Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Apr. 6th, 2005 09:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdThe last two articles are particularly interesting, one because of the sheer goofiness of it, the second because it's Newt Gingrich endorsing the idea of firing huge swaths of the judiciary and replacing them with more compliant judges.
* Longer form of the filibuster-rules-change conservative/fundamentalist alliance group - includes an action item;
* Focus on the Family action item providing free phone calls to senators and representatives for judicial nominee rule changes;
* Focus on the Family article suggesting judges who rule in ways they dislike ("legislate from the bench") should be impeached - includes action item for both Senate rules-change and urging impeachments;
* FotF article promoting the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund's "National Day of Truth" action on campus - participants will pass out literature condemning gayfolk and promoting "ex-homosexual" organisations;
* FotF article on congressman calling for criminalisation of "indecency" (with criminal charges instead of fines) - appears unlikely, but includes an action calling for more "indecency" actions to be taken by the FCC;
* As expected, Kansas passed its anti-marriage amendment - FotF's "news brief" story;
* Colorado governor Bill Owens vetoes a bill requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims - action item to congratulate and thank him included;
* Focus on the Family daily Family News in Focus broadcast; Citizen Magazine (published by FotF) feature article promoting the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund's "Day of Truth";
* Concerned Women for America article claiming homosexuals want to criminalise Christianity;
* CWA article crowing about anti-marriage amendment passing in Kansas;
* CWA article blaming gayfolk for the anti-gay Boy Scouts of America head having child porn, call for "stronger stand on homosexuality" by Scouts;
* USA TODAY article on backlash to GOP moral activism;
* Traditional Values Coalition claims credit for getting Patricia Ireland removed from the YWCA board of directors in 2003 because of her bisexuality - had launched campaign to do so, which succeeded;
* TVC claims to have gotten Bay Windows - a Boston-area gay-published newspaper they call pornographic - out of three supermarket chains - also urges fight against "Day of Silence" pro-gay-rights student action, wanting to see it banned;
* TVC rails against TS women again, says people with gender identity disorder should be institutionalised for insanity;
* Agape Press article talking about "pro-family" anti-marriage-rights victories;
* South Carolina House Judiciary Committee approves bill giving a fertilised embryo equal protection and due process rights - yes, these rights begin at fertilization... for the sane in our audience, only about 40% of fertilised eggs even implant to begin the process of becoming a foetus, and yes, if the report is right, this would outlaw many fertility treatments;
* Newt Gingrich advocates firing most of the judiciary and restaffing with new justices more of his liking.
----- 1 -----
End the Filibuster Coalition Formed
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
Focus on the Family
April 5, 2005
Conservative groups are urging Congress to do whatever it takes to end Senate blockage of judicial nominees.
http://family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036099.cfm
A coalition of almost 200 conservative organizations is asking the Republican leadership of the U.S. Senate to take swift action to end the Democrat-led filibusters against President Bush's nominees to the federal bench.
The groups, with constituencies of tens of millions of Americans, ask GOP leadership in a letter to quickly enact the "constitutional option"—breaking the filibusters (which require 60 votes to overcome) by reestablishing the Senate tradition of 51 votes being sufficient for a nominee's confirmation.
Democrats have threatened to shut down the Senate if Republicans take such action to end the obstructionism that has prevented 10 qualified candidates from receiving up-or-down votes.
David Keene, who heads the American Conservative Union—one of the coalition members—said Republicans must act quickly.
"It's apparent that there is no other option," he said, "because this minority in the Senate is willing to use whatever tools it can find to work its will on the majority."
Coalition head Manny Miranda agreed.
"Our coalition is to express to the GOP leadership and conference that they should go forward," he said. "They can go forward, and they should do it on a timely basis."
Focus on the Family President Jim Daly signed the coalition letter, as well. He said the president's nominees need to be confirmed to check a radical judiciary that is tearing America's moral values apart.
"We have so much work to do, it should be sooner than later," he said of the need for the GOP to act quickly. "If we wait any longer, it will cause us more difficulty."
Gary Bauer, president of American Values, echoed that sentiment.
"The message to the Republican leadership is 'The clock is running—it's time to act,' " Bauer said, " 'You've tried everything else, and the people that elected you across the country, millions of Americans, at least in part, elected (you) because they anticipated that (you) would change the courts.' "
An opportunity for Republicans to move to break the filibusters could come as soon as this week, since a committee vote on filibustered nominee Priscilla Owen is scheduled for Thursday.
TAKE ACTION
Please take a moment to call your U.S. senators today and ask that they support the "constitutional option" to restore a simple majority as the threshold for confirming judicial nominees. For contact information, visit the CitizenLink Action Center and type your ZIP code into the space provided.
----- 2 -----
CITIZENLINK
Focus on the Family
April 6, 2005
Place a Free Phone Call to Your Senators about Judicial
Filibusters
http://family.org/cforum/fosi/government/courts/supreme/a0035340.cfm
You have a unique opportunity today to make sure your U.S.
senators get an accurate read on public sentiment over the
continued filibustering of President Bush's judicial
nominees.
A left-wing pressure group leading the charge to justify
Democrats' abuse of filibusters to block conservative
court nominees is asking its supporters to flood
Washington with pro-filibuster phone calls today and
Thursday. The group, People for the American Way, has even
set up a special toll-free phone number that rings right
to the Capitol switchboard -- but it's only good through
the end of the day Thursday.
The number is 1-866-808-0065 -- and we encourage you to
use it to give your senators the other side of the story.
Simply dial and ask to be transferred to your senators'
offices; you'll have to call twice, to reach both of them,
and it may take a while for the call to connect or for
someone to answer. After you're connected to your
senator's office, explain that you support a return to the
constitutional tradition of 51 votes being sufficient to
confirm a judicial nominee, not the unprecedented 60 votes
required to break a filibuster.
The short version of that message: I support the
"constitutional option" to end judicial filibusters.
Should you need more detailed information about the
judicial crisis created by Senate liberals -- and why
their filibusters must be brought to an end -- visit the
Focus on the Social Issues Web site.
----- 3 -----
Judicial Impeachment Mulled
by Stuart Shepard, correspondent
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Some family advocates are raising the specter of
removing federal judges who legislate from the bench.
Some family advocates are hinting at the possibility of
impeaching federal judges -- as provided for in the
Constitution -- as part of the fallout of the Terri
Schiavo case.
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior manager for special
legislative projects at Focus on the Family, said it's an
idea worth pursuing given the current "constitutional
crisis" gripping the courts. After all, she pointed out,
when Congress called on the federal courts last month to
take a new look at the Schiavo case, they took a pass.
"Congress has jurisdiction over the judiciary, and they
assigned them a task," Earll noted. "They said, 'We want
you to go back and . . . take a fresh look at Terri
Schiavo's cases.' And the court basically said, 'Yeah, we
get a paycheck from you, but we're not interested today.'
"
While the U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court,
all other federal courts were created by Congress --
giving it some power over what happens in the judicial
branch of our government.
"There needs to be some serious contemplation," Earll
said, "about what the role of the judiciary is, and what
Congress' authority is, to try and bring it back under
control, so that we do have a balance of power. As people
look at that, impeachment may be one thing that is
suggested."
She quickly added, however, that such action is not
something to be considered lightly.
Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary,
agreed that the courts should be closely scrutinized.
"One of the things that really should come into focus now
is reining in the discretionary powers of the court," she
explained. "It's not enough to nominate good judges and
just hope for the best when they get on the court."
Still, Daly said the recent actions of the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals, which refused to hear several Schiavo
appeals, rose to the level of impeachment.
TAKE ACTION: Please take a moment to contact your U.S.
senators and ask them to: 1) support the "constitutional
option" to restore a simple majority as the threshold for
confirming judicial nominees; and 2) to examine whether
impeachment is a good idea for disciplining judges who try
to legislate from the bench.
For contact information, visit the CitizenLink Action
Center and type your ZIP code into the space provided.
http://www.family.org/cforum/action_center.cfm?capwizurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efamily%2Eorg%2Fcitizenaction
In addition, we recommend Phyllis Schlafly's book, "The
Supremacists: the Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It,"
to help you understand the assault the judiciary is making
on society -- and what we can do about it.
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=5001&refcd=CE05DCZL&tvar=no
----- 4 -----
CITIZENLINK FEATURE:
ADF Breaks the Silence
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: April 14 is the Day of Truth -- a chance for
Christian students to take a stand for God's design of
sexuality.
http://family.org/cforum/feature/a0036123.cfm
The first-ever Day of Truth will be held nationwide April
14, with the goal of encouraging Christian students to
respectfully challenge the pro-homosexual viewpoints
pervading public schools.
The event, the brainchild of the Alliance Defense Fund
(ADF), is designed as a counterpoint to April 13's Day of
Silence, a project of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight
Education Network (GLSEN) that encourages students to take
a day-long vow of silence "to recognize and protest the
discrimination and harassment -- in effect, the silencing
-- experienced by (gay) students and their allies."
GLSEN says as many as 300,000 students will participate
this year.
ADF doesn't expect that many to take part in the Day of
Truth's inaugural year, but it does hope to breed courage
among thousands of students who believe homosexuality is
wrong and has consequences. ADF lead counsel Joe Infranco
explained that unless Christians do something, soon
Americans will have little choice but to affirm the
homosexual lifestyle.
"This is the tip of the spear," he said. "Many students
don't want to stand alone, but if they know that others
are standing up for what's right, they will be more apt to
say, 'I've never really agreed with what we've been taught
and I don't see this as normal.'
"The schools are telling our kids that (homosexuality) is
a legitimate choice and we know it isn't. We don't have
to accept the school's version."
Students will proclaim their participation in the Day of
Truth by wearing T-shirts that read: "The Truth Cannot Be
Silenced." They also will be encouraged to hand out cards
with an unflinching message: "I am speaking the Truth to
break the silence. I believe in equal treatment for all,
and not special rights for a few. I believe in loving my
neighbor, but part of that love means not condoning
detrimental personal and social behavior. I believe that
by boldly proclaiming the Truth, hurts will be halted,
hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved."
As for the Day of Silence, Infranco said it's improperly
named, since schools are hardly silent about
homosexuality.
"They are enamored by it," he said.
What's more, it's not tolerance that GLSEN is after. It's
acceptance and normalization of homosexuality as the moral
and biological equivalent to heterosexuality.
That's evident in organizers' zero-tolerance approach to
dissent -- something California high school student Chase
Harper is all too familiar with. Harper protested the Day
of Silence at his school last year by wearing a shirt that
read: "I Will Not Accept What God Has Condemned." He was
asked to remove the shirt and reprimanded.
ADF has since helped Harper by taking his case to the
California courts. The school argues that it must keep the
students safe and that Harper's shirt was disruptive,
while ADF asserts that any school allowing the Day of
Silence must allow the Day of Truth.
"Students have First Amendment rights," Infranco said,
adding that ADF stands ready to provide legal counsel to
students if a problem arises from their participation in
the Day of Truth.
And problems are likely, courtesy of teachers and
principals who will follow the example of Harper's school
administrators by limiting students' rights in the name of
"keeping schools safe." GLSEN has intentionally preyed on
such emotions, using safety as the platform on which it
has carried its message that homosexuality is normal and
natural.
"We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card --
safety -- and explained how homophobia represents a threat
to students' safety by creating a climate where violence,
name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common,"
GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings has admitted. "Titling our
report, 'Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,'
we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive
and stole their best line of attack. This . . .
short-circuited their arguments and left them
back-peddling from day one."
But Dr. Warren Throckmorton, an associate professor at
Pennsylvania's Grove City College and producer of "I Do
Exist," a video spotlighting the evidence that life change
is possible for homosexuals, said the safest place to go
to school is a campus where the teachings of Christ are
practiced.
"People following the teachings of Jesus will be the
biggest benefit to gay students," Throckmorton noted.
"Befriend them and build a relationship with them -- the
person truly living out Christ's teaching is going to be
the safest friend a gay student can have."
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Call (800) TELL-ADF or visit the
Alliance Defense Fund Web site to find out how to take
part in the Day of Truth.
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/actions/Default.aspx?mid=410&cid=3308
----- 5 -----
CONGRESSMAN WANTS INDECENCY CRIMINALIZED:
If the FCC won't rein in indecent broadcasters, should the
courts take over?
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: The FCC hasn't had much success in reining in
indecent broadcasters, but should the courts take over the
job?
http://family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036119.cfm
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee thinks the
fight against broadcast indecency needs to be taken to the
next level, recommending criminal prosecution of
offenders.
In a recent speech to cable industry executives, U.S. Rep.
James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said the power to threaten
those who flagrantly disregard decency standards with
prosecution could be a powerful deterrent.
But disbelief will be the likely attitude of broadcasters
if Sensenbrenner follows through with his plan, according
to Randy Sharp, director of special projects for the
American Family Association.
"I don't think there's any question," he said, "that
Congress wants to get something done to protect our
children and our families from indecency on the network
stations."
Though Sensenbrenner has developed no legislation, and
declined to comment on his plans, Congress already has
bills that would increase fines for broadcast indecency,
make sexual enhancement ads indecent and require cable
choice.
All that variety has Sharp uneasy.
"There are going to be so many out there that everyone's
pushing their own agenda in Washington, and so nothing
gets passed," Sharp said.
While most of the proposals being considered are supported
by pro-family groups, Bob Peters, president of Morality in
Media, said criminalizing indecency might not work.
"At this moment in our nation's history, I don't think
that is the answer," he said. "I think the answer is for
the (Federal Communications Commission) to do its job in
terms of administrative enforcement of the broadcast
indecency law."
TAKE ACTION: The Federal Communications Commission has
recently had a change in leadership. Please take time to
send messages encouraging the commission's members to take
effective action to implement and enforce decency
standards for all forms of broadcasting.
To send e-mails to commission members, please see the
CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/agencies/?id=4889&dir=fof&command=depresult2&submit.x=14&submit.y=8
----- 6 -----
Kansans Overwhelmingly Approve Marriage Amendment
In an election that typically sees a low voter turnout of
around 10-15 percent, Kansans turned out in force Tuesday
to vote for a marriage-protection amendment.
Not only was turnout high, but of the 105 counties in
Kansas, 104 voted to protect marriage as the union of a
man and a woman. The final statewide vote -- which saw 69
percent favor the amendment -- makes Kansas the 18th state
to adopt a marriage-protection amendment.
"Kansas has provided yet another example of the fact that
every time American voters are given the opportunity to
defend marriage at the polls, they do so by wide margins,"
said Tom Minnery, vice president of government and public
policy for Focus on the Family.
"Although gay activists often work through their allies in
the judiciary to circumvent the will of the people, the
true view of the American public could not be more
apparent. The citizens of Kansas have helped ensure the
sanctity of marriage in their state; we look forward to
the day when all Americans can enjoy this same protection
through a federal marriage amendment."
----- 7 -----
Colorado Governor Vetoes Anti-Life Legislation
Colorado Gov. Bill Owens vetoed a bill Tuesday that would
have required all hospitals to inform rape victims of
so-called "emergency contraception," as well as dispense
the high-dose hormones at the women's request.
While the legislation seemed innocuous to many, it did not
require health care professionals to explain the actual
ways in which the pill works: It can prevent the
implantation of a tiny embryo in the uterine wall.
In addition, the bill did not provide an exemption for
religious hospitals with moral objections to contraception
and abortion.
"This bill would violate fundamental constitutional
principles by forcing an institution to say things to
patients that it explicitly does not believe to be morally
or ethically valid," Owens said. "Allowing such a
provision to become law would cross a constitutional line
that we must not cross."
TAKE ACTION: Let Colorado Gov. Bill Owens know you
appreciate his veto of this legislation. For contact
information, including an easy-to-use e-mail form, visit
the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/bio/?id=9480&lvl=S&chamber=G
----- 8 -----
Family News in Focus
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Focus on the Family
Bob Ditmer
* The FCC hasn’t had much success in reigning in indecent broadcasters – maybe the courts should take over the job.
4. Sensenbrenner - see above. "Congress wants to get something done to protect families from indecency." He has no bill yet and responded with no comment when asked about it. Bob Peters of Morality In Media says it "might not work." "I think the answer is for the FCC to do its job in terms of administration enforcement of the broadcast indecency law." "Courts would like to throw out any law that defines indecency."
* Should federal judges who legislate from the bench be impeached? Some are raising the possibility.
1. "But what about removing jurists who shouldn't be there in the first place?" "Congress has jurisdiction over the judiciary, and they assigned them a task - we told you to go back to take a fresh look at the Terri Schievo case" and they "didn't." Lots of use of the "balance of power" rhetoric, lots of "bringing the courts back under control" and "reigning in the discretionary power of the court." Coalition for a Fair Judiciary calls for impacements - "It's not enough to nominate good judges and hope for the best when they get on the court."
* The nation pauses to pray again this year on the National Day of Prayer. 'God’s Grace' is this year’s theme.
7. "God shed his grace on thee" is given as the theme in the story. Talk about theme song. "Theme was chosen because America... needs the grace of god. "The election last year was very important for us..." and America needs god's grace. "Every day is a good day to pray." - President Bush.
* Texas Senator John Cornyn wondered aloud on the Senate floor this week if there might be a connection between recent courthouse violence and increasingly activist judges. His comments are a sign of the frustration in congress with the judiciary.
3. Famous quote, posted a couple of days ago. "The statement is an indication that Cornyn and many of his colleges are frustrated with [judges] usurp Congressional authority and make laws, instead of enforcing them."
* The courts continue to redefine marriage. A California appeals court ruled homosexuals should have the same rights as married couples.
2. Ruling that CA Defense of Marriage Initiative isn't violated by domestic partner legislation. Alliance Defense Fund (see above) hates this a lot, wanted it overturned.
* Science is again causing a moral dilemma in medicine.
6. "Many women receive only negative information when they are told they are carrying a baby with Down's Syndrome." "[This information] can also be used to abort a child."
* NOT LISTED IN SUMMARY: article on gangs.
5. Bill to increase federal funding to all levels of law enforcement. Requires death penalty or life in prison for murder. Complaint that Federal courts are not set up to handle local crimes. "Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act," has FOP endorsement.
----- 9 -----
Citizen Magazine
Focus on the Family
Silence v. the Truth
In protest of so called homophobia, thousands of students won't say a word on April 13 to protest "homophobia," but will Christians be allowed to say a word about the truth of homosexuality?
by Kermit Rainman
http://family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0036012.cfm
On April 13, thousands of American schoolchildren will participate in a "Day of Silence." They will refuse to utter a single word, not even in response to a teacher's question, in recognition of so-called discrimination and harassment—the silencing—experienced by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender peers. These silent protesters will wear special T-shirts and hand out "speaking cards" explaining their concerns. Many schools will also host follow-up events, called "Breaking the Silence," which include workshops, speakers, and entertainment—all meant to reinforce the message that "homophobia" will not be tolerated.
Day of Silence is organized by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which also encourages the formation of Gay/Straight Alliance student clubs in schools across the country. Its Day of Silence began in 1996 with 150 participants at one university, but has since grown to 300,000 participants at 3,000 schools, colleges and universities in all 50 states.
The Day of Silence appears to have helped shape students' views of homosexuality. In 2001, a random poll of high school seniors revealed that most hold pro-homosexual views:
• Two-thirds said same-sex marriages should be legal (compared to one-third of adults overall in recent polls).
• Sixty-eight percent say homosexual couples should be able to adopt children.
• Eighty-eight percent support hate crimes legislation.
But what happens when a Christian student whose views on homosexuality differ from the pro-homosexual message of the Day of Silence? Will they be shown tolerance?
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
CWA of Virginia Co-Hosts Meeting for Pastors
4/6/2005
By CWA Staff
CWA’s Knight speaks on same-sex ‘marriage,’ cultural war against Christianity.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/7856/CWA/family/index.htm
“Who will Define Marriage in Virginia?” Last Thursday Concerned Women for America (CWA) of Virginia and the Virginia Eagle Forum hosted a Pastor’s Breakfast in Fairfax, Virginia, to discuss that question.
Robert Knight, director of CWA's Culture and Family Institute, spoke about the link between the battle over same-sex marriage and the war on Christianity in the culture. State Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax) discussed the possibility of a Virginia marriage amendment from a legislative standpoint. Walt Barbee, founder and president emeritus of the Family Foundation of Virginia, encouraged Virginians to become more active in the battle to save marriage.
CWA of Virginia’s State Director Patricia Phillips said, “The pastors appreciated the opportunities to meet other pastors and leaders concerned about the moral decline and were encouraged that a coordinated effort was being made to help stem the tide.”
In his remarks, Knight pointed out that many people supported marriage at the polls last November in order to protest America's sexualized and increasingly coarse culture.
"This gave them a way to say, 'enough,'" Knight said. Citing the Terri Schiavo case, last year's Super Bowl halftime-show debacle with Janet Jackson, and other cultural outrages, he pointed out: "Marriage shouldn't be viewed as if it were in a vacuum, but as the single most important symbolic battle in the culture war."
As a former Los Angeles Times editor, Knight said he had never seen such systematic bias in reporting on any issue, and he warned that if homosexual activists succeed with their agenda, "We will shortly see the criminalization of Christianity. After all, if Biblical morality is recast as a form of bigotry, and this notion is enshrined in the law, God-fearing people will find themselves on the wrong side of the law. The civil rights enforcement apparatus will be turned against us."
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Kansas Passes Marriage Protection Amendment 4/6/2005
By Emma Elliott
High turnout results in landslide victory.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/7858/CWA/family/index.htm
Kansas became the eighteenth state yesterday to incorporate a marriage protection amendment into its constitution, which voters approved by a landslide 70 percent.
Turnout is estimated at 30-35 percent, compared to an average 10-12 percent in other off-year votes.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) of Kansas worked actively in all stages of the process leading up to the vote. The marriage amendment first had to clear the state Legislature before being placed on the ballot for the people to decide. Members of CWA of Kansas testified before legislative committees in support of the amendment and lobbied their representatives. They encouraged as many people as possible to call their representatives’ offices to express their support for marriage.
CWA of Kansas worked through two legislative sessions to ensure that legislators realized how important this issue was to the state. The marriage amendment failed to pass in the first session.
Last November’s election, however, brought many new pro-family legislators into office. In January, the new legislature swiftly approved the amendment with a two-thirds majority. CWA of Kansas State Director Judy Smith said she had never seen a piece of legislation pass so quickly.
Once the amendment was placed on the ballot, CWA of Kansas formed a coalition with several other pro-family organizations to encourage people to go out and vote to protect marriage.
“The people of Kansas finally got their chance to speak and they have spoken out in favor of traditional marriage. As important as the opportunity to speak is the fact that they did speak out in numbers that belied the pundits’ predictions,” remarked Judy Smith. “They joined the campaign to protect marriage by voting, supporting the campaign with their treasure, placing yard signs, writing letters, praying and in many other ways. Their voices have been heard.”
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Top Leader of Boy Scouts of America Pleads Guilty to Child Porn Charges
4/5/2005
Douglas Sovereign Smith, the former national head of programs for the Boy Scouts of America has admitted to possession and distribution of child pornography. Bob Knight, director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute says this is a disturbing development that he hopes will spark a stronger stand on homosexuality by the national Scouting office. Click here to listen.
"Smith... chared with federal child pornography." "Well, the scouts have been reticent to defend themselves often... we urge them over and over to make the case that the Scouts shouldn't have to accomodate homosexual scouts or scoutmasters..." Says the BSA hasn't been anti-gay enough, imply that he was secretly queer [Ed. note: there is no evidence of this whatsoever, or they'd have brought it out], claim that the fault was that "the Scouts have to be more forthcoming about all the way they work to protect kids from predators." Claims the Scouts are trying "to do the appeasement route" by not officially banning gayfolk from working for the Scouts in non-scoutmater/non-scout roles.
Calls for Scouts to demand that the Soutleaders demand that the national organisation adopt a stronger, categorical anti-gay stance, and be active about it. "This is wrong, we don't want it around the kids - this shouldn't be a complex issue. It should be very clear." "They just say they have a right not to allow homosexuals. They don't say why. I think it's time."
----- 13 -----
GOP's moral agenda doubted
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
Posted 4/5/2005 7:37 PM Updated 4/5/2005 11:28 PM
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-05-gop-poll_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
WASHINGTON — The controversy over Terri Schiavo has raised concerns among many Americans about the moral agenda of the Republican Party and the political power of conservative Christians, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds. (Related: Poll results)
In the survey, most Americans disapprove of the efforts by President Bush and Congress to draw federal courts into the dispute over treatment of the brain-damaged Florida woman. She died last week.
Some old stereotypes about the two parties have been reversed:
• By 55%-40%, respondents say Republicans, traditionally the party of limited government, are "trying to use the federal government to interfere with the private lives of most Americans" on moral values.
• By 53%-40%, they say Democrats, who sharply expanded government since the Depression, aren't trying to interfere on moral issues.
The debate over Schiavo has spotlighted the central role "values" issues — abortion, stem-cell research, same-sex marriage and the right to live or die — now play in politics.
Mark Rozell, a professor at George Mason University in Virginia who studies religion and politics, says the case has created a "clear backlash."
"It's one thing to look at religious conservatives as part of a broad coalition that makes up the Republican Party," he says. "It's entirely another if people think that religious conservatives are calling the shots in the Bush administration for what was a deeply personal situation."
But Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition says a poll his group commissioned shows wide support for those who sought to preserve Schiavo's life when the issue is placed "in the broader context of protecting the rights of the disabled."
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
TVC Credited With Firing Of Bisexual From YWCA Leadership Post
Traditional Values Coalition
http://traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2222
April 7, 2005 -- The Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (GLHRC) has just published a new report that credits TVC with getting bisexual, pro-abortionist Patricia Ireland fired from the YWCA in 2003.
The report, “Written Out: How Sexuality Is Used To Attack Women’s Organizing,” describes TVC’s media campaign on pages 73-75 of the online PDF report.
The report notes that technological advances have allowed increasing use of web activism “that elicits fast mobilization of conservative constituencies. As a result, targeted lesbian- and sexuality-baiting can stretch across a country or the globe with a few clicks of a computer mouse.”
Written Out then describes how TVC’s online campaign against Patricia Ireland resulted in her firing from the YWCA only six months after she had been hired to run this girl’s organization.
TVC’s objective was to expose the truth about Patricia Ireland’s radical bisexual and feminist agenda and the impact it would have on young girls who joined the Girl Scouts.
One of TVC’s first salvos against Ireland was an article titled, “YWCA Should Reject Patricia Ireland As New Leader,” described in the report as a “sophisticated outreach strategy designed to mobilize web readers to take action toward her dismissal.”
As part of our media campaign against Ireland, we published numerous articles on her bisexuality, abortion activism, and pagan spirituality: New YWCA Head May Bring ‘Feminist Spirituality’ Into Girl’s Group.
We also launched a petition campaign to have Ireland removed from the YWCA and more than 15,000 people signed it. In addition, we asked the Department of Health and Human Services to investigate how the YWCA uses millions of dollars in federal funds each year. HHS alone provides $114 million a year. Millions more are supplied by other federal agencies.
Written Out notes of TVC’s efforts: “Less than six months after she had taken office, Ireland was asked to step down by the board of the YWCA. She declined so as not to give the ‘impression of having jumped ship’ and was dismissed shortly after. … TVC spokespeople claimed credit for Ireland’s dismissal.”
----- 15 -----
Good News From Massachusetts
Traditional Values Coalition
http://traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2217
April 7, 2005 – The Article 8 Alliance, a coalition of pro-family activists in Massachusetts are rejoicing over two major efforts in the fight against the homosexual agenda. After intense lobbying with two of New England’s largest supermarket chains, Article 8 convinced the management of these chains to pull Bay Windows, a pornographic homosexual newspaper from their stores!
In addition, Article 8 is urging parents to fight back against the upcoming GLSEN-sponsored “Day of Silence” event (April 13) in public schools. The effort will include demanding that school officials comply with the state’s parental notification law that requires schools to inform parents if sexual discussions are being held. The law provides a way to opt children out of these classes. However, because the entire school day is taken over by “Day of Silence” advocacy, there is no way to opt children out of these sexually explicit discussions of homosexuality. Parents are encouraged to demand that the “Day of Silence” event be canceled.
GLSEN is responsible for the infamous Fistgate scandal involving children at a conference at Tufts University in 2000. TVC’s web site has background information on Fistgate and the radical recruitment agenda being pursued by this homosexual teacher group: GLSEN Must Be Stopped!
----- 16 -----
Ladies Restrooms: Who’s That ‘Male-Bodied Woman’ In the Next Stall
Traditional Values Coalition
http://traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2215
April 7, 2005 – The New York Association of Gender Rights Advocacy has won a victory over restroom use by individuals who believe they are a member of the opposite sex.
The victory involves a settlement from a security guard company that allegedly discriminated against transgender activist Pauline Park when he used a woman’s restroom in a Manhattan mall in April, 2004. Park wears women’s clothing and identifies as a woman but has not had a sex change operation. Park is still anatomically a male but calls himself a “male-bodied woman, a radical concept in the transgender community, but I see no contradiction between male sex and female gender.”
The security guard company is now implementing a policy that allows a person to use a restroom based on his or her “gender identity” instead of the actual sex of the person.
Pauline Park’s victory comes as a result of her lobbying for passage of a New York City anti-discrimination ordinance in 2002 that added “gender identity” to the law. Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed the law and is shown with Pauline Park on the Gender Rights Advocacy web site.
This decision means that men who think they are women and are still anatomically males can use women’s restrooms in New York City.
TVC’s report, “A Gender Identity Disorder Goes Mainstream” explains more about this mental illness and how it is being normalized in our culture.
In a society where rational thought still existed, Pauline Park would be institutionalized for insanity or be given intense therapy to overcome his serious gender identity disorder. Instead, he has imposed his own mental illness upon the city of New York—and Michael Bloomberg has been a willing accomplice.
----- 17 -----
Marriage Wars Continue -- More State Constitutional Bans Likely
Agape Press
Feature by Ed Vitagliano
April 5, 2005
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/52005b.asp
(AgapePress) - Same-sex marriage has been one of the most contentious issues of the last 18 months, insinuating itself into state and federal legislatures, a presidential campaign, countless church sermons and legal battles. Yet an end to the rancor seems faraway.
The courts have been the primary battleground for homosexual activists. Their narrow 4-3 victory before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S. for the first time in history. They have been pounding away elsewhere ever since.
The good news for pro-family groups is that "gay" activists have not yet been successful in breaking through as they did in Massachusetts. For example, in January the high court in Louisiana validated the constitutional amendment passed by voters last September, overruling a lower court which had struck down the vote. The ban had passed overwhelmingly by a 78 percent to 22 percent margin.
In Indiana, that state's Court of Appeals also turned back a court challenge to a law forbidding same-sex marriage. In January, the court ruled that heterosexual marriage served a legitimate state interest "in encouraging opposite-sex couples to procreate responsibly and have and raise children within a stable environment."
The three homosexual couples who challenged the Indiana law subsequently said they would not appeal the decision.
Activists haven't had any better luck in federal courts. Also in January, Federal District Judge James S. Moody rejected a demand by two lesbians, who were married in Massachusetts, to strike down a Florida law banning same-sex marriage.
Moody also rejected their request that he declare unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act. That measure, which was passed in 1996 by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, states that no state can be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.
Ellis Rubin, the attorney for the lesbian couple, has promised to fight the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Homosexual activists may have gotten a foothold in New York, however, after a Manhattan trial court ruled that the state's constitution does not allow marriage to be limited to heterosexual couples. The judge, Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, who also sits on New York's Supreme Court, said in her ruling: "Similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing."
The ruling will be appealed, and since two other county courts in New York have ruled against same-sex plaintiffs, the matter is sure to come before the state Supreme Court.
As a result of such court cases, cultural conservatives carry deep concerns that activist judges will usurp the authority to define marriage and legalize same-sex unions. In response, there has been a determined push at state and federal levels to keep the matter in the hands of voters.
In 2004, 13 states voted to place a same-sex marriage ban in their constitutions, and similar attempts to do so are on the horizon. Kansas put such a ban before its voters on April 5 (today). Alabama, Indiana, Virginia and Wisconsin also appear to be on the verge of passing similar measures. In Idaho, however, a constitutional ban failed to attract enough votes in the Senate.
According to Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, other states are poised to add a state constitutional ban on "gay" marriage. He told The Advocate that those states, including Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Tennessee, are at risk of putting such bans before voters in 2005 or 2006. In the two years beyond that, another five to ten states might do the same thing.
"It's going to be a tough slog for the next four or five years," Foreman said. "We're going to be on the defensive."
----- 18 -----
The Christian Underground
http://www.christian-underground.com
Bill would give rights to fetus at fertilization
CU link:
http://www.christian-underground.com/archive/read.php?sid=1116
Copied intact from article here:
http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=3171452
COLUMBIA, S.C. A fetus would have rights to due process and equal protection under a bill passed by the House Judiciary Committee today.
The measure passed on a 15-to-5 vote. It would establish that rights begin "at fertilization."
Opponents warned the bill likely would be declared unconstitutional under the landmark 1973 U-S Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
A similar bill died in the committee last year.
The proposal is sponsored by Republican Representative Ralph Davenport of Boiling Springs.
----- 19 -----
The Christian Underground
http://www.christian-underground.com
A Conservative Plan for Victory
By Newt Gingrich
April 6, 2005
The following is a transcript of Newt Gingrich’s speech to the “Wednesday Morning Club.”
http://www.christian-underground.com/archive/read.php?sid=1120
Thank you very, very much. Hearing all of this actually makes me a little bit tired. When people start going through my list of accomplishments, I have to think about how many hours a day I’ve been putting into this: 24 sounds about right. At least you get very nice introductions….
[...]
America is not closely divided on values. For partisan reasons, however, America is closely divided, largely because Republicans so radically underperform among African-Americans and Hispanics. If Republicans could reach out and create a new sense of inclusion, the natural governing majority of this country would be somewhere around 70 percent. This was illustrated in an article I wrote last July called “What’s at Stake.” I looked at 34 issues, and John Kerry was in a 77-17 percent minority, on average, in 33 of the 34. The only area where we Republicans don’t perform as well as we have to is the environment, so we’re working on creating an activist conservative environmentalism that solves problems, without using heavy-handed bureaucracy, and without accepting the interpretations of the Left.
[...]
Somebody asked me a question that concerned them. They said, “How does John Q. Public prevent the ACLU from running roughshod with the removal of a historical cross and God?” This is a reference to the Los Angeles County problem. I’ll start by saying the Los Angeles County problem was not the ACLU. The Los Angeles County problem was cowardly commissioners. They didn’t go to court. They didn’t wage a fight. You have to beat them. You have to find people with the courage to go out and run.
[...]
I would argue, even with Republican tactical incompetence, that somewhere around 85 percent you should have a winning issue. But that means you’d have to actually go out into Hispanic neighborhoods and probably talk to people in Spanish. And you’d have to say to good Catholics, “Do you think saying something about God is okay?” This is a fairly strong issue among Catholics. They tend to believe you should be allowed to talk about God.
Next, you need to ridicule the Left. What I mean is that somebody needs to propose that the city should become known as Secularville. How can you be known as Los Angeles, if you are not allowed to have a cross? How can you have angels? Which is it? Either the angels are okay, so put the cross back up, or the angels are wrong too, so change the city’s name.
[...]
This is the core question – and I emphasize this, because it is the core defining issue in American culture and will be for the next 13 years: As a nation, on a non-denominational basis, we have an underlying belief that our rights come from God. This is a debate we need to have. I say to all of my most secular friends, “If you are not endowed by your Creator with certain inalienable rights where do they come from?” By the way, this term comes from the Declaration of Independence, which is an historical document, not a religious document. If you tell me that you’re randomly gathered protoplasm, and that you have contract rights, you have just explained totalitarianism. If all you are is randomly gathered protoplasm, then why can’t I have a Holocaust? Why can’t I torture you? Why can’t I brainwash you? Why can’t I eliminate your historic memory, by doing things, for example, like taking the cross off of your seal?
So you’re one or the other. There’s no middle ground here. I start with history; not with ideology, not with theory, but with history. The founding document of the United States of America says we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. It makes us the most exceptional country in history. We are the only country that says each one of you has these rights, and this includes the atheists. They may not recognize God but God recognizes them.
[...]
Let met talk briefly about judges, and then I am going to talk about education and immigration. The issue of judges is not a complex one. It’s just a question of timidity. There is no judicial supremacy. It is an arrogation of the Warren Court in 1958, and has no historic precedent. Jefferson, when asked if there was judicial supremacy said that would be an oligarchy. Lincoln’s First Inaugural, in describing the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court—which extended slavery across the whole country, led Lincoln to run, and ultimately led to the Civil War—said we were not going to let a handful of judges redefine the American Constitution. It would be inconceivable.
So what do you do about it? Again, I am trying to embed this in historic fact. This is not theory. This is not ideology. This is fact. In 1802, the Jeffersonians, faced with courts deliberately packed by the Federalists, passed the Judiciary Act of 1802, which abolished over half of all the sitting federal circuit judges. The act didn’t impeach them; it simply said their jobs didn’t exist. They wouldn’t be paid, so they shouldn’t bother to show up. The judges were deeply offended. They promptly went to court, and the remaining federal judges essentially said, if we overrule the Congress, they’re going to abolish our jobs.
I cite this, because of the Ninth Circuit Court. We should just close the jobs of the two judges who said that it was unconstitutional to say, “One Nation, Under God” as part of the pledge. Let’s just say, “Terrific, you’re now retired.” I am citing this, because the first step to getting this done is to have people like you talk to your delegations, and then presently somebody will introduce a bill. Initially people will say that it’s very radical, but then as the courts behave more and more stupidly, people will get madder and madder. Finally, one morning we’ll do it, and then the judges who are left will realize that maybe they don’t want to be quite that bold.
This is a straight-out fight. The elected branches, the legislative and the executive, have every right to re-balance the judges under our Constitution. Remember, if you read The Federalist Papers, they refer to a division of power. There’s a balance between the three branches, so when the judges say that they are all powerful, the correct answer is, “No, you’re not.” The only way you prove that is to have the legislative and the executive branches take steps to change them.
Senator John Kyl, for example, has a bill in Congress that would block the Supreme Court from even considering the Pledge of Allegiance. If Congress passes that bill, and the president signs it, I think the court is blocked. I think it’s clear under the Constitution that it is blocked. But if the court were to overturn that law, my next step would be to change the court. Again, that wouldn’t be abnormal. The struggle for power between appointed lawyers and the rest of us has been going on for 200 years, and for the last 40 years, the lawyers have been on the offensive. Well, now it’s our turn.
[More at URL]
* Longer form of the filibuster-rules-change conservative/fundamentalist alliance group - includes an action item;
* Focus on the Family action item providing free phone calls to senators and representatives for judicial nominee rule changes;
* Focus on the Family article suggesting judges who rule in ways they dislike ("legislate from the bench") should be impeached - includes action item for both Senate rules-change and urging impeachments;
* FotF article promoting the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund's "National Day of Truth" action on campus - participants will pass out literature condemning gayfolk and promoting "ex-homosexual" organisations;
* FotF article on congressman calling for criminalisation of "indecency" (with criminal charges instead of fines) - appears unlikely, but includes an action calling for more "indecency" actions to be taken by the FCC;
* As expected, Kansas passed its anti-marriage amendment - FotF's "news brief" story;
* Colorado governor Bill Owens vetoes a bill requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims - action item to congratulate and thank him included;
* Focus on the Family daily Family News in Focus broadcast; Citizen Magazine (published by FotF) feature article promoting the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund's "Day of Truth";
* Concerned Women for America article claiming homosexuals want to criminalise Christianity;
* CWA article crowing about anti-marriage amendment passing in Kansas;
* CWA article blaming gayfolk for the anti-gay Boy Scouts of America head having child porn, call for "stronger stand on homosexuality" by Scouts;
* USA TODAY article on backlash to GOP moral activism;
* Traditional Values Coalition claims credit for getting Patricia Ireland removed from the YWCA board of directors in 2003 because of her bisexuality - had launched campaign to do so, which succeeded;
* TVC claims to have gotten Bay Windows - a Boston-area gay-published newspaper they call pornographic - out of three supermarket chains - also urges fight against "Day of Silence" pro-gay-rights student action, wanting to see it banned;
* TVC rails against TS women again, says people with gender identity disorder should be institutionalised for insanity;
* Agape Press article talking about "pro-family" anti-marriage-rights victories;
* South Carolina House Judiciary Committee approves bill giving a fertilised embryo equal protection and due process rights - yes, these rights begin at fertilization... for the sane in our audience, only about 40% of fertilised eggs even implant to begin the process of becoming a foetus, and yes, if the report is right, this would outlaw many fertility treatments;
* Newt Gingrich advocates firing most of the judiciary and restaffing with new justices more of his liking.
----- 1 -----
End the Filibuster Coalition Formed
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
Focus on the Family
April 5, 2005
Conservative groups are urging Congress to do whatever it takes to end Senate blockage of judicial nominees.
http://family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036099.cfm
A coalition of almost 200 conservative organizations is asking the Republican leadership of the U.S. Senate to take swift action to end the Democrat-led filibusters against President Bush's nominees to the federal bench.
The groups, with constituencies of tens of millions of Americans, ask GOP leadership in a letter to quickly enact the "constitutional option"—breaking the filibusters (which require 60 votes to overcome) by reestablishing the Senate tradition of 51 votes being sufficient for a nominee's confirmation.
Democrats have threatened to shut down the Senate if Republicans take such action to end the obstructionism that has prevented 10 qualified candidates from receiving up-or-down votes.
David Keene, who heads the American Conservative Union—one of the coalition members—said Republicans must act quickly.
"It's apparent that there is no other option," he said, "because this minority in the Senate is willing to use whatever tools it can find to work its will on the majority."
Coalition head Manny Miranda agreed.
"Our coalition is to express to the GOP leadership and conference that they should go forward," he said. "They can go forward, and they should do it on a timely basis."
Focus on the Family President Jim Daly signed the coalition letter, as well. He said the president's nominees need to be confirmed to check a radical judiciary that is tearing America's moral values apart.
"We have so much work to do, it should be sooner than later," he said of the need for the GOP to act quickly. "If we wait any longer, it will cause us more difficulty."
Gary Bauer, president of American Values, echoed that sentiment.
"The message to the Republican leadership is 'The clock is running—it's time to act,' " Bauer said, " 'You've tried everything else, and the people that elected you across the country, millions of Americans, at least in part, elected (you) because they anticipated that (you) would change the courts.' "
An opportunity for Republicans to move to break the filibusters could come as soon as this week, since a committee vote on filibustered nominee Priscilla Owen is scheduled for Thursday.
TAKE ACTION
Please take a moment to call your U.S. senators today and ask that they support the "constitutional option" to restore a simple majority as the threshold for confirming judicial nominees. For contact information, visit the CitizenLink Action Center and type your ZIP code into the space provided.
----- 2 -----
CITIZENLINK
Focus on the Family
April 6, 2005
Place a Free Phone Call to Your Senators about Judicial
Filibusters
http://family.org/cforum/fosi/government/courts/supreme/a0035340.cfm
You have a unique opportunity today to make sure your U.S.
senators get an accurate read on public sentiment over the
continued filibustering of President Bush's judicial
nominees.
A left-wing pressure group leading the charge to justify
Democrats' abuse of filibusters to block conservative
court nominees is asking its supporters to flood
Washington with pro-filibuster phone calls today and
Thursday. The group, People for the American Way, has even
set up a special toll-free phone number that rings right
to the Capitol switchboard -- but it's only good through
the end of the day Thursday.
The number is 1-866-808-0065 -- and we encourage you to
use it to give your senators the other side of the story.
Simply dial and ask to be transferred to your senators'
offices; you'll have to call twice, to reach both of them,
and it may take a while for the call to connect or for
someone to answer. After you're connected to your
senator's office, explain that you support a return to the
constitutional tradition of 51 votes being sufficient to
confirm a judicial nominee, not the unprecedented 60 votes
required to break a filibuster.
The short version of that message: I support the
"constitutional option" to end judicial filibusters.
Should you need more detailed information about the
judicial crisis created by Senate liberals -- and why
their filibusters must be brought to an end -- visit the
Focus on the Social Issues Web site.
----- 3 -----
Judicial Impeachment Mulled
by Stuart Shepard, correspondent
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Some family advocates are raising the specter of
removing federal judges who legislate from the bench.
Some family advocates are hinting at the possibility of
impeaching federal judges -- as provided for in the
Constitution -- as part of the fallout of the Terri
Schiavo case.
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior manager for special
legislative projects at Focus on the Family, said it's an
idea worth pursuing given the current "constitutional
crisis" gripping the courts. After all, she pointed out,
when Congress called on the federal courts last month to
take a new look at the Schiavo case, they took a pass.
"Congress has jurisdiction over the judiciary, and they
assigned them a task," Earll noted. "They said, 'We want
you to go back and . . . take a fresh look at Terri
Schiavo's cases.' And the court basically said, 'Yeah, we
get a paycheck from you, but we're not interested today.'
"
While the U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court,
all other federal courts were created by Congress --
giving it some power over what happens in the judicial
branch of our government.
"There needs to be some serious contemplation," Earll
said, "about what the role of the judiciary is, and what
Congress' authority is, to try and bring it back under
control, so that we do have a balance of power. As people
look at that, impeachment may be one thing that is
suggested."
She quickly added, however, that such action is not
something to be considered lightly.
Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary,
agreed that the courts should be closely scrutinized.
"One of the things that really should come into focus now
is reining in the discretionary powers of the court," she
explained. "It's not enough to nominate good judges and
just hope for the best when they get on the court."
Still, Daly said the recent actions of the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals, which refused to hear several Schiavo
appeals, rose to the level of impeachment.
TAKE ACTION: Please take a moment to contact your U.S.
senators and ask them to: 1) support the "constitutional
option" to restore a simple majority as the threshold for
confirming judicial nominees; and 2) to examine whether
impeachment is a good idea for disciplining judges who try
to legislate from the bench.
For contact information, visit the CitizenLink Action
Center and type your ZIP code into the space provided.
http://www.family.org/cforum/action_center.cfm?capwizurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efamily%2Eorg%2Fcitizenaction
In addition, we recommend Phyllis Schlafly's book, "The
Supremacists: the Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It,"
to help you understand the assault the judiciary is making
on society -- and what we can do about it.
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=5001&refcd=CE05DCZL&tvar=no
----- 4 -----
CITIZENLINK FEATURE:
ADF Breaks the Silence
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: April 14 is the Day of Truth -- a chance for
Christian students to take a stand for God's design of
sexuality.
http://family.org/cforum/feature/a0036123.cfm
The first-ever Day of Truth will be held nationwide April
14, with the goal of encouraging Christian students to
respectfully challenge the pro-homosexual viewpoints
pervading public schools.
The event, the brainchild of the Alliance Defense Fund
(ADF), is designed as a counterpoint to April 13's Day of
Silence, a project of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight
Education Network (GLSEN) that encourages students to take
a day-long vow of silence "to recognize and protest the
discrimination and harassment -- in effect, the silencing
-- experienced by (gay) students and their allies."
GLSEN says as many as 300,000 students will participate
this year.
ADF doesn't expect that many to take part in the Day of
Truth's inaugural year, but it does hope to breed courage
among thousands of students who believe homosexuality is
wrong and has consequences. ADF lead counsel Joe Infranco
explained that unless Christians do something, soon
Americans will have little choice but to affirm the
homosexual lifestyle.
"This is the tip of the spear," he said. "Many students
don't want to stand alone, but if they know that others
are standing up for what's right, they will be more apt to
say, 'I've never really agreed with what we've been taught
and I don't see this as normal.'
"The schools are telling our kids that (homosexuality) is
a legitimate choice and we know it isn't. We don't have
to accept the school's version."
Students will proclaim their participation in the Day of
Truth by wearing T-shirts that read: "The Truth Cannot Be
Silenced." They also will be encouraged to hand out cards
with an unflinching message: "I am speaking the Truth to
break the silence. I believe in equal treatment for all,
and not special rights for a few. I believe in loving my
neighbor, but part of that love means not condoning
detrimental personal and social behavior. I believe that
by boldly proclaiming the Truth, hurts will be halted,
hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved."
As for the Day of Silence, Infranco said it's improperly
named, since schools are hardly silent about
homosexuality.
"They are enamored by it," he said.
What's more, it's not tolerance that GLSEN is after. It's
acceptance and normalization of homosexuality as the moral
and biological equivalent to heterosexuality.
That's evident in organizers' zero-tolerance approach to
dissent -- something California high school student Chase
Harper is all too familiar with. Harper protested the Day
of Silence at his school last year by wearing a shirt that
read: "I Will Not Accept What God Has Condemned." He was
asked to remove the shirt and reprimanded.
ADF has since helped Harper by taking his case to the
California courts. The school argues that it must keep the
students safe and that Harper's shirt was disruptive,
while ADF asserts that any school allowing the Day of
Silence must allow the Day of Truth.
"Students have First Amendment rights," Infranco said,
adding that ADF stands ready to provide legal counsel to
students if a problem arises from their participation in
the Day of Truth.
And problems are likely, courtesy of teachers and
principals who will follow the example of Harper's school
administrators by limiting students' rights in the name of
"keeping schools safe." GLSEN has intentionally preyed on
such emotions, using safety as the platform on which it
has carried its message that homosexuality is normal and
natural.
"We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card --
safety -- and explained how homophobia represents a threat
to students' safety by creating a climate where violence,
name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common,"
GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings has admitted. "Titling our
report, 'Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,'
we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive
and stole their best line of attack. This . . .
short-circuited their arguments and left them
back-peddling from day one."
But Dr. Warren Throckmorton, an associate professor at
Pennsylvania's Grove City College and producer of "I Do
Exist," a video spotlighting the evidence that life change
is possible for homosexuals, said the safest place to go
to school is a campus where the teachings of Christ are
practiced.
"People following the teachings of Jesus will be the
biggest benefit to gay students," Throckmorton noted.
"Befriend them and build a relationship with them -- the
person truly living out Christ's teaching is going to be
the safest friend a gay student can have."
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Call (800) TELL-ADF or visit the
Alliance Defense Fund Web site to find out how to take
part in the Day of Truth.
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/actions/Default.aspx?mid=410&cid=3308
----- 5 -----
CONGRESSMAN WANTS INDECENCY CRIMINALIZED:
If the FCC won't rein in indecent broadcasters, should the
courts take over?
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: The FCC hasn't had much success in reining in
indecent broadcasters, but should the courts take over the
job?
http://family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036119.cfm
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee thinks the
fight against broadcast indecency needs to be taken to the
next level, recommending criminal prosecution of
offenders.
In a recent speech to cable industry executives, U.S. Rep.
James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said the power to threaten
those who flagrantly disregard decency standards with
prosecution could be a powerful deterrent.
But disbelief will be the likely attitude of broadcasters
if Sensenbrenner follows through with his plan, according
to Randy Sharp, director of special projects for the
American Family Association.
"I don't think there's any question," he said, "that
Congress wants to get something done to protect our
children and our families from indecency on the network
stations."
Though Sensenbrenner has developed no legislation, and
declined to comment on his plans, Congress already has
bills that would increase fines for broadcast indecency,
make sexual enhancement ads indecent and require cable
choice.
All that variety has Sharp uneasy.
"There are going to be so many out there that everyone's
pushing their own agenda in Washington, and so nothing
gets passed," Sharp said.
While most of the proposals being considered are supported
by pro-family groups, Bob Peters, president of Morality in
Media, said criminalizing indecency might not work.
"At this moment in our nation's history, I don't think
that is the answer," he said. "I think the answer is for
the (Federal Communications Commission) to do its job in
terms of administrative enforcement of the broadcast
indecency law."
TAKE ACTION: The Federal Communications Commission has
recently had a change in leadership. Please take time to
send messages encouraging the commission's members to take
effective action to implement and enforce decency
standards for all forms of broadcasting.
To send e-mails to commission members, please see the
CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/agencies/?id=4889&dir=fof&command=depresult2&submit.x=14&submit.y=8
----- 6 -----
Kansans Overwhelmingly Approve Marriage Amendment
In an election that typically sees a low voter turnout of
around 10-15 percent, Kansans turned out in force Tuesday
to vote for a marriage-protection amendment.
Not only was turnout high, but of the 105 counties in
Kansas, 104 voted to protect marriage as the union of a
man and a woman. The final statewide vote -- which saw 69
percent favor the amendment -- makes Kansas the 18th state
to adopt a marriage-protection amendment.
"Kansas has provided yet another example of the fact that
every time American voters are given the opportunity to
defend marriage at the polls, they do so by wide margins,"
said Tom Minnery, vice president of government and public
policy for Focus on the Family.
"Although gay activists often work through their allies in
the judiciary to circumvent the will of the people, the
true view of the American public could not be more
apparent. The citizens of Kansas have helped ensure the
sanctity of marriage in their state; we look forward to
the day when all Americans can enjoy this same protection
through a federal marriage amendment."
----- 7 -----
Colorado Governor Vetoes Anti-Life Legislation
Colorado Gov. Bill Owens vetoed a bill Tuesday that would
have required all hospitals to inform rape victims of
so-called "emergency contraception," as well as dispense
the high-dose hormones at the women's request.
While the legislation seemed innocuous to many, it did not
require health care professionals to explain the actual
ways in which the pill works: It can prevent the
implantation of a tiny embryo in the uterine wall.
In addition, the bill did not provide an exemption for
religious hospitals with moral objections to contraception
and abortion.
"This bill would violate fundamental constitutional
principles by forcing an institution to say things to
patients that it explicitly does not believe to be morally
or ethically valid," Owens said. "Allowing such a
provision to become law would cross a constitutional line
that we must not cross."
TAKE ACTION: Let Colorado Gov. Bill Owens know you
appreciate his veto of this legislation. For contact
information, including an easy-to-use e-mail form, visit
the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/bio/?id=9480&lvl=S&chamber=G
----- 8 -----
Family News in Focus
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Focus on the Family
Bob Ditmer
* The FCC hasn’t had much success in reigning in indecent broadcasters – maybe the courts should take over the job.
4. Sensenbrenner - see above. "Congress wants to get something done to protect families from indecency." He has no bill yet and responded with no comment when asked about it. Bob Peters of Morality In Media says it "might not work." "I think the answer is for the FCC to do its job in terms of administration enforcement of the broadcast indecency law." "Courts would like to throw out any law that defines indecency."
* Should federal judges who legislate from the bench be impeached? Some are raising the possibility.
1. "But what about removing jurists who shouldn't be there in the first place?" "Congress has jurisdiction over the judiciary, and they assigned them a task - we told you to go back to take a fresh look at the Terri Schievo case" and they "didn't." Lots of use of the "balance of power" rhetoric, lots of "bringing the courts back under control" and "reigning in the discretionary power of the court." Coalition for a Fair Judiciary calls for impacements - "It's not enough to nominate good judges and hope for the best when they get on the court."
* The nation pauses to pray again this year on the National Day of Prayer. 'God’s Grace' is this year’s theme.
7. "God shed his grace on thee" is given as the theme in the story. Talk about theme song. "Theme was chosen because America... needs the grace of god. "The election last year was very important for us..." and America needs god's grace. "Every day is a good day to pray." - President Bush.
* Texas Senator John Cornyn wondered aloud on the Senate floor this week if there might be a connection between recent courthouse violence and increasingly activist judges. His comments are a sign of the frustration in congress with the judiciary.
3. Famous quote, posted a couple of days ago. "The statement is an indication that Cornyn and many of his colleges are frustrated with [judges] usurp Congressional authority and make laws, instead of enforcing them."
* The courts continue to redefine marriage. A California appeals court ruled homosexuals should have the same rights as married couples.
2. Ruling that CA Defense of Marriage Initiative isn't violated by domestic partner legislation. Alliance Defense Fund (see above) hates this a lot, wanted it overturned.
* Science is again causing a moral dilemma in medicine.
6. "Many women receive only negative information when they are told they are carrying a baby with Down's Syndrome." "[This information] can also be used to abort a child."
* NOT LISTED IN SUMMARY: article on gangs.
5. Bill to increase federal funding to all levels of law enforcement. Requires death penalty or life in prison for murder. Complaint that Federal courts are not set up to handle local crimes. "Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act," has FOP endorsement.
----- 9 -----
Citizen Magazine
Focus on the Family
Silence v. the Truth
In protest of so called homophobia, thousands of students won't say a word on April 13 to protest "homophobia," but will Christians be allowed to say a word about the truth of homosexuality?
by Kermit Rainman
http://family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0036012.cfm
On April 13, thousands of American schoolchildren will participate in a "Day of Silence." They will refuse to utter a single word, not even in response to a teacher's question, in recognition of so-called discrimination and harassment—the silencing—experienced by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender peers. These silent protesters will wear special T-shirts and hand out "speaking cards" explaining their concerns. Many schools will also host follow-up events, called "Breaking the Silence," which include workshops, speakers, and entertainment—all meant to reinforce the message that "homophobia" will not be tolerated.
Day of Silence is organized by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which also encourages the formation of Gay/Straight Alliance student clubs in schools across the country. Its Day of Silence began in 1996 with 150 participants at one university, but has since grown to 300,000 participants at 3,000 schools, colleges and universities in all 50 states.
The Day of Silence appears to have helped shape students' views of homosexuality. In 2001, a random poll of high school seniors revealed that most hold pro-homosexual views:
• Two-thirds said same-sex marriages should be legal (compared to one-third of adults overall in recent polls).
• Sixty-eight percent say homosexual couples should be able to adopt children.
• Eighty-eight percent support hate crimes legislation.
But what happens when a Christian student whose views on homosexuality differ from the pro-homosexual message of the Day of Silence? Will they be shown tolerance?
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
CWA of Virginia Co-Hosts Meeting for Pastors
4/6/2005
By CWA Staff
CWA’s Knight speaks on same-sex ‘marriage,’ cultural war against Christianity.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/7856/CWA/family/index.htm
“Who will Define Marriage in Virginia?” Last Thursday Concerned Women for America (CWA) of Virginia and the Virginia Eagle Forum hosted a Pastor’s Breakfast in Fairfax, Virginia, to discuss that question.
Robert Knight, director of CWA's Culture and Family Institute, spoke about the link between the battle over same-sex marriage and the war on Christianity in the culture. State Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax) discussed the possibility of a Virginia marriage amendment from a legislative standpoint. Walt Barbee, founder and president emeritus of the Family Foundation of Virginia, encouraged Virginians to become more active in the battle to save marriage.
CWA of Virginia’s State Director Patricia Phillips said, “The pastors appreciated the opportunities to meet other pastors and leaders concerned about the moral decline and were encouraged that a coordinated effort was being made to help stem the tide.”
In his remarks, Knight pointed out that many people supported marriage at the polls last November in order to protest America's sexualized and increasingly coarse culture.
"This gave them a way to say, 'enough,'" Knight said. Citing the Terri Schiavo case, last year's Super Bowl halftime-show debacle with Janet Jackson, and other cultural outrages, he pointed out: "Marriage shouldn't be viewed as if it were in a vacuum, but as the single most important symbolic battle in the culture war."
As a former Los Angeles Times editor, Knight said he had never seen such systematic bias in reporting on any issue, and he warned that if homosexual activists succeed with their agenda, "We will shortly see the criminalization of Christianity. After all, if Biblical morality is recast as a form of bigotry, and this notion is enshrined in the law, God-fearing people will find themselves on the wrong side of the law. The civil rights enforcement apparatus will be turned against us."
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Kansas Passes Marriage Protection Amendment 4/6/2005
By Emma Elliott
High turnout results in landslide victory.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/7858/CWA/family/index.htm
Kansas became the eighteenth state yesterday to incorporate a marriage protection amendment into its constitution, which voters approved by a landslide 70 percent.
Turnout is estimated at 30-35 percent, compared to an average 10-12 percent in other off-year votes.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) of Kansas worked actively in all stages of the process leading up to the vote. The marriage amendment first had to clear the state Legislature before being placed on the ballot for the people to decide. Members of CWA of Kansas testified before legislative committees in support of the amendment and lobbied their representatives. They encouraged as many people as possible to call their representatives’ offices to express their support for marriage.
CWA of Kansas worked through two legislative sessions to ensure that legislators realized how important this issue was to the state. The marriage amendment failed to pass in the first session.
Last November’s election, however, brought many new pro-family legislators into office. In January, the new legislature swiftly approved the amendment with a two-thirds majority. CWA of Kansas State Director Judy Smith said she had never seen a piece of legislation pass so quickly.
Once the amendment was placed on the ballot, CWA of Kansas formed a coalition with several other pro-family organizations to encourage people to go out and vote to protect marriage.
“The people of Kansas finally got their chance to speak and they have spoken out in favor of traditional marriage. As important as the opportunity to speak is the fact that they did speak out in numbers that belied the pundits’ predictions,” remarked Judy Smith. “They joined the campaign to protect marriage by voting, supporting the campaign with their treasure, placing yard signs, writing letters, praying and in many other ways. Their voices have been heard.”
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Top Leader of Boy Scouts of America Pleads Guilty to Child Porn Charges
4/5/2005
Douglas Sovereign Smith, the former national head of programs for the Boy Scouts of America has admitted to possession and distribution of child pornography. Bob Knight, director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute says this is a disturbing development that he hopes will spark a stronger stand on homosexuality by the national Scouting office. Click here to listen.
"Smith... chared with federal child pornography." "Well, the scouts have been reticent to defend themselves often... we urge them over and over to make the case that the Scouts shouldn't have to accomodate homosexual scouts or scoutmasters..." Says the BSA hasn't been anti-gay enough, imply that he was secretly queer [Ed. note: there is no evidence of this whatsoever, or they'd have brought it out], claim that the fault was that "the Scouts have to be more forthcoming about all the way they work to protect kids from predators." Claims the Scouts are trying "to do the appeasement route" by not officially banning gayfolk from working for the Scouts in non-scoutmater/non-scout roles.
Calls for Scouts to demand that the Soutleaders demand that the national organisation adopt a stronger, categorical anti-gay stance, and be active about it. "This is wrong, we don't want it around the kids - this shouldn't be a complex issue. It should be very clear." "They just say they have a right not to allow homosexuals. They don't say why. I think it's time."
----- 13 -----
GOP's moral agenda doubted
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
Posted 4/5/2005 7:37 PM Updated 4/5/2005 11:28 PM
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-05-gop-poll_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
WASHINGTON — The controversy over Terri Schiavo has raised concerns among many Americans about the moral agenda of the Republican Party and the political power of conservative Christians, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds. (Related: Poll results)
In the survey, most Americans disapprove of the efforts by President Bush and Congress to draw federal courts into the dispute over treatment of the brain-damaged Florida woman. She died last week.
Some old stereotypes about the two parties have been reversed:
• By 55%-40%, respondents say Republicans, traditionally the party of limited government, are "trying to use the federal government to interfere with the private lives of most Americans" on moral values.
• By 53%-40%, they say Democrats, who sharply expanded government since the Depression, aren't trying to interfere on moral issues.
The debate over Schiavo has spotlighted the central role "values" issues — abortion, stem-cell research, same-sex marriage and the right to live or die — now play in politics.
Mark Rozell, a professor at George Mason University in Virginia who studies religion and politics, says the case has created a "clear backlash."
"It's one thing to look at religious conservatives as part of a broad coalition that makes up the Republican Party," he says. "It's entirely another if people think that religious conservatives are calling the shots in the Bush administration for what was a deeply personal situation."
But Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition says a poll his group commissioned shows wide support for those who sought to preserve Schiavo's life when the issue is placed "in the broader context of protecting the rights of the disabled."
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
TVC Credited With Firing Of Bisexual From YWCA Leadership Post
Traditional Values Coalition
http://traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2222
April 7, 2005 -- The Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (GLHRC) has just published a new report that credits TVC with getting bisexual, pro-abortionist Patricia Ireland fired from the YWCA in 2003.
The report, “Written Out: How Sexuality Is Used To Attack Women’s Organizing,” describes TVC’s media campaign on pages 73-75 of the online PDF report.
The report notes that technological advances have allowed increasing use of web activism “that elicits fast mobilization of conservative constituencies. As a result, targeted lesbian- and sexuality-baiting can stretch across a country or the globe with a few clicks of a computer mouse.”
Written Out then describes how TVC’s online campaign against Patricia Ireland resulted in her firing from the YWCA only six months after she had been hired to run this girl’s organization.
TVC’s objective was to expose the truth about Patricia Ireland’s radical bisexual and feminist agenda and the impact it would have on young girls who joined the Girl Scouts.
One of TVC’s first salvos against Ireland was an article titled, “YWCA Should Reject Patricia Ireland As New Leader,” described in the report as a “sophisticated outreach strategy designed to mobilize web readers to take action toward her dismissal.”
As part of our media campaign against Ireland, we published numerous articles on her bisexuality, abortion activism, and pagan spirituality: New YWCA Head May Bring ‘Feminist Spirituality’ Into Girl’s Group.
We also launched a petition campaign to have Ireland removed from the YWCA and more than 15,000 people signed it. In addition, we asked the Department of Health and Human Services to investigate how the YWCA uses millions of dollars in federal funds each year. HHS alone provides $114 million a year. Millions more are supplied by other federal agencies.
Written Out notes of TVC’s efforts: “Less than six months after she had taken office, Ireland was asked to step down by the board of the YWCA. She declined so as not to give the ‘impression of having jumped ship’ and was dismissed shortly after. … TVC spokespeople claimed credit for Ireland’s dismissal.”
----- 15 -----
Good News From Massachusetts
Traditional Values Coalition
http://traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2217
April 7, 2005 – The Article 8 Alliance, a coalition of pro-family activists in Massachusetts are rejoicing over two major efforts in the fight against the homosexual agenda. After intense lobbying with two of New England’s largest supermarket chains, Article 8 convinced the management of these chains to pull Bay Windows, a pornographic homosexual newspaper from their stores!
In addition, Article 8 is urging parents to fight back against the upcoming GLSEN-sponsored “Day of Silence” event (April 13) in public schools. The effort will include demanding that school officials comply with the state’s parental notification law that requires schools to inform parents if sexual discussions are being held. The law provides a way to opt children out of these classes. However, because the entire school day is taken over by “Day of Silence” advocacy, there is no way to opt children out of these sexually explicit discussions of homosexuality. Parents are encouraged to demand that the “Day of Silence” event be canceled.
GLSEN is responsible for the infamous Fistgate scandal involving children at a conference at Tufts University in 2000. TVC’s web site has background information on Fistgate and the radical recruitment agenda being pursued by this homosexual teacher group: GLSEN Must Be Stopped!
----- 16 -----
Ladies Restrooms: Who’s That ‘Male-Bodied Woman’ In the Next Stall
Traditional Values Coalition
http://traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2215
April 7, 2005 – The New York Association of Gender Rights Advocacy has won a victory over restroom use by individuals who believe they are a member of the opposite sex.
The victory involves a settlement from a security guard company that allegedly discriminated against transgender activist Pauline Park when he used a woman’s restroom in a Manhattan mall in April, 2004. Park wears women’s clothing and identifies as a woman but has not had a sex change operation. Park is still anatomically a male but calls himself a “male-bodied woman, a radical concept in the transgender community, but I see no contradiction between male sex and female gender.”
The security guard company is now implementing a policy that allows a person to use a restroom based on his or her “gender identity” instead of the actual sex of the person.
Pauline Park’s victory comes as a result of her lobbying for passage of a New York City anti-discrimination ordinance in 2002 that added “gender identity” to the law. Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed the law and is shown with Pauline Park on the Gender Rights Advocacy web site.
This decision means that men who think they are women and are still anatomically males can use women’s restrooms in New York City.
TVC’s report, “A Gender Identity Disorder Goes Mainstream” explains more about this mental illness and how it is being normalized in our culture.
In a society where rational thought still existed, Pauline Park would be institutionalized for insanity or be given intense therapy to overcome his serious gender identity disorder. Instead, he has imposed his own mental illness upon the city of New York—and Michael Bloomberg has been a willing accomplice.
----- 17 -----
Marriage Wars Continue -- More State Constitutional Bans Likely
Agape Press
Feature by Ed Vitagliano
April 5, 2005
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/52005b.asp
(AgapePress) - Same-sex marriage has been one of the most contentious issues of the last 18 months, insinuating itself into state and federal legislatures, a presidential campaign, countless church sermons and legal battles. Yet an end to the rancor seems faraway.
The courts have been the primary battleground for homosexual activists. Their narrow 4-3 victory before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S. for the first time in history. They have been pounding away elsewhere ever since.
The good news for pro-family groups is that "gay" activists have not yet been successful in breaking through as they did in Massachusetts. For example, in January the high court in Louisiana validated the constitutional amendment passed by voters last September, overruling a lower court which had struck down the vote. The ban had passed overwhelmingly by a 78 percent to 22 percent margin.
In Indiana, that state's Court of Appeals also turned back a court challenge to a law forbidding same-sex marriage. In January, the court ruled that heterosexual marriage served a legitimate state interest "in encouraging opposite-sex couples to procreate responsibly and have and raise children within a stable environment."
The three homosexual couples who challenged the Indiana law subsequently said they would not appeal the decision.
Activists haven't had any better luck in federal courts. Also in January, Federal District Judge James S. Moody rejected a demand by two lesbians, who were married in Massachusetts, to strike down a Florida law banning same-sex marriage.
Moody also rejected their request that he declare unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act. That measure, which was passed in 1996 by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, states that no state can be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.
Ellis Rubin, the attorney for the lesbian couple, has promised to fight the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Homosexual activists may have gotten a foothold in New York, however, after a Manhattan trial court ruled that the state's constitution does not allow marriage to be limited to heterosexual couples. The judge, Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, who also sits on New York's Supreme Court, said in her ruling: "Similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing."
The ruling will be appealed, and since two other county courts in New York have ruled against same-sex plaintiffs, the matter is sure to come before the state Supreme Court.
As a result of such court cases, cultural conservatives carry deep concerns that activist judges will usurp the authority to define marriage and legalize same-sex unions. In response, there has been a determined push at state and federal levels to keep the matter in the hands of voters.
In 2004, 13 states voted to place a same-sex marriage ban in their constitutions, and similar attempts to do so are on the horizon. Kansas put such a ban before its voters on April 5 (today). Alabama, Indiana, Virginia and Wisconsin also appear to be on the verge of passing similar measures. In Idaho, however, a constitutional ban failed to attract enough votes in the Senate.
According to Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, other states are poised to add a state constitutional ban on "gay" marriage. He told The Advocate that those states, including Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Tennessee, are at risk of putting such bans before voters in 2005 or 2006. In the two years beyond that, another five to ten states might do the same thing.
"It's going to be a tough slog for the next four or five years," Foreman said. "We're going to be on the defensive."
----- 18 -----
The Christian Underground
http://www.christian-underground.com
Bill would give rights to fetus at fertilization
CU link:
http://www.christian-underground.com/archive/read.php?sid=1116
Copied intact from article here:
http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=3171452
COLUMBIA, S.C. A fetus would have rights to due process and equal protection under a bill passed by the House Judiciary Committee today.
The measure passed on a 15-to-5 vote. It would establish that rights begin "at fertilization."
Opponents warned the bill likely would be declared unconstitutional under the landmark 1973 U-S Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
A similar bill died in the committee last year.
The proposal is sponsored by Republican Representative Ralph Davenport of Boiling Springs.
----- 19 -----
The Christian Underground
http://www.christian-underground.com
A Conservative Plan for Victory
By Newt Gingrich
April 6, 2005
The following is a transcript of Newt Gingrich’s speech to the “Wednesday Morning Club.”
http://www.christian-underground.com/archive/read.php?sid=1120
Thank you very, very much. Hearing all of this actually makes me a little bit tired. When people start going through my list of accomplishments, I have to think about how many hours a day I’ve been putting into this: 24 sounds about right. At least you get very nice introductions….
[...]
America is not closely divided on values. For partisan reasons, however, America is closely divided, largely because Republicans so radically underperform among African-Americans and Hispanics. If Republicans could reach out and create a new sense of inclusion, the natural governing majority of this country would be somewhere around 70 percent. This was illustrated in an article I wrote last July called “What’s at Stake.” I looked at 34 issues, and John Kerry was in a 77-17 percent minority, on average, in 33 of the 34. The only area where we Republicans don’t perform as well as we have to is the environment, so we’re working on creating an activist conservative environmentalism that solves problems, without using heavy-handed bureaucracy, and without accepting the interpretations of the Left.
[...]
Somebody asked me a question that concerned them. They said, “How does John Q. Public prevent the ACLU from running roughshod with the removal of a historical cross and God?” This is a reference to the Los Angeles County problem. I’ll start by saying the Los Angeles County problem was not the ACLU. The Los Angeles County problem was cowardly commissioners. They didn’t go to court. They didn’t wage a fight. You have to beat them. You have to find people with the courage to go out and run.
[...]
I would argue, even with Republican tactical incompetence, that somewhere around 85 percent you should have a winning issue. But that means you’d have to actually go out into Hispanic neighborhoods and probably talk to people in Spanish. And you’d have to say to good Catholics, “Do you think saying something about God is okay?” This is a fairly strong issue among Catholics. They tend to believe you should be allowed to talk about God.
Next, you need to ridicule the Left. What I mean is that somebody needs to propose that the city should become known as Secularville. How can you be known as Los Angeles, if you are not allowed to have a cross? How can you have angels? Which is it? Either the angels are okay, so put the cross back up, or the angels are wrong too, so change the city’s name.
[...]
This is the core question – and I emphasize this, because it is the core defining issue in American culture and will be for the next 13 years: As a nation, on a non-denominational basis, we have an underlying belief that our rights come from God. This is a debate we need to have. I say to all of my most secular friends, “If you are not endowed by your Creator with certain inalienable rights where do they come from?” By the way, this term comes from the Declaration of Independence, which is an historical document, not a religious document. If you tell me that you’re randomly gathered protoplasm, and that you have contract rights, you have just explained totalitarianism. If all you are is randomly gathered protoplasm, then why can’t I have a Holocaust? Why can’t I torture you? Why can’t I brainwash you? Why can’t I eliminate your historic memory, by doing things, for example, like taking the cross off of your seal?
So you’re one or the other. There’s no middle ground here. I start with history; not with ideology, not with theory, but with history. The founding document of the United States of America says we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. It makes us the most exceptional country in history. We are the only country that says each one of you has these rights, and this includes the atheists. They may not recognize God but God recognizes them.
[...]
Let met talk briefly about judges, and then I am going to talk about education and immigration. The issue of judges is not a complex one. It’s just a question of timidity. There is no judicial supremacy. It is an arrogation of the Warren Court in 1958, and has no historic precedent. Jefferson, when asked if there was judicial supremacy said that would be an oligarchy. Lincoln’s First Inaugural, in describing the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court—which extended slavery across the whole country, led Lincoln to run, and ultimately led to the Civil War—said we were not going to let a handful of judges redefine the American Constitution. It would be inconceivable.
So what do you do about it? Again, I am trying to embed this in historic fact. This is not theory. This is not ideology. This is fact. In 1802, the Jeffersonians, faced with courts deliberately packed by the Federalists, passed the Judiciary Act of 1802, which abolished over half of all the sitting federal circuit judges. The act didn’t impeach them; it simply said their jobs didn’t exist. They wouldn’t be paid, so they shouldn’t bother to show up. The judges were deeply offended. They promptly went to court, and the remaining federal judges essentially said, if we overrule the Congress, they’re going to abolish our jobs.
I cite this, because of the Ninth Circuit Court. We should just close the jobs of the two judges who said that it was unconstitutional to say, “One Nation, Under God” as part of the pledge. Let’s just say, “Terrific, you’re now retired.” I am citing this, because the first step to getting this done is to have people like you talk to your delegations, and then presently somebody will introduce a bill. Initially people will say that it’s very radical, but then as the courts behave more and more stupidly, people will get madder and madder. Finally, one morning we’ll do it, and then the judges who are left will realize that maybe they don’t want to be quite that bold.
This is a straight-out fight. The elected branches, the legislative and the executive, have every right to re-balance the judges under our Constitution. Remember, if you read The Federalist Papers, they refer to a division of power. There’s a balance between the three branches, so when the judges say that they are all powerful, the correct answer is, “No, you’re not.” The only way you prove that is to have the legislative and the executive branches take steps to change them.
Senator John Kyl, for example, has a bill in Congress that would block the Supreme Court from even considering the Pledge of Allegiance. If Congress passes that bill, and the president signs it, I think the court is blocked. I think it’s clear under the Constitution that it is blocked. But if the court were to overturn that law, my next step would be to change the court. Again, that wouldn’t be abnormal. The struggle for power between appointed lawyers and the rest of us has been going on for 200 years, and for the last 40 years, the lawyers have been on the offensive. Well, now it’s our turn.
[More at URL]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-04-07 05:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-07 05:38 am (UTC)Well, it's normally three times a week. The LJ posting is new, I admit, but that's just because it's so important right now.
I mean, honestly, most of the time I've done this, it's been five or six stories a post. I've never seen a flood like this - ever. They're pulling out all stops right now.
What I would say is that the LJ posts don't contain anything the mail posts don't. So you could just ignore the LJ posts. They have the same subject all the time, and the same format, so you can just kind of skim over. I won't put anything new in the LJ that isn't in the mailing list. (The converse is not true - occasionally the list form version might have something the LJ post doesn't.)
If you're reading all the way through both, then yeah, that'd get depressing. Stop it. ^_^
no subject
Date: 2005-04-07 04:10 pm (UTC)Out of all the things I could say, I will say these two things:
1) As a female-bodied woman, I could care less who is in the stall next to me unless they are peering over the side to watch. Other than that, it could be a dog in the next stall and I wouldn't care. Why should I?
2) "However, because the entire school day is taken over by “Day of Silence” advocacy, there is no way to opt children out of these sexually explicit discussions of homosexuality. Parents are encouraged to demand that the “Day of Silence” event be canceled."
How can people who are totally silent be having sexually explicit discussions of anything?
no subject
Date: 2005-04-07 04:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-07 04:27 pm (UTC)And the thing that you need to realise about fundamentalistworld is that it doesn't have to make any sense, when talking about science in particular, and any reference to homosexuality, bisexuality, etc, is inherently obscene unless condemnational. There is no "neutral" talk in their... well, their whole culture, really. There's a little theoretical room for it on certain subjects, but not much. So if you're not viciously condemning homosexuality, you're "promoting" it, and such discussions are "obscene."
Televangelisticespialidocious..
Date: 2005-04-08 02:14 pm (UTC)it's the noisy Christian minority that give the rest a bad name...Scott