceUSA unless they portend of things to come on the national level or across the country. The radically pro-homosexual education bills recently passed by the California legislature and signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger pose such a threat.
This CitizenLink article talks about the grassroots effort to overturn the homosexual indoctrination bills, or you can visit the Save Our Kids website for more information.
A
same-sex couple hoping to spread Massachusetts’
“gay marriage” laws to other states are insisting on getting a “divorce” in Rhode Island where
same-sex marriage is not recognized. The Boston Globe reports that the
couple is appealing their case after the RI Supreme Court ruled against
them (as reported here
at AdvanceUSA Blog recently).
The LA
Times reports on this outrageous
story of gay adoption. Excerpt:
Chad and David's attempt to bring a
child into the world involved a woman they barely knew. After fertilizing her
eggs in vitro using both men's sperm, another woman would carry the resulting
embryos to term. They had no idea whose DNA would carry the day.
HT: FRC
Proponents
of a state
constitutional amendment protecting marriage in Florida achieved a victory
yesterday. Excerpt from news article:
Floridians will vote in November on a constitutional
amendment to protect traditional marriage after the initiative apparently
surpassed on Dec. 12 the 611,009 requirement for qualified petitions to put the
proposal before voters in 2008.
CitizenLink reports.
Excerpt:
Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family
Research Council, said he questions the argument that gay couples desperately
need such legal benefits.
“This puts the lie to all of that," he said,
"because if it really was such a hardship to live as a partnered couple
without the benefits of marriage, then you would think they would all rush out
to sign up as soon as those legal benefits were available to them.”
A new
report from the eminent Heritage Foundation shows that the proposed expansion of
SCHIP would threaten
parental control of their children’s’ health and sexuality. As if
refusing to protect unborn children, expanding government spending, and
incrementally socializing health care weren’t bad enough, the SCHIP expansion
would also further radical concepts of sex education. Excerpt:
In their effort to override the President's veto of
legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP),
Members of Congress have added to the "compromise" legislation (H.R.
3963) two little noticed provisions that would undermine parents' right to
consent to--or even know about--medical care given to their children through
school-based health clinics. Such "medical care" could involve as
intimate and delicate a matter as giving contraceptives to children. If the
proposed legislation goes into effect, federal laws and regulations would make
contraception available to millions of children, for free, while prohibiting
doctors and schools from informing the children's parents.
For more
information on SCHIP check the SCHIP
category here at AdvanceUSA blog.
The
Alliance Defense Fund is helping in the legal fight to make sure legitimate signatures
that were collected in support of traditional marriage are lawfully counted.
Two laws approved by the legislature would provide domestic partnership to
same-sex couples, directly threatening the substance and spirit of Oregon’s voter-approved
marriage protection amendment, so signatures were gathered to allow Oregonian
voters to overturn the laws on the 2008 ballot. If the signatures are
declared valid, Oregonians would again be able to stand up for marriage in the
next election.
Jeff
Mapes reports on Oregon’s
same-sex domestic partnership issue as well.
Alan Sears, President of the Alliance Defense Fund, briefly summarizes the main threats to traditional marriage across the country and what ADF is doing in the legal arena to protect marriage from these assaults. Marriage is not just a religious issue but also an important legal issue that affects the very foundations of civilization.
In more encouraging news, polls in Florida show a vast majority support protecting marriage. And though recent polls in Indiana have shown a decrease in support, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of “one man and one woman” still garners more support than opposition.
The AP reports on this reversal, in substance, of the Oregon state
constitution marriage amendment.
AdvanceUSA attended a recent lecture on the Hill at
which Greg Koukl, Christian thinker and radio host, spoke about the secular
reasons to oppose same-sex (gay) marriage. Koukl made the point that
Christians must not be content to refute same-sex marriage simply theologically
but also must make substantive public policy arguments to show that protecting
traditional marriage is indeed a “compelling public interest” based on data and
plain reason. His material is well worth reading.
Koukl has
generously made his lecture notes available and our friends at Faith & Law
have kindly posted
them online. To find out about articles, audio files, and video by
Greg Koukl click here.
For more
information from AdvanceUSA on protecting traditional marriage click here or here.
John
Stemberger gives an excellent defense of the proposed Florida Marriage Protection
Amendment and in doing so refutes many of the
objections raised against a federal version. He compares current marriage laws and common
housing regulations to show that defining marriage as a union of only one man
and one woman does not constitute inappropriate discrimination.
The
Washington Blade (homosexual news publication) explains the
strategy of the “gay rights” agenda while offering critique to help
proponents obtain the ultimate goal of same-sex marriage. The article suggests a “incremental” approach
in which marriage and civil unions are not discussed until the public is
“ready.”
A
suggested plan of attack includes these stages of building in this order:
- Hate Crimes
- ENDA
- Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell”
- Permanent Partners
Immigration Act
- Civil Unions
- Repeal Defense of Marriage
Act and Overturn State Marriage Amendments
Click here
to read the full explanation.
The Daily
Mail reports on this outrageous case. This is an example of what can result
from laws dictating “tolerance” and “non-discrimination” towards
homosexuals. Congress would do well to consider cases like this when they
vote next week on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 3685).
More on
ENDA here and here.
Oregon already has a marriage amendment,
but liberal activists managed to convince the state legislature to pass two
laws which awarded privileges suspiciously similar to marriage to same-sex
couples. An AP
report continues:
State elections officials reported Monday that the effort
fell short 116 valid signatures of the 55,179 needed to suspend the law and
place it on the November 2008 ballot for a popular vote.
In an effort
to protect against cervical cancer, some lawmakers and medical professionals advocate
making HPV vaccines mandatory for adolescent girls. As the following
press release demonstrates there are significant concerns regarding the safety
of these drugs. Furthermore, since the human papillomavirus (HPV), often
a precursor to cervical cancer, is a sexually transmitted disease forcing girls
to receive it can significantly undermine parental decisions regarding their
daughter’s personal health and sexuality.
Below is
a press release from Judicial Watch which exposes some of the serious health concerns with a
particular form of HPV vaccine:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: 202-646-5188
October 5, 2007
Judicial Watch
Uncovers New FDA Records Detailing Deaths in
1,824 Adverse Reaction
Reports Related to HPV Vaccine
Judicial Watch Sues
FDA for Producing “Partial Response” to FOIA Request
(Washington, DC) -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group
that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released new
documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing 1,824 reports of
adverse reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil,
including as many as eight deaths related to the vaccine. Judicial Watch
had previously obtained 1,637 reports relating to Gardasil on May 15, 2007,
bringing the known total to 3,461 adverse reactions including eleven deaths
since FDA approval. Among the new information uncovered by Judicial
Watch:
 AdvanceUSA is happy to report that the efforts to protect marriage in Oregon have seen success. Earlier this year the Oregon legislature passed two laws which overturn the 2004 voter-approved state marriage amendment. These laws, among other things, would award marriage benefits to same-sex couples. The group Restore America announced Wednesday that they have collected 63,000 signatures, approximately 7,500 more than needed, to halt the enforcement of the laws and allow them to be overturned by a vote of the people next year.
Below is the Restore America press release announcing the signature collection success:
It’s
finally happened. A judge in New
York State
has ruled that out-of-state “gay” marriages must be
recognized for purposes of receiving state benefits. Activist judges
continue to show a ready willingness to force same-sex marriage on the people
of this nation with or without their consent. The case for a federal
marriage amendment grows even stronger.
The Heritage Foundation has just released an
embarrassing report (for opponents of school choice) that shows 37% of
Representatives and 45% of Senators send their children to private schools. Excerpt:
Based on the survey results, if
all of the Members who exercised school choice for their own children had
supported school choice in policy, every major legislative effort in recent
years to give parents school choice would have passed. Congress should support
policies that give all families the opportunity to choose the best school
options for their children.
As
CitizenLink reports, there is a bill before the California
legislature
that would force same-sex marriage upon its citizens even after a
sizeable majority supported a state-wide marriage initiative in 2000.
Unfortunately the legalization of “gay” marriage is not the only issue facing
Californians. Other bills before the legislature would:
“teach public school children age 5 and older to be
accepting of homosexuality, cross-dressing and bisexuality; end local oversight
of school discrimination policies;…and allow HIV-positive men to donate sperm,
with no guarantee that the child conceived in the process would be HIV-free.”
Source: CitizenLink
As if the need for a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage from the rulings of activist judges were not already apparent, a county judge in Iowa has just overturned the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) ruling that gay couples must be allowed to wed. The ruling proves that legislation alone is insufficient to protect against homosexual marriage. Several states have passed marriage protection amendments (many by large majorities), and it increasingly becomes apparent that a federal version will be necessary as well.
 
For more information on protecting traditional marriage check the AdvanceUSA marriage page.
 Tuesday afternoon AdvanceUSA, along with educators,
community leaders, and education advocates, attended the “Compassion in Action
Roundtable” sponsored by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives. The topic of the roundtable was “Real Choices for
Educational Improvement: How Faith-Based and Community Organizations Help
Bridge the Achievement Gap.”
A number
of government, church, educational, and community leaders shared success
stories of rising test scores and parental satisfaction because of the
intervention of faith-based and community organizations. Among the
speakers were Bishop William Lori who spoke about the dramatic improvements in
inner city schools in Bridgeport,
Connecticut as well as Sally
Sachar, Virginia Walden-For, and Chris Kelly who highlighted the DC Opportunity
Scholarship Program which benefits low income families in the nation’s capital.
AdvanceUSA
was pleased to hear several speakers emphasize the need for school
choice. Two general categories of school choice were discussed.
Vouchers are direct payments by the government to parents or
schools in order to provide for students’ private or public education thus
providing more options than just the local school district.
Tax Credits allow parents to deduct some or all of their tuition
payments from their taxes, or they give individuals or businesses a tax credit
for contributing to a non-public school scholarship fund. Some school
choice advocates prefer this method as it minimizes government involvement in
private school affairs.
The U.S.
Department of Education’s new report entitled “Education Options in the States:
State Programs that Provide Financial Assistance for Attendance at Private
Elementary or Secondary Schools” was also highlighted at the event and can
be read online here.
AdvanceUSA
hopes this interesting and inspiring meeting will help advance the cause of
school choice for parents and further improve the state of education in America through
the efforts of faith-based and community initiatives.
For more
information on school choice ideas check the AdvanceUSA pro-family page.
A new Barna poll finds that the issue of most concern to American voters is their children. While our friends on the left no doubt will see this as evidence the American people want bigger government, hopefully it will provide motivation for political candidates to show how conservatism truly benefits our nation and our children.
The 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Oklahoma’s law prohibiting
gay adoption is unconstitutional. The court said that Oklahoma violated the
“full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution by not recognizing the
laws of other states. This is the same argument that has and will be used
to force “gay marriage” on states that do not recognize it unless a federal
constitutional amendment defending traditional marriage is ratified.
For more
information on defending traditional marriage click here. For more
information on pro-family issues click here.
UPDATE: In a recent TownHall
column Austin Hill asks “is
the ‘M’ word the same as the ‘C’ word” referring to the fact that homosexual
“civil unions” are in many ways just another term for “gay
marriage.”
At the
recent YouTube Democrat debate the 2008 presidential candidates were asked
whether or not they support the right of same-sex couples to “marry.”
Here is what the candidates (except Sen. Hillary Clinton whose comments on the
federal marriage amendment are included below) had to say…
Below is
video of a Hillary Clinton campaign speech in which she gives her views on the
federal marriage amendment which defines marriage as the union of one man and
one woman only. She also mentions ENDA, a bill in Congress which would
grant special “rights” and privileges to homosexuals regarding employment
matters.
A court in Pennsylvania has awarded custody of two children to three parents. The mother, her lesbian partner, and the sperm-donor father were all awarded custody rights of “Co. J” and “Ca. J” (only abbreviations of the children’s names were used in the court document to protect their identities) and are required to pay child support.
Concerned citizens should remember that “if marriage (family) means everything, marriage (family) means nothing.”
For more news and information on the battle to preserve traditional marriage click here.
Liberals
in Congress are apparently constantly on the lookout for ways to undermine
traditional marriage. Appropriations
bills for the District of Columbia
have normally been structured to prevent federal funds from being used to
support domestic partnership programs, but House Democrats neglected to include
these stipulations in this year's D.C. appropriations. Fortunately an amendment proposed by Rep.
Virgil Goode (R-VA), which prevents the federal government
from supporting Washington's domestic partnership programs (Disclaimer:
this article is from a gay publication), passed in the House last Thursday.
Today George
Will writes about the outrageous case in Oakland, California in which
government employees were forbidden to mention such “offensive” words as
“natural family,” “marriage,” and “family values.” This is a blatant
assault on First Amendment rights of free speech. Unfortunately, many
in American political discourse have sought through legislation or the courts
to silence the views of their ideological opponents rather than engaging them
in open debate.
Liberal
activists, still excited about their recent victory in depriving the people of
Massachusetts the opportunity to vote on a marriage amendment, are now going
after a 1913 law. The law specifies that Massachusetts
cannot marry people who would not be allowed to marry in their home
state. This 1913 law is all that prevents activists from spreading
gay-marriage across the country by making Massachusetts
the “Las Vegas
of gay marriage.”
In another troublesome development in the fight to preserve traditional marriage, a Vermont judge has awarded visitation rights to the former lesbian partner of a Virginia mother. The biological mother renounced homosexuality and took her child to Virginia, but since she had been part of a “civil union” in Vermont, the judge awarded visitation rights to the former partner. This is compelling evidence of the unacceptability of “civil unions” and other attempts to tamper with the traditional definition of marriage.
For more information on the movement to defend marriage check the AdvanceUSA marriage page.
At today’s constitutional convention in Massachusetts, the legislature voted 45-151 to prevent the proposed marriage amendment, which would have protected the traditional definition of marriage, from being voted on by citizens in 2008. So judges in Massachusetts can vote on the definition of marriage, but citizens can’t?
Massachusetts has continually been in the forefront of the marriage debate. This Thursday a constitutional convention will be held in Massachusetts to determine if a proposed constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage will be placed on the 2008 ballot. If 50 members of the state legislature vote in support of the amendment, the people of Massachusetts will decide what constitutes marriage in their state. Let’s hope Massachusetts will soon start taking a positive leadership role in the marriage debate.
For more information on protecting marriage check the AdvanceUSA marriage page.
Not surprisingly, Governor Patrick has indicated that he would consider postponing the vote in the Massachusetts constitutional convention on the state’s marriage amendment in order to scrounge up enough votes to kill it. If the bill receives at least 50 votes from Massachusetts’ legislators the people of Massachusetts will be able to vote on the amendment (which would preserve the traditional definition of marriage, one man and one woman) in 2008.
If passed, this would be the first same-sex marriage bill passed by a state legislature without having had a court order them to do so.
Here’s a helpful reminder of the proposed marriage amendment in Massachusetts that would protect traditional marriage in that state from being redefined by the courts. The citizens of Massachusetts should be allowed to vote on this issue!
Radical gay groups are trying to equate opposition to homosexual marriage with opposition to racially mixed marriages. The left has no shame.
UPDATE: To see the groups' advertisement, which uses a picture Jeb Bush and his wife (a racially mixed marriage), click here.
Marriage statistics in Massachusetts reveal that the number of "gay marriages" has been falling sharply. Perhaps even homosexuals themselves aren't too excited about "gay marriage."
Since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opened the door for homosexual marriage in 2004, one of the chief concerns has been out-of-state gay couples going to Massachusetts to be married if their home state does not issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Well it turns out that the concern was valid since New Yorkers who went to Massachusetts before a New York court ruled against gay marriage have had their marriages validated by a Massachusetts judge.
In 1987 an article was published in a gay publication that outlined a comprehensive strategy for legitimizing and then promoting homosexuality throughout our society. Looking back over 20 years shows just how faithfully its advice was heeded and applied. "The Overhauling of Straight America" (PDF file) should be read carefully by concerned citizens.
Though conservatives are often accused of seeking to "force their morality on others," in reality we merely oppose having a secular and unbiblical morality forced on us. Christians should speak the truth in love to homosexuals and liberal activists, but that does not mean we should appologize for not wanting the homosexual agenda forced upon us and our children.
Paul Weyrich discusses the need for a la carte programming. Greater freedom is almost always preferable and families could stand to reap the most benefit.
The A-PLUS Act was recently proposed and would amend the No Child Left Behind Act to allow states and communities to increase flexibility and decrease federal control. The following video by the Heritage Foundation explains these reform measures in depth.
|
|
|
| |