Today's Cultural Warfare Update
May. 4th, 2005 10:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbird[EDIT: I'm adding a callout on today's Family News in Focus, since it attacks the concept of private-corporation DP benefits as "wrong."]
Article on Janice Rogers Brown's judicial philosophies;
Focus on the Family article on the Soulforce protest;
Soulforce's version of the same incident;
FotF article on creationism in Kansas;
Pat Robertson: America's judges are a bigger threat than Al Qaeda;
National Review's Maggie Gallagher claims that Americans are overwhelmingly rejecting marriage rights, and is pleased;
Andrew Sullivan notes that she ignores the latest polling data and misrepresents some of the data she does use;
Focus on the Family claims complaints by Jewish cadets by fundamentalists at the Air Force Academy are an attempt to oppress Christians, quotes former cadet claiming that Christians are actively oppressed and that "The secular humanists kind of run the show, by and large";
Focus on the Family plugs another new ad campaign pushing for changes in Senate filibuster rules;
New York Catholic college to be disaffiliated from the Catholic Church for granting an honourary degree to pro-choice senator Hillary Clinton;
Montgomery County, Maryland being sued by anti-gay activists over its sex ed. curriculum;
Today's Focus on the Family Family News in Focus attacks corporate GBLT domestic partner benefits. They're "wrong," and "costly," and "put undue financial strain on their employee's pocketbooks" (note how even in the definition of "employee," queers are excluded as Not Really People);
Concerned Women for America applaud Microsoft for changing its stance on the GBLT basic civil rights bill, urges it not to support it next year;
CWA attacks filibusters as "bullying."
----- 1 -----
OPENING ARGUMENT
Does the President Agree With This Nominee?
By Stuart Taylor Jr., National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Monday, May 2, 2005
http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm#
California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown is the most interesting of President Bush's judicial nominees blocked by Democratic filibusters. So a look at her speeches and judicial opinions may shed light on what the fuss is all about.
An Alabama sharecropper's daughter who attended segregated black schools, Brown is a smart, self-made, independent-minded, public-spirited judge who has won high praise from some colleagues. Much like Justice Clarence Thomas, another child of the segregated South, Brown is a cogent critic of racial profiling and of racial-preference programs, and has been savaged by advocates of preferences. With her gift for vivid expression, she would add spice to the nation's second-most-powerful court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has the last word on the legality of many federal environmental, health, and safety regulations.
But spice is not all that she would add. What's most striking about this nomination is the question why Bush wants to add to this, of all courts, a person who has:
• Expressed approval of constitutional theories that might well (as I read them) doom Bush's own signature Medicare prescription drug benefit and proposed Social Security "personal accounts," along with the rest of the Medicare and Social Security programs and many workplace safety and environmental laws.
• Denounced as "the triumph of our own socialist revolution" the 1937 Supreme Court decisions upholding the Social Security Act, the National Labor Relations Act, other key New Deal programs, and state minimum-wage laws, while likening those decisions to the bloody Russian Revolution of 1917.
• Called for the Supreme Court to return to its pre-1937 pattern of sweeping away many federal and state economic regulations by imposing severe limits on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce and by reviving long-dead precedents such as Lochner v. New York, a now-infamous 1905 decision that conservative legal hero Robert Bork (among many others) has denounced as an "abomination."
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Gay Protesters Arrested at Focus
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Three members of Soulforce end their two-day
protest of Focus on the Family by trespassing on ministry
grounds.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0036418.cfm
Homosexual minister Mel White brought his Soulforce
protest to the campus of Focus on the Family on Sunday and
today. There was no violence, but three protesters ignored
police warnings today to stay off the Colorado
Springs-based ministry's property and were promptly
arrested.
Authorities had warned Phil Reitan, his wife, Randi, and
their son, Jacob, they could not take a letter directly to
Focus on the Family Chairman James Dobson. Reitan read the
letter to the media, then the trio crossed police
barricades onto Focus property.
They were booked on misdemeanor trespassing charges and
later released. Their letter was never presented to Focus
on the Family.
On Sunday, an estimated 700 people gathered at the same
location -- the drive leading to the ministry's front
entrance. A black "coffin" filled with what the group
claimed were a thousand letters denouncing Focus' position
on homosexuality was presented for the cameras.
White, who only addressed Sunday's crowd, pleaded for
"tolerance."
"We're the ones who have to bury the gay teenagers who
kill themselves because their parents have been quoting
Jim Dobson to them," he said. "Jim Dobson began as a
wonderful family counselor; now he's become a danger to
himself and the nation."
Focus on the Family Vice President of Government and
Public Policy Tom Minnery, however, said the real
"tolerance" issue is one that White -- a former
speechwriter and ghostwriter for evangelical luminaries
before publicly declaring his homosexuality more than a
decade ago -- seems to want to ignore.
"One of Mel White's charges against Focus on the Family is
that we commit 'spiritual violence' when we say that gays
can change," Minnery said. "That's a very intolerant
statement because it denies the existence of . . .
thousands of people . . . who have made the struggle out
of homosexuality.
"We ask Mel White: Does tolerance extend to people who
want to put homosexuality behind them? Mel says no. That's
our essential disagreement."
Melissa Fryrear, Focus on the Family gender issues
analyst, said White's suicide allegation is untrue. A
former lesbian, Fryrear has ministered to ex-gays for more
than a decade. While she agreed some homosexuals are
suicidal, she strongly disputed the reason given for it.
"From my vantage point," she said, "the people that I
found were suicidal are those who thought they were
trapped in homosexuality, who thought they had to live
homosexually. And so they actually had been filled with
hope when we shared with them that, 'No, you can come out
of this.' "
Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, said it
was that despair that led him to search for the truth.
"That was my experience," he said. "I was told there was
only one option for me --'You have to accept who you are
and there is no other way.' And for me, as a teenager when
I was coming out of homosexuality 15 years ago, that made
me want to die. (It wasn't) until I found that there was
an alternative, that there was something for me, for
someone who was pursuing what I was pursuing, that caused
me to want to live."
White's visit, Chambers said, was designed solely to bring
media attention to the pro-gay message. Indeed, Minnery
said White certainly did not come to meet with Focus on
the Family Chairman Dr. James Dobson -- as White very
publicly claimed.
[More at URL]
[Text of letter they attempted to deliver here:
http://www.deardrdobson.com/reitan.htm ]
----- 3 -----
FOCUS ON THE FAMILY LOCKS OUT SOULFORCE
Gay son and his parents arrested for trespassing as they try to deliver a letter to Dobson and Focus on the Family
http://www.soulforce.org/pressreleases/pr050205dobson.shtml
******************************************
SOULFORCE PRESS RELEASE: May 2, 2005
For Immediate Release
Contact: Laura Montgomery Rutt
717-278-0592 laura@soulforce.org
******************************************
(Colorado Springs) - A family who wanted to deliver a letter to James Dobson or the "next in line" was arrested for trespassing this morning as they crossed onto the property of Dobson's organization, Focus on the Family. Originally, plans were to distribute 100s of letters written by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals and families who have been hurt by Dobson's rhetoric during a public tour during normal operating hours, but Focus on the Family shut down on Monday, May 2, to keep LGBT individuals and families from entering.
Before the arrest, Randi Reitan, mother of Jacob Reitan, a young gay man and Youth Director for Soulforce, read a letter she had written to Dobson explaining how his rhetoric is hurting families like theirs. Holding a bouquet of roses, and struggling to get the words out, Randi stated, "There was never a moment we did not love or accept our dear son. But we struggled with how best to see the day Jake is loved, accepted and understood by society. As parents and Christians, we felt called to work for justice for all in the gay community." The letter is available online at www.soulforce.org.
With his arms around both parents, Jacob stated, "This family is about love, my parents love me as I am, as God created me, and James Dobson is out to destroy loving families like mine!" As the family crossed on to the Focus on the Family property, police immediately handcuffed Jacob Reitan, his mother Randi, and his father Phil, who all had tears in their eyes as they were led to the police van.
Over 125 Soulforce supporters, singing "Amazing Grace," stood by in support of the Reitan family who were released from police custody a short time later.
"We believe that the ministry of Jesus was about opening doors for the marginalized and oppressed, so it is ironic that Focus on the Family is slamming the doors on those very same people that Jesus would have welcomed with open arms, " stated Rev. Nori Rost, pastor of Pikes Peak Metropolitan Community Church.
On May 1, over 1000 people filled the street in front Focus on the Family to celebrate the worth, dignity, and Spirit evident in the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals, couples, and their families, while holding Dobson accountable for his anti-gay rhetoric. Many of the families, with their young children in tow, sang and danced as Jason and DeMarco, the Two Spirit Society, and a myriad of speakers sang and spoke to the crowd. Hundreds of letters explaining to Dobson how his rhetoric has hurt their families were collected and will be distributed to Dobson in the coming days and months.
Soulforce and supporters in Colorado plan to return to Focus on the Family next year.
As with any nonviolent direct action, Soulforce first researched the anti-gay statements made by Dobson which run counter to the psychological and psychiatric evidence regarding LGBT people. Dobson has refused to consider the evidence and has refused or ignored all letter requesting dialogue. The research conducted by Soulforce is published in a booklet entitled "Why Every Family Should be Concerned about James Dobson's Anti-gay Rhetoric" and is available online at www.soulforce.org. Letters written requesting dialogue with Dobson are also available at the Soulforce website.
----- 4 -----
Kansas Evolution Debate: To Teach of Not to Teach
Focus on the Family
[No URL; received by email]
The Kansas Board of Education will begin a series of
hearings on Thursday concerning what students should be
taught about the origins of life, Yahoo News reported.
In 1999 the school board voted to downplay evolution in
science classes, but critics have pressured it to return
the theory to a prominent position. The current proposal
would teach about both creation and evolutionary theory.
It would also encourage the discussion of various
viewpoints.
"If students . . . do not understand the weakness of
evolutionary theory as well as the strengths," school
board Chairman Steve Abrams said, "a grave injustice is
being done to them."
Kansas is just one of more than a dozen states currently
embroiled in a battle over whether creation should be
taught in addition to the theory of evolution.
----- 5 -----
Robertson: Judges worse than Al Qaeda
BY DEREK ROSE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
http://www.nydailynews.com/05-02-2005/news/wn_report/story/305594p-261517c.html
Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.
"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."
Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.
"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."
Robertson's comments came with a showdown looming in the Senate over seven of President Bush's conservative judicial nominees who have been blocked by Democrat filibusters. Republicans have threatened a "nuclear option" to pass the judges by rewriting Senate rules to stop the filibusters.
Sources told the Daily News that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist lacks the 50 votes he needs, which could be a blow to his presidential hopes. "I don't think Frist has the votes," a GOP aide said. "He's now in his own corner. If he doesn't have the votes, he's really screwed."
Robertson echoed that sentiment. "I just don't see him as a future President," Robertson said.
----- 6 -----
May 03, 2005, 8:10 a.m.
PAC Marriage
Where are all the marriage political-action committees?
By Maggie Gallagher
National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gallagher200505030810.asp
After a year and a half of intensive public debate on gay marriage, how are we doing?
First, the good news.
The more Americans hear about gay marriage, the less we like it.
The Gallup poll asks the question this way: “Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages? “
In June 2003, according to Gallup, Americans opposed gay marriage 55 percent to 39 percent. By March 2005, the margin of opposition had swelled to 68 percent v. 28 percent in favor.
A new iMAPP policy brief, “Same-Sex Marriage: Recent Trends in Public Opinion” (available at www.marriagedebate.com), identifies all polling firms that had asked the same question on gay marriage at least twice since 2003. Polls that use slightly different wordings produce slightly different results, but the overall trend is the same. For example:
 The ABC News/Washington Post poll (“Do you think it should be legal or illegal for homosexual couples to get married?”) found that in September 2003, Americans opposed gay marriage 55 percent to 37 percent. In the August 2004 poll opposition had climbed to 62 percent opposed to 32 percent in favor of SSM.
 The Quinnipiac poll asks, “Would you support or oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to get married?” In December 2003, Americans opposed gay marriage 60 percent v. 35 percent. By December 2004, American’s opposition to SSM had climbed to 65 percent v. 31 percent.
 ???The Pew poll, which asks “Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?,” showed Americans’ opposition to SSM climbing from 53 percent v. 38 percent in July 2003, to 60 percent v. 29 percent in the latest August of 2004 survey.
The most striking (and underreported) results are those of the 2004 UCLA freshman poll released earlier this year, which surveys 290,000 college freshman. Between 2003 and 2004 the proportion of college freshman who support gay marriage dropped almost three percentage points, from 59.4 percent to 56.7 percent. This is the first recorded drop in support for same-sex marriage among college freshman since the question was first asked in 1997. Whether this is just a blip in a long-term trend towards increasing support of gay marriage among educated young adults, or the beginning of a marriage turnaround on the issue, remains to be seen. Certainly the national debate has newly exposed more young people to argument against and concern about gay marriage by adults they care for and respect, from parents to pastors.
As opposition to same-sex marriage has grown, so has support for a constitutional amendment on marriage. Gallup asks, “Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples? In February 2004, Americans favored a marriage amendment but only narrowly, 49 percent in favor to 46 percent opposed. By March 2005, Americans support for a constitutional amendment climbed to 57 percent in favor to 37 percent opposed. Levels of support for a constitutional amendment vary considerably based on alternate wording (surveys that ask whether voters want a constitutional amendment to “ban same-sex marriage” poll particularly badly). But it appears likely that the success of state constitutional marriage amendment (18 states have passed such constitutional amendments defining marriage) may be raising the public comfort level with the idea of “the constitutional option” for marriage.
Those of us who remember how many good and smart people despaired about this issue, when it first arose in the summer of 2003, have reason to rejoice. Pat yourself on the back once. Maybe twice.
And then get back to work. The not-so-good news: Two years from now, one-third of the country is likely to be living with gay marriage. Pending court decisions in California, Washington state, New Jersey (along with Massachusetts) are likely to produce a fragmented marriage system despite overwhelming public opposition. And other states, like New York, are taking a different route: forbidding the performance of gay marriages in-state, but recognizing gay marriages performed in nearby Massachusetts or Canada. Meanwhile the Marriage Protection Amendment appears stalled in the Senate. It’s not now the particular wording that is holding up action, it’s the reality that to get to 67 votes, you need substantial support among Democrats, support that is not currently there, and which neither Senate GOP leaders, nor the President of the United States can produce.
Republicans who want to use this issue merely for partisan gain will be happy with this stalemate. Those of us who see protecting marriage as an essential can’t-lose issue need to do one big thing: Convince Democrats as well as Republicans that Americans really do care about this issue. Translation: Knock off a couple of senators on this issue in 2006. Right now the movement to protect marriage has lots of ministries, fabulous public support, and almost no PAC money. This has to change.
Marriage ought to be a nonpartisan issue. The fate of our most basic social institution for protecting children should not depend on who wins the next election. Now is the limited window of opportunity to convince both parties they need to make this obvious moral truth a political reality on the ground.
----- 7 -----
Andrew Sullivan
andrewsullivan.com
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/
POLLING ON MARRIAGE: There has, I think, been some turbulence in the national polling over the last year on marriage rights, as Maggie Gallagher points out. This is perhaps understandable. Opposition to equal rights (or any rights) for gay couples in this respect is now a key plank of one political party, and has been amplified by a coordinated campaign against them (including the presidential bully pulpit), using churches, pastors and all sorts of venues to push the message. That's democracy. Those of us who believe gay couples should be supported in their responsibility; who believe that greater social stability among gays will help heterosexual marriage; who believe that families should include all their members in the same rites and responsibilities; who believe that this country is big enough to allow diversity on this issue among the states rather than a single imposition of a minority view; we need to keep up the debate. Nevertheless, it's striking that a clear majority of the country in all polls supports some legal protection for gay couples via civil unions or civil marriage - exactly the position that would be made impossible by the federal marriage amendment. Still, even then, Maggie is cherry-picking. She writes:
----- 8 -----
Complaint Filed Against Air Force Academy Christians
by Stuart Shepard, correspondent
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Americans United for Separation of Church and
State claims Christian staff and students are too
aggressive with their faith.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036428.cfm
Christians at the U.S. Air Force Academy are simply too
aggressive and outspoken, according to a formal complaint
by the activist group Americans United for Separation of
Church and State.
The complaint puts the academy in the crosshairs of the
mainstream media and liberals.
In a 14-page report, Americans United (AU) spells out what
it calls "extremely troubling religious policies and
practices."
"There's a very systemic problem at the Air Force Academy
of religious discrimination -- of support for evangelical
Christianity, but a real denigrating of other religious
traditions and that is inappropriate," AU Executive
Director Barry Lynn said.
Chaplains have sometimes encouraged Christian cadets to
witness to classmates, he added, and the cadets are
sometimes led in prayer. He said more than a dozen
non-Christian students have told him they feel like
second-class citizens.
"I'd like to see a real and genuine policy that prevents
senior cadets from harassing non-Christian junior cadets
over their religious beliefs," Lynn said.
Tom Clemmons, an Air Force Academy graduate and former
officer, said it's really an attempt to quash the free
speech of Christians.
"I totally disagree with what they're saying. I applaud
any chaplain that would encourage students to know the
Lord," Clemmons said. "This is a free country, even in the
military.
"If I did experience a bias in the Air Force, it was
against Christians. Now, while we do have Christians at
the Academy and in the Air Force, it's definitely a
minority."
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
Ad Campaign to Support Votes for Judicial Nominees
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
Focus on the Family
May 3, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036427.cfm
Ads target senators wavering on ending the Democrats' filibusters.
A coalition of groups advocating Senate action on the president's judicial nominees is launching a national ad campaign to raise awareness and solicit public support.
The coalition will spend $3.3 million on the campaign and will begin airing ads this week in states whose senators could be swayed by a large public outpouring.
"If you think judges should be fair and well qualified, look at these women," the narrator says in one commercial.
The timing of the campaign is no accident. The Senate is not in session—lawmakers are home facing their constituents.
"Urge your senators to vote—up or down. Enough is enough," said Brian McCabe, president of Progress for America. "This week we're running in six target states: Alaska, Arkansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota and Rhode Island. Next week we take the campaign national,"
The first ad introduces nominees Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown to America.
"There's been a lot of discussion over the last couple weeks about process," McCabe said, "and we wanted to introduce the personalities into the debate."
Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network said her organization is working on the second part of the campaign.
"We have grass-roots efforts going on where state leaders are organizing citizens to call their senators, fax their senators, e-mail their senators and ask them to stand up for a vote on judges," she said.
"It truly does matter for senators who are wavering or senators who are in the middle, or frankly even senators who've announced that they won't support an up or down vote on these nominees," Long added. "We're not giving up on anybody."
The effort will continue, she added, until all the nominees get an up-or-down vote—likely only when the filibusters are broken.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Tom Minnery, a Focus on the Family vice president, shares in his book, "Why You Can't Stay Silent," a compelling case from a biblical perspective on why Christians must actively address social issues. In Matthew 5, Jesus taught a simple parable comparing His believers to salt and light. What does this lesson mean to millions of Christians now?
----- 10 -----
College De-certified Over Degree to Clinton
Focus on the Family
No URL; received in email
A New York Catholic college is in trouble because it plans
to award an honorary degree to a pro-abortion senator on
May 20.
Marymount Manhattan College is slated to bestow an
honorary doctorate upon Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y.
In fact, the Catholic Archdiocese of New York has decided
to disaffiliate from the school. It will no longer be
considered a Catholic institution.
The Cardinal Newman Society, which brought the problem to
the attention of Cardinal Edward Egan and the archdiocese,
praised the action.
"The decision to honor one of Congress' most outspoken and
strident advocates of abortion rights was just the latest
episode in a long history of secularization at Marymount
Manhattan College," said Patrick Reilly, president of the
society.
----- 11 -----
Maryland Schools Face Lawsuit Over Sex-Ed Curriculum
Focus on the Family
No URL; received in email.
The Montgomery County, Md., school system is facing a
lawsuit over its plan for a pilot program that would teach
students homosexuality is natural and not changeable,
CNSNews.com reported.
The suit, filed by Liberty Counsel, is on behalf of
Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and Parents and
Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX). It seeks a temporary
injunction to prevent the pilot program's curriculum from
being taught to junior high and high school students.
Excerpts from the instruction booklet show the program is
"inaccurate and unashamedly hostile to certain Christian
views," according to Mathew Staver, president and general
counsel for Liberty Counsel.
Some of the controversial excerpts:
* "Fact: Most experts in the field have concluded that
sexual orientation is not a choice."
* "Fact: Sex play with friends of the same gender is not
uncommon during early adolescence and does not prove
long-term sexual orientation."
* "Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and
oppression."
* "It is no more abnormal or sick to be homosexual than to
be left-handed."
Staver said, "The school board has been captured by
radical homosexual advocacy groups whose only agenda is to
push their political goals without respect to the
consequences."
He added that every proposed resource the plaintiffs
submitted to present the ex-gay perspective was rejected.
----- 12 -----
Family News in Focus
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Focus on the Family
* Will new head of UNICEF mean directional change for UN?
1. Carol Bellamy leaving post - "conservatives say she moved ... to the left." Wanting replacement to move "from the radical fringe." Chastises her for talking too much about girls and not enough for about boys. "She has taken UNICEF in the radical feminist direction." Criticised for taking UNICEF to "a rights-based approach." Anne Veneman is replacement.
* Washington looks at correlation between mental illness and marijuana use
3. Blames marijuana for depression and suicide in tweens.
* Is there a trend developing in large corporations to end domestic partner benefits?
5. NCR shareholders failed to pass resolution against same-gender DP benefits. (Note that the vote _failed_.) "He's unhappy that some corporations are funding domestic parnter benefits, something he doesn't support." "I believe that partnerships are between a man and a woman or a husband and wife." "The fact that it's available or should be available is wrong." "Most of the world's major religions believe that as well." "This just seems to be another way to loosen the definition of marriage." "These benefits cater to the minourity and are saddling the majority with the payments." "Very few people want to pay more money to pay for somebody's unmarried sexual partner." "This isn't the way people should be doing business." "These benefits are costly and put undue financial strain on their employee's pocketbooks."
* National Safe Kids Week reminds parents to model safe behavior
7. Bike helmets, seat belts should be used by parents, because children emulate parents. FotF also adds that behaviour by parents that contradicts dictates by parents strains the parent-child relationship and causes parents to be seen as phonies.
* FL judge voids ruling that would have prevented a 13 year-old girl from having an abortion
2. Florida Right to Life; "If she could have made adult decisions, she wouldn't be pregnant."
* UCLA School of Public Health says the PG rating on movies is all but meaningless
4. "Majority contained at last one act of bodily harm, and many of them more than that."
* Supreme Court agrees to hear a challenge to the Solomon Amendment regarding colleges that take federal funds yet deny military recruiters access to students
6. Yale refuses recruiters on campus. Center for Military Readiness (a right-wing group that also demands an all-male military) wants Yale to lose the case. Yale has won so far.
----- 13 -----
Microsoft Thinks Hard
5/3/2005
By Warren Throckmorton, PhD
Concerned Women for America
The corporate giant removes support for a sexual orientation law—but will its stance last?
Commentary
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8031/CFI/family/index.htm
In this age of technology, when someone at Microsoft speaks, most people listen. Due to the scope and profitability of the company, leaders at Microsoft wield enviable influence far beyond matters of computers and software. So when Microsoft removed its support for a bill designed to add sexual orientation to anti-discrimination law in Washington state, the bill’s supporters were outraged. Failing by one vote in the Senate, the bill’s demise has been blamed on Microsoft’s official neutrality.
Gay rights supporters were livid. Homosexual activist Wayne Besen reacted by suggesting gay activists “dust off your boxing gloves and prepare to fight for your rights or, you can stay silent and redecorate your closet.” Equal Rights of Washington state is asking for Microsoft to return a diversity award presented to the company in 1991. Despite the passage of civil unions in Connecticut, activists believe the Microsoft reversal signals a turnaround in progress for gay political progress. Concerning gay rights, Besen moaned: “This is the first time I believe we are going backwards and actually losing the battle.”
However, I see the events surrounding Microsoft as possibly signaling another trend that would ultimately benefit everybody. Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, issued a memo to his employees that may foretell a shift among publicly held companies toward corporate neutrality on issues of conscience that are unrelated to the business bottom line.
An excerpt from Mr. Ballmer’s memo follows. As quoted in the Seattle Times, he wrote:
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
CWA Says Judicial-Busters Behave Like Neighborhood Bully
5/2/2005
Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8026/MEDIA/nation/index.htm
Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women for America (CWA) says the Senate minority’s refusal to vote on the president’s judicial nominees is like the neighborhood bully who takes the ball and runs home because he can’t stand to lose.
“The minority knows that every nominee has more than 51 votes for confirmation so they refuse to vote to keep from losing,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s chief counsel. “They claim that the president’s nominees are out of the mainstream but it’s the minority that’s lost touch with mainstream Americans and lost the election as a result.”
“Americans don’t want judges who think the Constitution needs to conform to the laws of some banana republic or that it’s their own personal Etch-a-Sketch to create rights to same-sex marriage, partial-birth abortion, Internet pornucopia, constitutionalizing sodomy and striking down the Pledge of Allegiance,” LaRue added.
“Sen. Frist and members of both parties who are fed up with the losers’ judicial-bustering need to take the ball and let the bullies run home. Losers get to vote—they don’t get to win by rewriting the rules. It takes 51 votes to confirm a judge and 41 to throw a tantrum.”
Article on Janice Rogers Brown's judicial philosophies;
Focus on the Family article on the Soulforce protest;
Soulforce's version of the same incident;
FotF article on creationism in Kansas;
Pat Robertson: America's judges are a bigger threat than Al Qaeda;
National Review's Maggie Gallagher claims that Americans are overwhelmingly rejecting marriage rights, and is pleased;
Andrew Sullivan notes that she ignores the latest polling data and misrepresents some of the data she does use;
Focus on the Family claims complaints by Jewish cadets by fundamentalists at the Air Force Academy are an attempt to oppress Christians, quotes former cadet claiming that Christians are actively oppressed and that "The secular humanists kind of run the show, by and large";
Focus on the Family plugs another new ad campaign pushing for changes in Senate filibuster rules;
New York Catholic college to be disaffiliated from the Catholic Church for granting an honourary degree to pro-choice senator Hillary Clinton;
Montgomery County, Maryland being sued by anti-gay activists over its sex ed. curriculum;
Today's Focus on the Family Family News in Focus attacks corporate GBLT domestic partner benefits. They're "wrong," and "costly," and "put undue financial strain on their employee's pocketbooks" (note how even in the definition of "employee," queers are excluded as Not Really People);
Concerned Women for America applaud Microsoft for changing its stance on the GBLT basic civil rights bill, urges it not to support it next year;
CWA attacks filibusters as "bullying."
----- 1 -----
OPENING ARGUMENT
Does the President Agree With This Nominee?
By Stuart Taylor Jr., National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Monday, May 2, 2005
http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm#
California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown is the most interesting of President Bush's judicial nominees blocked by Democratic filibusters. So a look at her speeches and judicial opinions may shed light on what the fuss is all about.
An Alabama sharecropper's daughter who attended segregated black schools, Brown is a smart, self-made, independent-minded, public-spirited judge who has won high praise from some colleagues. Much like Justice Clarence Thomas, another child of the segregated South, Brown is a cogent critic of racial profiling and of racial-preference programs, and has been savaged by advocates of preferences. With her gift for vivid expression, she would add spice to the nation's second-most-powerful court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has the last word on the legality of many federal environmental, health, and safety regulations.
But spice is not all that she would add. What's most striking about this nomination is the question why Bush wants to add to this, of all courts, a person who has:
• Expressed approval of constitutional theories that might well (as I read them) doom Bush's own signature Medicare prescription drug benefit and proposed Social Security "personal accounts," along with the rest of the Medicare and Social Security programs and many workplace safety and environmental laws.
• Denounced as "the triumph of our own socialist revolution" the 1937 Supreme Court decisions upholding the Social Security Act, the National Labor Relations Act, other key New Deal programs, and state minimum-wage laws, while likening those decisions to the bloody Russian Revolution of 1917.
• Called for the Supreme Court to return to its pre-1937 pattern of sweeping away many federal and state economic regulations by imposing severe limits on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce and by reviving long-dead precedents such as Lochner v. New York, a now-infamous 1905 decision that conservative legal hero Robert Bork (among many others) has denounced as an "abomination."
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Gay Protesters Arrested at Focus
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Three members of Soulforce end their two-day
protest of Focus on the Family by trespassing on ministry
grounds.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0036418.cfm
Homosexual minister Mel White brought his Soulforce
protest to the campus of Focus on the Family on Sunday and
today. There was no violence, but three protesters ignored
police warnings today to stay off the Colorado
Springs-based ministry's property and were promptly
arrested.
Authorities had warned Phil Reitan, his wife, Randi, and
their son, Jacob, they could not take a letter directly to
Focus on the Family Chairman James Dobson. Reitan read the
letter to the media, then the trio crossed police
barricades onto Focus property.
They were booked on misdemeanor trespassing charges and
later released. Their letter was never presented to Focus
on the Family.
On Sunday, an estimated 700 people gathered at the same
location -- the drive leading to the ministry's front
entrance. A black "coffin" filled with what the group
claimed were a thousand letters denouncing Focus' position
on homosexuality was presented for the cameras.
White, who only addressed Sunday's crowd, pleaded for
"tolerance."
"We're the ones who have to bury the gay teenagers who
kill themselves because their parents have been quoting
Jim Dobson to them," he said. "Jim Dobson began as a
wonderful family counselor; now he's become a danger to
himself and the nation."
Focus on the Family Vice President of Government and
Public Policy Tom Minnery, however, said the real
"tolerance" issue is one that White -- a former
speechwriter and ghostwriter for evangelical luminaries
before publicly declaring his homosexuality more than a
decade ago -- seems to want to ignore.
"One of Mel White's charges against Focus on the Family is
that we commit 'spiritual violence' when we say that gays
can change," Minnery said. "That's a very intolerant
statement because it denies the existence of . . .
thousands of people . . . who have made the struggle out
of homosexuality.
"We ask Mel White: Does tolerance extend to people who
want to put homosexuality behind them? Mel says no. That's
our essential disagreement."
Melissa Fryrear, Focus on the Family gender issues
analyst, said White's suicide allegation is untrue. A
former lesbian, Fryrear has ministered to ex-gays for more
than a decade. While she agreed some homosexuals are
suicidal, she strongly disputed the reason given for it.
"From my vantage point," she said, "the people that I
found were suicidal are those who thought they were
trapped in homosexuality, who thought they had to live
homosexually. And so they actually had been filled with
hope when we shared with them that, 'No, you can come out
of this.' "
Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, said it
was that despair that led him to search for the truth.
"That was my experience," he said. "I was told there was
only one option for me --'You have to accept who you are
and there is no other way.' And for me, as a teenager when
I was coming out of homosexuality 15 years ago, that made
me want to die. (It wasn't) until I found that there was
an alternative, that there was something for me, for
someone who was pursuing what I was pursuing, that caused
me to want to live."
White's visit, Chambers said, was designed solely to bring
media attention to the pro-gay message. Indeed, Minnery
said White certainly did not come to meet with Focus on
the Family Chairman Dr. James Dobson -- as White very
publicly claimed.
[More at URL]
[Text of letter they attempted to deliver here:
http://www.deardrdobson.com/reitan.htm ]
----- 3 -----
FOCUS ON THE FAMILY LOCKS OUT SOULFORCE
Gay son and his parents arrested for trespassing as they try to deliver a letter to Dobson and Focus on the Family
http://www.soulforce.org/pressreleases/pr050205dobson.shtml
******************************************
SOULFORCE PRESS RELEASE: May 2, 2005
For Immediate Release
Contact: Laura Montgomery Rutt
717-278-0592 laura@soulforce.org
******************************************
(Colorado Springs) - A family who wanted to deliver a letter to James Dobson or the "next in line" was arrested for trespassing this morning as they crossed onto the property of Dobson's organization, Focus on the Family. Originally, plans were to distribute 100s of letters written by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals and families who have been hurt by Dobson's rhetoric during a public tour during normal operating hours, but Focus on the Family shut down on Monday, May 2, to keep LGBT individuals and families from entering.
Before the arrest, Randi Reitan, mother of Jacob Reitan, a young gay man and Youth Director for Soulforce, read a letter she had written to Dobson explaining how his rhetoric is hurting families like theirs. Holding a bouquet of roses, and struggling to get the words out, Randi stated, "There was never a moment we did not love or accept our dear son. But we struggled with how best to see the day Jake is loved, accepted and understood by society. As parents and Christians, we felt called to work for justice for all in the gay community." The letter is available online at www.soulforce.org.
With his arms around both parents, Jacob stated, "This family is about love, my parents love me as I am, as God created me, and James Dobson is out to destroy loving families like mine!" As the family crossed on to the Focus on the Family property, police immediately handcuffed Jacob Reitan, his mother Randi, and his father Phil, who all had tears in their eyes as they were led to the police van.
Over 125 Soulforce supporters, singing "Amazing Grace," stood by in support of the Reitan family who were released from police custody a short time later.
"We believe that the ministry of Jesus was about opening doors for the marginalized and oppressed, so it is ironic that Focus on the Family is slamming the doors on those very same people that Jesus would have welcomed with open arms, " stated Rev. Nori Rost, pastor of Pikes Peak Metropolitan Community Church.
On May 1, over 1000 people filled the street in front Focus on the Family to celebrate the worth, dignity, and Spirit evident in the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals, couples, and their families, while holding Dobson accountable for his anti-gay rhetoric. Many of the families, with their young children in tow, sang and danced as Jason and DeMarco, the Two Spirit Society, and a myriad of speakers sang and spoke to the crowd. Hundreds of letters explaining to Dobson how his rhetoric has hurt their families were collected and will be distributed to Dobson in the coming days and months.
Soulforce and supporters in Colorado plan to return to Focus on the Family next year.
As with any nonviolent direct action, Soulforce first researched the anti-gay statements made by Dobson which run counter to the psychological and psychiatric evidence regarding LGBT people. Dobson has refused to consider the evidence and has refused or ignored all letter requesting dialogue. The research conducted by Soulforce is published in a booklet entitled "Why Every Family Should be Concerned about James Dobson's Anti-gay Rhetoric" and is available online at www.soulforce.org. Letters written requesting dialogue with Dobson are also available at the Soulforce website.
----- 4 -----
Kansas Evolution Debate: To Teach of Not to Teach
Focus on the Family
[No URL; received by email]
The Kansas Board of Education will begin a series of
hearings on Thursday concerning what students should be
taught about the origins of life, Yahoo News reported.
In 1999 the school board voted to downplay evolution in
science classes, but critics have pressured it to return
the theory to a prominent position. The current proposal
would teach about both creation and evolutionary theory.
It would also encourage the discussion of various
viewpoints.
"If students . . . do not understand the weakness of
evolutionary theory as well as the strengths," school
board Chairman Steve Abrams said, "a grave injustice is
being done to them."
Kansas is just one of more than a dozen states currently
embroiled in a battle over whether creation should be
taught in addition to the theory of evolution.
----- 5 -----
Robertson: Judges worse than Al Qaeda
BY DEREK ROSE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
http://www.nydailynews.com/05-02-2005/news/wn_report/story/305594p-261517c.html
Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.
"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."
Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.
"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."
Robertson's comments came with a showdown looming in the Senate over seven of President Bush's conservative judicial nominees who have been blocked by Democrat filibusters. Republicans have threatened a "nuclear option" to pass the judges by rewriting Senate rules to stop the filibusters.
Sources told the Daily News that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist lacks the 50 votes he needs, which could be a blow to his presidential hopes. "I don't think Frist has the votes," a GOP aide said. "He's now in his own corner. If he doesn't have the votes, he's really screwed."
Robertson echoed that sentiment. "I just don't see him as a future President," Robertson said.
----- 6 -----
May 03, 2005, 8:10 a.m.
PAC Marriage
Where are all the marriage political-action committees?
By Maggie Gallagher
National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gallagher200505030810.asp
After a year and a half of intensive public debate on gay marriage, how are we doing?
First, the good news.
The more Americans hear about gay marriage, the less we like it.
The Gallup poll asks the question this way: “Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages? “
In June 2003, according to Gallup, Americans opposed gay marriage 55 percent to 39 percent. By March 2005, the margin of opposition had swelled to 68 percent v. 28 percent in favor.
A new iMAPP policy brief, “Same-Sex Marriage: Recent Trends in Public Opinion” (available at www.marriagedebate.com), identifies all polling firms that had asked the same question on gay marriage at least twice since 2003. Polls that use slightly different wordings produce slightly different results, but the overall trend is the same. For example:
 The ABC News/Washington Post poll (“Do you think it should be legal or illegal for homosexual couples to get married?”) found that in September 2003, Americans opposed gay marriage 55 percent to 37 percent. In the August 2004 poll opposition had climbed to 62 percent opposed to 32 percent in favor of SSM.
 The Quinnipiac poll asks, “Would you support or oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to get married?” In December 2003, Americans opposed gay marriage 60 percent v. 35 percent. By December 2004, American’s opposition to SSM had climbed to 65 percent v. 31 percent.
 ???The Pew poll, which asks “Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?,” showed Americans’ opposition to SSM climbing from 53 percent v. 38 percent in July 2003, to 60 percent v. 29 percent in the latest August of 2004 survey.
The most striking (and underreported) results are those of the 2004 UCLA freshman poll released earlier this year, which surveys 290,000 college freshman. Between 2003 and 2004 the proportion of college freshman who support gay marriage dropped almost three percentage points, from 59.4 percent to 56.7 percent. This is the first recorded drop in support for same-sex marriage among college freshman since the question was first asked in 1997. Whether this is just a blip in a long-term trend towards increasing support of gay marriage among educated young adults, or the beginning of a marriage turnaround on the issue, remains to be seen. Certainly the national debate has newly exposed more young people to argument against and concern about gay marriage by adults they care for and respect, from parents to pastors.
As opposition to same-sex marriage has grown, so has support for a constitutional amendment on marriage. Gallup asks, “Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples? In February 2004, Americans favored a marriage amendment but only narrowly, 49 percent in favor to 46 percent opposed. By March 2005, Americans support for a constitutional amendment climbed to 57 percent in favor to 37 percent opposed. Levels of support for a constitutional amendment vary considerably based on alternate wording (surveys that ask whether voters want a constitutional amendment to “ban same-sex marriage” poll particularly badly). But it appears likely that the success of state constitutional marriage amendment (18 states have passed such constitutional amendments defining marriage) may be raising the public comfort level with the idea of “the constitutional option” for marriage.
Those of us who remember how many good and smart people despaired about this issue, when it first arose in the summer of 2003, have reason to rejoice. Pat yourself on the back once. Maybe twice.
And then get back to work. The not-so-good news: Two years from now, one-third of the country is likely to be living with gay marriage. Pending court decisions in California, Washington state, New Jersey (along with Massachusetts) are likely to produce a fragmented marriage system despite overwhelming public opposition. And other states, like New York, are taking a different route: forbidding the performance of gay marriages in-state, but recognizing gay marriages performed in nearby Massachusetts or Canada. Meanwhile the Marriage Protection Amendment appears stalled in the Senate. It’s not now the particular wording that is holding up action, it’s the reality that to get to 67 votes, you need substantial support among Democrats, support that is not currently there, and which neither Senate GOP leaders, nor the President of the United States can produce.
Republicans who want to use this issue merely for partisan gain will be happy with this stalemate. Those of us who see protecting marriage as an essential can’t-lose issue need to do one big thing: Convince Democrats as well as Republicans that Americans really do care about this issue. Translation: Knock off a couple of senators on this issue in 2006. Right now the movement to protect marriage has lots of ministries, fabulous public support, and almost no PAC money. This has to change.
Marriage ought to be a nonpartisan issue. The fate of our most basic social institution for protecting children should not depend on who wins the next election. Now is the limited window of opportunity to convince both parties they need to make this obvious moral truth a political reality on the ground.
----- 7 -----
Andrew Sullivan
andrewsullivan.com
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/
POLLING ON MARRIAGE: There has, I think, been some turbulence in the national polling over the last year on marriage rights, as Maggie Gallagher points out. This is perhaps understandable. Opposition to equal rights (or any rights) for gay couples in this respect is now a key plank of one political party, and has been amplified by a coordinated campaign against them (including the presidential bully pulpit), using churches, pastors and all sorts of venues to push the message. That's democracy. Those of us who believe gay couples should be supported in their responsibility; who believe that greater social stability among gays will help heterosexual marriage; who believe that families should include all their members in the same rites and responsibilities; who believe that this country is big enough to allow diversity on this issue among the states rather than a single imposition of a minority view; we need to keep up the debate. Nevertheless, it's striking that a clear majority of the country in all polls supports some legal protection for gay couples via civil unions or civil marriage - exactly the position that would be made impossible by the federal marriage amendment. Still, even then, Maggie is cherry-picking. She writes:
The ABC News/Washington Post poll ("Do you think it should be legal or illegal for homosexual couples to get married?") found that in September 2003, Americans opposed gay marriage 55 percent to 37 percent. In the August 2004 poll opposition had climbed to 62 percent opposed to 32 percent in favor of SSM.This is, er, misleading. Those numbers count supporters of civil unions as the same as those opposed to all legal protections. It's also out of date. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll (April 2005) finds that 40 percent want to forbid any legal protections for gay couples, while 27 percent favor civil marriage rights and 29 percent favor civil unions (a combined 56 percent majority for some kind of civil union). In the same poll, the anti-gay-union Amendment gets between 39 and 44 percent support, depending on the phrasing, and between 53 and 56 percent opposition. In fact, this poll shows a decline in support for an amendment over the last year: support went from 44 percent to 39 percent. Support for the federalist solution went from 51 to 56 percent. I guess you now know why Maggie's study omits the most recent data.
----- 8 -----
Complaint Filed Against Air Force Academy Christians
by Stuart Shepard, correspondent
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Americans United for Separation of Church and
State claims Christian staff and students are too
aggressive with their faith.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036428.cfm
Christians at the U.S. Air Force Academy are simply too
aggressive and outspoken, according to a formal complaint
by the activist group Americans United for Separation of
Church and State.
The complaint puts the academy in the crosshairs of the
mainstream media and liberals.
In a 14-page report, Americans United (AU) spells out what
it calls "extremely troubling religious policies and
practices."
"There's a very systemic problem at the Air Force Academy
of religious discrimination -- of support for evangelical
Christianity, but a real denigrating of other religious
traditions and that is inappropriate," AU Executive
Director Barry Lynn said.
Chaplains have sometimes encouraged Christian cadets to
witness to classmates, he added, and the cadets are
sometimes led in prayer. He said more than a dozen
non-Christian students have told him they feel like
second-class citizens.
"I'd like to see a real and genuine policy that prevents
senior cadets from harassing non-Christian junior cadets
over their religious beliefs," Lynn said.
Tom Clemmons, an Air Force Academy graduate and former
officer, said it's really an attempt to quash the free
speech of Christians.
"I totally disagree with what they're saying. I applaud
any chaplain that would encourage students to know the
Lord," Clemmons said. "This is a free country, even in the
military.
"If I did experience a bias in the Air Force, it was
against Christians. Now, while we do have Christians at
the Academy and in the Air Force, it's definitely a
minority."
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
Ad Campaign to Support Votes for Judicial Nominees
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
Focus on the Family
May 3, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036427.cfm
Ads target senators wavering on ending the Democrats' filibusters.
A coalition of groups advocating Senate action on the president's judicial nominees is launching a national ad campaign to raise awareness and solicit public support.
The coalition will spend $3.3 million on the campaign and will begin airing ads this week in states whose senators could be swayed by a large public outpouring.
"If you think judges should be fair and well qualified, look at these women," the narrator says in one commercial.
The timing of the campaign is no accident. The Senate is not in session—lawmakers are home facing their constituents.
"Urge your senators to vote—up or down. Enough is enough," said Brian McCabe, president of Progress for America. "This week we're running in six target states: Alaska, Arkansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota and Rhode Island. Next week we take the campaign national,"
The first ad introduces nominees Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown to America.
"There's been a lot of discussion over the last couple weeks about process," McCabe said, "and we wanted to introduce the personalities into the debate."
Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network said her organization is working on the second part of the campaign.
"We have grass-roots efforts going on where state leaders are organizing citizens to call their senators, fax their senators, e-mail their senators and ask them to stand up for a vote on judges," she said.
"It truly does matter for senators who are wavering or senators who are in the middle, or frankly even senators who've announced that they won't support an up or down vote on these nominees," Long added. "We're not giving up on anybody."
The effort will continue, she added, until all the nominees get an up-or-down vote—likely only when the filibusters are broken.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Tom Minnery, a Focus on the Family vice president, shares in his book, "Why You Can't Stay Silent," a compelling case from a biblical perspective on why Christians must actively address social issues. In Matthew 5, Jesus taught a simple parable comparing His believers to salt and light. What does this lesson mean to millions of Christians now?
----- 10 -----
College De-certified Over Degree to Clinton
Focus on the Family
No URL; received in email
A New York Catholic college is in trouble because it plans
to award an honorary degree to a pro-abortion senator on
May 20.
Marymount Manhattan College is slated to bestow an
honorary doctorate upon Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y.
In fact, the Catholic Archdiocese of New York has decided
to disaffiliate from the school. It will no longer be
considered a Catholic institution.
The Cardinal Newman Society, which brought the problem to
the attention of Cardinal Edward Egan and the archdiocese,
praised the action.
"The decision to honor one of Congress' most outspoken and
strident advocates of abortion rights was just the latest
episode in a long history of secularization at Marymount
Manhattan College," said Patrick Reilly, president of the
society.
----- 11 -----
Maryland Schools Face Lawsuit Over Sex-Ed Curriculum
Focus on the Family
No URL; received in email.
The Montgomery County, Md., school system is facing a
lawsuit over its plan for a pilot program that would teach
students homosexuality is natural and not changeable,
CNSNews.com reported.
The suit, filed by Liberty Counsel, is on behalf of
Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and Parents and
Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX). It seeks a temporary
injunction to prevent the pilot program's curriculum from
being taught to junior high and high school students.
Excerpts from the instruction booklet show the program is
"inaccurate and unashamedly hostile to certain Christian
views," according to Mathew Staver, president and general
counsel for Liberty Counsel.
Some of the controversial excerpts:
* "Fact: Most experts in the field have concluded that
sexual orientation is not a choice."
* "Fact: Sex play with friends of the same gender is not
uncommon during early adolescence and does not prove
long-term sexual orientation."
* "Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and
oppression."
* "It is no more abnormal or sick to be homosexual than to
be left-handed."
Staver said, "The school board has been captured by
radical homosexual advocacy groups whose only agenda is to
push their political goals without respect to the
consequences."
He added that every proposed resource the plaintiffs
submitted to present the ex-gay perspective was rejected.
----- 12 -----
Family News in Focus
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Focus on the Family
* Will new head of UNICEF mean directional change for UN?
1. Carol Bellamy leaving post - "conservatives say she moved ... to the left." Wanting replacement to move "from the radical fringe." Chastises her for talking too much about girls and not enough for about boys. "She has taken UNICEF in the radical feminist direction." Criticised for taking UNICEF to "a rights-based approach." Anne Veneman is replacement.
* Washington looks at correlation between mental illness and marijuana use
3. Blames marijuana for depression and suicide in tweens.
* Is there a trend developing in large corporations to end domestic partner benefits?
5. NCR shareholders failed to pass resolution against same-gender DP benefits. (Note that the vote _failed_.) "He's unhappy that some corporations are funding domestic parnter benefits, something he doesn't support." "I believe that partnerships are between a man and a woman or a husband and wife." "The fact that it's available or should be available is wrong." "Most of the world's major religions believe that as well." "This just seems to be another way to loosen the definition of marriage." "These benefits cater to the minourity and are saddling the majority with the payments." "Very few people want to pay more money to pay for somebody's unmarried sexual partner." "This isn't the way people should be doing business." "These benefits are costly and put undue financial strain on their employee's pocketbooks."
* National Safe Kids Week reminds parents to model safe behavior
7. Bike helmets, seat belts should be used by parents, because children emulate parents. FotF also adds that behaviour by parents that contradicts dictates by parents strains the parent-child relationship and causes parents to be seen as phonies.
* FL judge voids ruling that would have prevented a 13 year-old girl from having an abortion
2. Florida Right to Life; "If she could have made adult decisions, she wouldn't be pregnant."
* UCLA School of Public Health says the PG rating on movies is all but meaningless
4. "Majority contained at last one act of bodily harm, and many of them more than that."
* Supreme Court agrees to hear a challenge to the Solomon Amendment regarding colleges that take federal funds yet deny military recruiters access to students
6. Yale refuses recruiters on campus. Center for Military Readiness (a right-wing group that also demands an all-male military) wants Yale to lose the case. Yale has won so far.
----- 13 -----
Microsoft Thinks Hard
5/3/2005
By Warren Throckmorton, PhD
Concerned Women for America
The corporate giant removes support for a sexual orientation law—but will its stance last?
Commentary
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8031/CFI/family/index.htm
In this age of technology, when someone at Microsoft speaks, most people listen. Due to the scope and profitability of the company, leaders at Microsoft wield enviable influence far beyond matters of computers and software. So when Microsoft removed its support for a bill designed to add sexual orientation to anti-discrimination law in Washington state, the bill’s supporters were outraged. Failing by one vote in the Senate, the bill’s demise has been blamed on Microsoft’s official neutrality.
Gay rights supporters were livid. Homosexual activist Wayne Besen reacted by suggesting gay activists “dust off your boxing gloves and prepare to fight for your rights or, you can stay silent and redecorate your closet.” Equal Rights of Washington state is asking for Microsoft to return a diversity award presented to the company in 1991. Despite the passage of civil unions in Connecticut, activists believe the Microsoft reversal signals a turnaround in progress for gay political progress. Concerning gay rights, Besen moaned: “This is the first time I believe we are going backwards and actually losing the battle.”
However, I see the events surrounding Microsoft as possibly signaling another trend that would ultimately benefit everybody. Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, issued a memo to his employees that may foretell a shift among publicly held companies toward corporate neutrality on issues of conscience that are unrelated to the business bottom line.
An excerpt from Mr. Ballmer’s memo follows. As quoted in the Seattle Times, he wrote:
We are thinking hard about what is the right balance to strike — when should a public company take a position on a broader social issue, and when should it not? What message does the company taking a position send to its employees who have strongly held beliefs on the opposite side of the issue?What message indeed? When large public corporations support causes that are unrelated to the bottom line, employees who disagree with the stance can feel helpless. These employees may feel disenfranchised and conflicted that their labors are supporting an issue they would never support in their private lives. Ballmer is aware of this tension and suggests that a real respect for diversity requires a company to take no position when an issue sharply divides co-workers. He goes on to make exactly this point:
The bottom line is that I am adamant that Microsoft will always be a place that values diversity, that has the strongest possible internal policies for nondiscrimination and fairness, and provides the best policies and benefits to all of our employees.Mr. Ballmer wants every employee, conservative, liberal and in-between, to feel respected. After years of disregarding the views of employees with traditional social views, Microsoft via the Ballmer memo seems to understand that tolerance often requires respecting all views by favoring none.
I am also adamant that I want Microsoft to be a place where every employee feels respected, and where every employee feels like they belong. I don't want the company to be in the position of appearing to dismiss the deeply held beliefs of any employee, by picking sides on social policy issues.
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
CWA Says Judicial-Busters Behave Like Neighborhood Bully
5/2/2005
Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8026/MEDIA/nation/index.htm
Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women for America (CWA) says the Senate minority’s refusal to vote on the president’s judicial nominees is like the neighborhood bully who takes the ball and runs home because he can’t stand to lose.
“The minority knows that every nominee has more than 51 votes for confirmation so they refuse to vote to keep from losing,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s chief counsel. “They claim that the president’s nominees are out of the mainstream but it’s the minority that’s lost touch with mainstream Americans and lost the election as a result.”
“Americans don’t want judges who think the Constitution needs to conform to the laws of some banana republic or that it’s their own personal Etch-a-Sketch to create rights to same-sex marriage, partial-birth abortion, Internet pornucopia, constitutionalizing sodomy and striking down the Pledge of Allegiance,” LaRue added.
“Sen. Frist and members of both parties who are fed up with the losers’ judicial-bustering need to take the ball and let the bullies run home. Losers get to vote—they don’t get to win by rewriting the rules. It takes 51 votes to confirm a judge and 41 to throw a tantrum.”
