Today's Cultural Warfare Update
May. 16th, 2005 12:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdToday's Family News in Focus includes several anti-queer stories, and some action items;
Focus on the Family article condemning Nebraska ruling overturning their rather extensive anti-marriage, anti-civil-unions amendment, calling for a Federal amendment;
Focus on the Family article attacking NPR;
NY Times article on the attempt to turn NPR away from news coverage and more towards music, for reasons that appear to be substantially political;
I'm not including the Focus on the Family action items about judicial nominees, because they're the same ones, just ongoing - but they are ongoing. Meanwhile, here's the latest Concerned Women for America outraged article demanding the rules change;
Concerned Women for America promotes the Southern Baptist Convention resolution to tell local churches investigate their schools for "pro-homosexuality" clubs, anti-bullying programmes, non-condemnational content, etc - it urges them to get the programmes removed and clubs disbanded, or pull their children from those schools; also claims that 2/3 of "homosexual" men (which usually includes bisexual men in their usage) will be dead or HIV-positive by age 30;
Boston Globe article on fundamentalist targeting of insufficiently anti-gay Republican officials;
Guest on Dobson programme - with Dobson's concurrence - says that anyone who disagrees with "Biblical roles" for Men and Women are in league with the "serpent" of Eden - meaning Satan; “God’s plan is not dependent on perfect people or perfect circumstances because it is a perfect plan." This was linked to as a recommended article by Concerned Women for America, so presumably they also approve;
A Senate subcommittee meeting will be held on the "national consensus" that an anti-marriage Federal amendment is needed;
National Review's Stanley Kurtz rails about the necessity for a Federal anti-marriage amendment;
Andrew Sullivan writes about the filibuster rules change in the London Times;
Alliance Defense Fund letter to churches: we'll defend any church threatened with tax issues over political activity related to judicial confirmation rules changes;
----- 1 -----
Family News in Focus
Monday, May 16, 2005
Focus on the Family
http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Family_News_in_Focus/
* Gay-marriage locomotive in Canada may get shuttled onto a siding
2. "Gay marriage is in trouble in Canada." The LIberal Party's troubles "would sink Canada's gay marriage bill on a technicality." FotF Canada says it's "the break we've been looking for." "Gay activists in the UN and Canada often co-ordinate strategies." maggie Galligher: "The existence of quote-unquote gay marriage in Canada is at least part of an ongoing legal threat to the definition of marriage in America." Fear gayfolk returning "with a quasi-legal claim of legal marriage."
* U.S. Ambassador to the UN is a step closers to office, but battle looms on Senate floor
1. "Bolton will now face an even more hostile environment."... "Bolton is under fire because he is a conservative, no-nonsense kind of guy who will carry out the America First policies of the Bush administration at the UN." That's the FotF reporter. Presidential press secretary says he's "the right man for the position." FotF: "The corruption-riddled United Nation needs somebody with a strong hand." "Will help reform the UN." Action item: ask Senators to confirm Bolton.
* Senate Minority Leader comments called "character assassination" and "unconscionable"
4. "The existence of the file has been previously reported." FotF calls the file both "routine and classified." "An outrage... slander without evidence..." "Any senator can file a motion for censure of [Reid]," and saying that they should. "So far, no one is asking for a reprimand."
* Archbishop of Canterbury reacting to opposition in US Episcopal Church by the ordination of a gay bishop
6. "Rev. Christopher Layton of St. Paul's" in CT - "issues of conscience" - complains about ordaining two gay men, and Bishop Robinson. Claims the bishops are making it "difficult" for "conservative parishes." "Orthodox congregations" are given trouble. Archbishop is creating a "panel of reference" to try to deal with it.
* House Armed Services subcommittee vote bans Army women from serving in combat-related positions
5. DoD "has been using female personnel in close-in combat support." "Those units that engage in direct ground combat are very different and very special and women are exempt from having to serve in them." Hunter Amendment will kick women out of support areas near combat.
* Openly gay Massachusetts Senator proposing constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions - but there's more than meets the eye
3. Massachusetts Family Council president: "In actuality, it is definitely a political and strategic maneuver" - the introduction of a second amendment is intended to split the anti-gay vote in two, one group voting for the amendment that bans both marriage and CUs, one group voting for the amendment that just bans marriage.
* YMCA of the Rockies gained property tax-exemption status for 2 camps in CO, raising questions whether other faith-based businesses can claim similar status
7. Might encourage "other similar institutions" to claim similar status. "Secular organisations such as businesses" claim this creates unfair competition - the YMCA camp is a tourist camp, and the YMCA got its tax exemption as a religious organisation.
----- 2 ----
NEBRASKA ATTORNEY GENERAL SPEAKS OUT ON MARRIAGE RULING
Focus on the Family
by Pete Winn, associate editor
SUMMARY: "A single federal judge can overrule the will of
an entire population."
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0036546.cfm
Nebraska's Defense of Marriage Amendment, which was
approved last year by an overwhelming majority of the
people in the Cornhusker State, was nullified Thursday by
a federal judge. The measure defines marriage as being
between one man and one woman.
In the aftermath of the decision, CitizenLink interviewed
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who spoke by
telephone from his office in Lincoln.
Q. What was your reaction to the federal judge's decision?
A. Obviously, I'm very disappointed. We believe that the
will of 70 percent of Nebraskans should have been upheld.
Nebraskans ought to have a right to amend their
constitution as they see fit. Certainly, moral issues are
a part of that right. If they want to define marriage as
between a man and a woman, they ought to have that right,
like the citizens of any state. So, I'm very disappointed
with the decision.
But then again, it comes as no surprise -- this judge had
indicated very early on in this case his propensity to
rule against the state, and we've always expected that
this is a case that is going to be decided on appeal --
not the district court level.
Q. So you are going to appeal?
A. Absolutely. The state will appeal, and we're getting
the paperwork together as we speak. We anticipated we
might have to appeal, so it's always been a part of our
plan.
Q. Talk to me about the judge's rationale, if you would.
What do you make of the fact that he relied a lot upon
Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court's decision on Colorado
Amendment 2.
A. Essentially the judge said that this was violating
homosexuals' rights to have the opportunity to change the
law. They said that by changing the constitution, voters
were prohibiting homosexuals from having an opportunity to
change the law.
The ironic thing is, that's essentially the argument of
saying that, by changing the law, they (the voters) acted
illegally. That doesn't make any sense; it's very
circular. Certainly, homosexuals have the same right to
present a ballot initiative to the people of Nebraska as
did the folks who drew up this amendment. When it was put
together, it was put before the people, 70 percent of
Nebraskans voted for it. So if the homosexual population
wants to bring their own amendment, they are welcome to do
that. I think it is unlikely that it would be successful,
but they have the same opportunity that the people who put
this amendment together had.
Q. Do you anticipate the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold
the right of Nebraskans to do what they want to do, with
regard to this law?
A. Well, our next stop is the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
-- and we believe we are going to be victorious there. But
whether we are or whether we aren't, this will be appealed
to the United States Supreme Court by either side, that's
clear. The stakes are high.
What do I think the U.S. Supreme Court's going to do? I do
think we'll win.
The wild card in all this is that we have two justices
that are nearing retirement and I think it's highly likely
that the justices that fill those spots will be on the
same side as the 70 percent of Nebraskans that voted in
favor of this.
In Nebraska, there has been an incredible support system
that has been making sure that ballot initiatives like
this pass, and that's the folks of Nebraska Family First,
which is headed by David Bydalek. They are active and very
effective at the capital, and very effective in reminding
Nebraskans what it is we believe is important.
Q. There are approximately 40 states which have Defense of
Marriage Acts or amendments similar to Nebraska's. But
yours is a little different, isn't it.
A. Ours is a little different. It goes a little bit
further. It talks about civil unions and domestic
partnerships, and that makes it moderately unique, but, in
my opinion, not illegal. And certainly not contrary to the
United States Constitution.
The intent of it is very clear: Nebraskans want to be able
to define the institution of marriage as between one man
and one woman. To begin to allow preferences walks down a
slippery slope that has an end that's less predictable --
and certainly less desirable in the minds of most
Nebraskans.
Q. What would you tell the other states who may be looking
at this decision and wondering what might happen to them?
A. I would tell other states that, unfortunately, we now
have a system where a single federal judge can overrule
the will of an entire population. I can't stress enough
that, in Nebraska, 70 percent of the people voted for
this, and a single federal judge said that it was
unconstitutional.
So really, the only way to preserve these state
constitutional amendments is to have a federal
constitutional amendment. And I arrive at that conclusion
with somewhat of a heavy heart, because I hate to have to
add these things to the constitution of a state, or
federally, but I don't see any other choice. I would
prefer not to have to do that in the Constitution, but
simply to do that in statute, but clearly that's not good
enough under our system.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Democrats Object to Attempts to Balance PBS
Focus on the Family
NEWS BRIEFS
[Received in email: no URL]
Two members of Congress want an investigation into whether
the new head over PBS, a network many conservatives view
as leaning to the left, is making changes to move it to
the right.
Congressmen Dave Obey, D-Wis. and John Dingell, D-Mich.,
called for the investigation into the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting (CPB) chair, Kenneth Tomlinson. They
cite current law that states television programming must
be neutral, and said changes Tomlinson is making look as
though he's trying to move public broadcasting to the
right.
Tomlinson has been advocating for more conservative
programming and has spent some federal money to monitor
existing programs. Obey and Dingell call the proposed
changes at the CPB "disturbing" and "extremely troubling."
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media said since the law
specifies the programming must be politically neutral, CPB
is simply doing what it is supposed to do.
"All that Tomlinson is asking for is that the programs
comply with the law," Kincaid said. "How can you get into
trouble -- how can you violate the law --simply by asking
that the law be adhered to?"
----- 4 -----
A Battle Over Programming at National Public Radio
By STEPHEN LABATON
THE NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/business/media/16radio.html?th=&oref=login&emc=th&pagewanted=print
WASHINGTON, May 15 - Executives at National Public Radio are increasingly at odds with the Bush appointees who lead the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
In one of several points of conflict in recent months, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which allocates federal funds for public radio and television, is considering a plan to monitor Middle East coverage on NPR news programs for evidence of bias, a corporation spokesman said on Friday.
The corporation's board has told its staff that it should consider redirecting money away from national newscasts and toward music programs produced by NPR stations.
Top officials at NPR and member stations are upset as well about the corporation's decision to appoint two ombudsmen to judge the content of programs for balance. And managers of public radio stations criticized the corporation in a resolution offered at their annual meeting two weeks ago urging it not to interfere in NPR editorial decisions.
The corporation's chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, has also blocked NPR from broadcasting its programs on a station in Berlin owned by the United States government.
Mr. Tomlinson denied several requests last week to discuss the relationship between the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and NPR, but he issued a one-sentence statement saying that he looked forward to "working through any differences that may exist between our institutions." In a column last week in The Washington Times and in an appearance on Tucker Carlson's talk show on PBS, he repeated his belief that public broadcasting's reputation of being left-leaning was a problem.
Mr. Tomlinson has been waging a campaign to correct what he and other conservatives see as a liberal bias in public television programming. That effort has been criticized by leaders of public television who say it poses a threat to their editorial independence. At the request of two senior Democratic members of Congress, the inspector general at the corporation is examining whether Mr. Tomlinson's decision to monitor only one television program, "Now," with Bill Moyers, and his decision to retain a White House official who helped create guidelines for the two ombudsmen may have violated a law that is supposed to insulate public broadcasting from politics.
But the law also assigns the corporation the responsibility of ensuring balance and objectivity in programming, a function that Mr. Tomlinson says is of paramount importance for the sustained viability and political support of public broadcasting.
About a quarter of the corporation's $400 million budget goes to radio, with most of the rest to television. NPR recently received a huge bequest from the estate of Joan B. Kroc, the widow of the founder of McDonald's, and it gets only about 1 percent of its overall funds directly from the corporation. But its member stations are far more reliant on the corporation's money, and they use a significant part of that to buy programs produced by NPR and others.
Last month, the corporation's board, which is dominated by Republicans named by President Bush, told the staff at a meeting that it should prepare to redirect the relatively modest number of grants available for radio programs away from national news, officials at the corporation and NPR said.
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Why the Constitutional Option is Now the Only Option 5/16/2005
By Mario Díaz
Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8154/LEGAL/judges/index.htm
The Democrats have turned 200 years of tradition and history on its head.
[Editor's Note: In fact, Federal judicial appointees have been filibustered in the past. It has been 30-odd years, but this is not a new thing.]
The liberal Democrats in the Senate have distorted the judicial confirmation process to such an extent that only one option is left: Let them go nuclear—the Democrats, that is.
Here’s what Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid from Nevada said recently, “If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it's not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back. … I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up."
There is no question that Senate Democrats are ready to explode but let them suffer the consequences when the American people watch their meltdown.
The Democrats have turned a 200-year tradition where judges were confirmed by a simple majority into a requirement of a super majority or, as we are now learning, a “deal” in order to confirm a judge. Forget about the Constitution, history and tradition or even respect for that matter, that’s “so extreme, so confrontational.”
The process now looks more like trading baseball cards than anything else. “Here Johnny, I’ll give you my Mark McGuire rookie card if you give me Babe Ruth, Roger Maris and Janice Rogers Brown.”
But what the liberal Democrats in the Senate don’t appear to realize is that they have put themselves in such a position that they too need to support the constitutional option. How else would they ever confirm a judge? What do they think will happen if they ever win the presidency and the Senate majority? The Republicans will play the same game, and who can blame them? The only difference is that the Democrats won’t have anyone to blame but themselves. They have established how the game is to be played.
Democrats should start praying now that they would not only win one term, but win a second one. Remember, rule number one says that confirming a nominee could take more than four years. Can anybody say Priscilla Owen? Even if they were to confirm her now, do they really think that everything would be forgotten?
Until now, no judge with a clear majority of votes for Senate confirmation had been denied that vote. Since 2003, the number of judges is now 10 and it will only increase. Here is what Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) had to say about it, “We're not going to be bamboozled into rubber-stamping a slate of Scalias and Thomases who, by any measure, are conservative activist judges.” And Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) said, "If we allow a stealth right-winger on this court, we have only ourselves to blame.”
It’s evident that unless the constitutional option is enforced and order returns to the confirmation process, the American people will continue to suffer the consequences. The sooner Democrats realize this, the sooner we can start mending relationships in the Senate and the American people would be able to move on.
"But wait, Johnny, let's stick with a super majority (60) now and go back to a simple majority (51) when it's my turn." Does swampland come to mind?
Mario Diaz, CWA’s Multimedia Production Engineer, is a student at Catholic University School of Law in Washington, D.C..
----- 6 -----
Resolution Alerts Southern Baptists to Homosexual School Agenda
Concerned Women for America
5/14/2005
By Bethanie Swendsen
CWA’s Knight among experts quoted in support material.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8138/CFI/family/index.htm
A group of Southern Baptists is offering a resolution at the denomination’s national, annual convention in June that warns parents of a concerted homosexual agenda in public schools.
Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America’s Culture and Family Institute (CFI), is one of several experts cited in support materials for the resolution. This is Mr. Knight’s quote:
Under the rubric of “diversity,” “tolerance,” “safe schools,” and AIDS education, homosexual activists are selling a pansexual agenda right under parents’ noses. They gain access to public schools by initiating something with obvious appeal, such as the anti-bullying program “No Name-Calling Week.” Such projects are a Trojan horse for promoting homosexuality as normal and inevitable for some kids. Parents then find themselves being accused of bigotry for trying to steer children away from a set of behaviors whose risks are well documented. By the time it reaches that stage, the activists and their materials are entrenched in the school system.
Dr. Voddie Baucham Jr., a prominent Southern Baptist lecturer, and author Bruce N. Shortt (The Harsh Truth About Public Schools, The Chalcedon Foundation, 2004) have submitted a resolution addressing homosexuality and the public schools for consideration at the SBC’s 2005 Annual Meeting in June.
“Government schools are influencing our children to regard homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and silencing those within the schools who disagree. It is urgent that Christian parents become better informed,” Shortt said in a press release, part of which is excerpted here:
“By portraying homosexuality as a victim class, the activists put anyone with traditional values on the defensive,” Knight said. “The approach is brilliant; it appeals to the best in us, the part that wants to defend the underdog. But increasingly, the ‘underdogs’ are becoming the bullies, using school programs and compliant bureaucracy.”
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, an author and psychiatrist who teaches in the Department of Politics at Princeton University, states that these harmful effects are spreading:
“No matter where kids go to school, they need their parents to keep a close watch on what’s being taught,” said Knight. “Homosexual activists got caught recently in Montgomery County, Maryland, but they are usually cleverer at disguising their intent. I’m glad the Southern Baptists are shining a light on this agenda and on the public schools. Parents need to look at the total package and do what’s best for their children.”
For more information on the homosexual agenda and public schools, click here.
For more information on Dr. Ian K. Macgillivray and his book, click here.
Read Gay ‘Incrementalist’ Strategy Threatens California Schools, testimony by Karen Holgate of the Capitol Resource Institute at CFI’s seminar on homosexuality in the schools.
----- 7 -----
Mass. landmark ruling pushed issue onto ballots
By Nina J. Easton, Globe Staff | May 15, 2005
First of two parts
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/05/15/mass_landmark_ruling_pushed_issue_onto_ballots/
WASHINGTON -- Kansas House speaker pro tempore John Ballou, one of the state's most conservative lawmakers, suspected he was ''taking the last vote" of his political career when he opposed a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
He was right: On Election Day 2004, he and three other Republicans targeted by the religious right were booted out. On April 5, Ballou was still looking for a new job while Kansas voters marched to the polls to make their state the 14th in the past nine months to erect a constitutional firewall against the prospect of same-sex marriage being imported from Massachusetts.
Two weeks later and half a continent away, Connecticut's Republican governor signed a law permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil unions. And last week, both chambers of California's Democratic-controlled Legislature rejected constitutional bans on gay marriage; now a showdown looms as family-value groups launch a petition drive to get the measure on the ballot.
When Massachusetts, acting under a high-court ruling, became the first state in the union to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples as of May 2004, it unleashed a torrential political spillover. ''It was an earthquake," said Jonathan Rauch, a Brookings Institution writer and author of a recent book advocating same-sex unions. ''Massachusetts put every state in the union on notice that you could have gay marriage imposed by a court."
Not since Roe v. Wade gave a nationwide stamp of approval to abortion has a court decision so profoundly crystallized America's cultural divide. For proponents, the ruling was a landmark victory for civil rights and equality. For opponents, it was a startling assault on the traditional family and a symbol of judicial power run amok.
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Dorothy Patterson, on Dobson program, notes biblical stance on gender roles
May 13, 2005
By Gregory Tomlin
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20791
FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--God’s plan for humanity did not begin with “the tabernacle, the temple or any other vestige of government,” Dorothy Kelley Patterson said on James Dobson’s Focus on the Family radio program May 12.
“God started with the home,” Patterson said in a recording of an address she delivered at the annual convention of Concerned Women for America. “He chose that vehicle to reveal Himself to us.” For example, God is found in Scripture as “our Father” and “we are His children” and the church is found as “His bride,” she said.
Patterson is a professor in the women’s studies program at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, where her husband, Paige, is president.
Speaking from Genesis 2, Patterson said the account of creation illustrates clearly defined roles for men and women.
The first responsibility for man in the account, she said, was to tend the garden God had created. “It is important for a man to provide for his family,” she said. The man also was charged with guarding the garden. He was to protect it and the remainder of creation as husbands today should protect their wives and families.
But the greatest responsibility given to man, Patterson said, was that of spiritual leadership. In the same way, she said, “[M]y husband is to be the leader of my home.” There is a “spiritual hierarchy,” but one in which the husband is a servant leader. There is no “oppressive tyranny” in a biblical marriage, she said.
That does not mean that things in the home always run smoothly, Patterson said. Feelings are hurt on occasion, but she said that should not be the focus of the relationship. “God’s plan is not dependent on perfect people or perfect circumstances because it is a perfect plan,” she said.
Women are given a different role than men in society, Patterson said. That role has “nothing to do with gifts or intelligence.” She is to be a “helper” to her husband, she said, even though she is created equal to him.
“We are equal before God ... but from Genesis in creation it is clear that we have different roles. Now, you can go around moping and pouting about that; you can take the road of the feminists and rename yourself; you can rename the world and take over that; you can rename God -- and that’s just what the feminists do -- but it won’t change God’s plan.”
Those who try to change God’s plan follow the familiar path of deception displayed by the serpent in Genesis, Patterson said. They assume that their plan is better and they contradict God. Still, the plan for the home remains the same as it was in the Bible, she added.
Dobson said he chose Patterson’s address for the broadcast because she articulated well the same principles he has been advocating his entire career. He said his goal in life has been to combat the “radical feminist distortions” about marriage, the family and the role of women in society. While the radical feminist movement no longer exists, Dobson said, the ideas it promoted so permeated American society that they have influenced modern Christian culture.
Patterson is a woman “who knows of what she speaks,” Dobson said. She has authored several books on the subject of family, offering insights into biblical passages that address a woman’s role in marriage, the home and ministry. “Family: Unchanging Principles for Changing Times” is available through Focus on the Family and in bookstores.
----- 9 -----
""The National Consensus to Protect Marriage: Why a Constitutional Amendment is Needed" "
Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1507
DATE: May 19, 2005
TIME: 02:30 PM
ROOM: Senate Dirksen 226
OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE / WITNESS LIST:
NOTICE OF SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights has scheduled a hearing on "The National Consensus to Protect Marriage: Why a Constitutional Amendment is Needed" for Thursday, May 19, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Senator Brownback will preside.
By order of the Chairman
----- 10 -----
Courting FMA
A ruling in Nebraska demonstrates the need for a federal marriage amendment.
May 13, 2005, 8:07 a.m.
Stanley Kurtz
National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz.asp
Thursday’s decision by a federal court to overturn Nebraska’s state constitutional marriage amendment is a landmark moment in the battle over same-sex marriage. For the first time, a federal court has taken this matter out of the hands of a state. A constitutional amendment passed with a 70 percent majority of Nebraska’s voters has been voided. There could be no clearer demonstration of the arrogance of activist judges. This should remind Republican senators of the urgent need to confirm the president’s nominees to the bench. And of course this decision clearly shows that, without a federal marriage amendment, same-sex marriage is destined to be imposed on the country by the courts.
Eugene Volokh has posted a very sharp analysis of the Nebraska case. Let’s use Volokh’s thorough analysis as a way into this issue. The most important point Volokh makes is that the logic of the Nebraska decision, if upheld, would have the effect of imposing gay marriage on the entire country. As noted, this is exactly why a federal marriage amendment is needed. Yet Volokh himself is a libertarian-leaning law professor sympathetic to same-sex marriage and opposed to a federal marriage amendment. Volokh seems to think that this obviously wrongheaded decision is destined to be reversed on appeal. So why bother with a federal amendment if this fluke of a decision is about to be overturned?
Well, this decision is not a fluke. The parts of the decision Volokh thinks are the most obviously wrongheaded simply mimic the core arguments of same-sex-marriage advocates. Volokh criticizes the decision for holding that the state has no rational interest in promoting unions among specifically heterosexual couples. Volokh doesn’t personally endorse the idea that the state ought to claim such an interest, but he insists that reasonable people can differ on the matter. Says Volokh, it’s not irrational on its face that the state might have a special interest in promoting a particular sort of relationship between men and women. Yet the distinctive thing about public debate on this issue is the claim by same-sex-marriage advocates that there are no rational grounds for opposing gay marriage — that opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in sheer animus. The court here is simply buying into the widespread view that this is not a rational debate, but a debate between rationality and prejudice. The Goodridge decision in Massachusetts did something similar.
Volokh also criticizes the case for ignoring the distinction between the right to intimate association and the right to have the government recognize or subsidize your particular form of relationship. After all, says Volokh, the government doesn’t have to provide the benefits of marriage to single people. Volokh is right on substance, but misses the point nonetheless. A core premise of same-sex-marriage advocates is that a lack of government benefits does in fact violate their rights. The mere right to association is not enough, they say. They want benefits and state recognition for their relationships — and they insist that their entitlement to that recognition is a “right.” Even now, “single’s rights” advocates are making exactly the same argument for their own entitlement to the benefits of marriage. In fact, single’s rights groups self-consciously model their own demands on the demands of the gay marriage movement.
So I agree with Volokh that this decision is wrongheaded. It blurs key distinctions, refuses to recognize that there is a rational argument on both sides of the issue, and ultimately undercuts the rationale for state support of marriage. Yet that is exactly what the movement for same-sex marriage has been doing for years.
Volokh is “pretty sure” the Court of Appeals will reverse this decision. If it doesn’t, says Volokh, the Supreme Court will — and should — reverse. This strikes me as utterly naive. Volokh seems to think the judicial overreach in this case is obvious. But that doesn’t explain how the case got wrongly decided to begin with. The answer is clear. This judge has accepted the framing of the issue adopted by both same-sex-marriage advocates — and the entire mainstream media. This isn’t some judicial fluke. It’s evidence that the movement for same-sex marriage is successfully framing the debate — and thereby undermining the legal basis for marriage itself.
If this particular decision is reversed on appeal, that’s cold comfort. It’s all-too-obvious that the folks who think the way this judge does are not going to give way after a single reversal. They rightly believe that, over time, the courts have been shifting in their direction. It’s not just some crazy off-the-reservation judge who’s flying in the face of Volokh’s favored legal principles. It’s the entire liberal establishment. That is why, for those who oppose same-sex marriage, there is simply no alternative to a federal constitutional amendment.
----- 11 -----
Andrew Sullivan: If Bush beats the blather, his placemen win
The Sunday Times - Review
May 15, 2005
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1612396,00.html
It really wasn’t supposed to be this way. Last November saw George W Bush re-elected with a more comfortable margin than in 2000. The Senate and house saw small Republican gains. The religious right foresaw a legislative rapture.
The Democrats began to feel a little like the Tories, with less reason. They won 48% of the vote, after all. And yet it seemed as if history, especially after last January’s elections in Iraq, favoured a Bush boom.
Instead we have the Bush bump. Last week the Senate foreign relations committee, despite a Republican majority, decided to offer no recommendation on the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. One Republican senator said he’d vote against the nomination when it comes to the Senate floor soon. He called Bolton “the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be”.
At the same time, Washington is girding itself for a nailbiting month of brinkmanship as the Bush administration’s Senate allies threaten to abolish the chequered tradition of the Senate filibuster against judicial nominees.
The Democrats, seemingly liberated by electoral defeat, are promising a brutal fightback. They have finally decided to battle it out as hard as their opponents.
First, though, some history.
A president’s nominations to the federal courts and Supreme Court are constitutionally required to be approved with the “advice and consent” of the Senate.
In the past, nominees for important judicial posts were expected to poll at least 60 Senate votes to get on the bench; and the opposition party, as long as it had 40 Senate seats, could effectively block nominees it found too distasteful. In the good old days, a few chats over cocktails in Georgetown would help the president and Senate come to a prearranged deal and most nominees sailed through (or, if all else failed, never made it to or through the Senate judiciary committee). Since the 1980s, as both parties became more ideologically polarised, the fights got less civil.
Now we face open warfare. In order to confirm a dozen or so controversially conservative nominees, Bill Frist, Senate majority leader, has threatened to abolish the filibuster option by Senate vote, whereby Senators can speak without limit if they so wish. If others co-operate, they can pass the blathering baton from one to another, reading from the phone-book if necessary, in order to prevent Senate business from being conducted. So no judge gets confirmed. You need 60 votes to shut down a filibuster. Frist is proposing 50 for judicial nominations. That’s a big reduction in the rights of the minority. Even though the Republicans have 55 seats, it’s not certain he will get his way.
...
Sure, Bush could risk a backlash and face losses in the mid-term elections. But so what? If he gets the judicial nominees he wants he will have shifted America towards the religious right for a generation.
He believed he had effectively only two years to advance his agenda in a second term; and he sees no difference between a victory with 50 votes and one with 70. So he may go for broke.
We know by now that he’s not a traditional conservative — he’s a revolutionary. And the revolution in the courts is the one his followers care most about. It’s the one obstacle left to hard-right domination of American government. Why would he not want to remove it?
----- 12 -----
April 20, 2005
Dear Christians:
On “Justice Sunday,” April 24, 2005, the Family Research Council will host a live simulcast in which Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Al Mohler, and Chuck Colson and others will urge you to ensure that your Senator properly discharges his or her constitutional duty to either approve or reject each of President Bush’s nominees for the federal judiciary.
Some senators may evade their duty by filibustering, thus indefinitely blocking the President’s reasoned and necessary appointments. If such undemocratic tactics succeed, America will suffer from understaffed courts and worse, from decisions by activist judges who prefer to alter the law rather than interpret it. The best antidote to such an abuse of power is for American citizens—especially Christian citizens—to hold their senators responsible for their actions. The speakers on Justice Sunday will motivate Christians to achieve this vital goal.
Unfortunately, when the church publicly addresses civic needs, leftist groups oft respond with intimidation designed to silence Christians. Typically, such groups threaten churches with the loss of tax-exempt status or violations of various election laws. However, such a simplistic, brutal scare tactic would utterly lack any legal merit in this instance. Indeed, simply calling on senators to discharge their constitutional duty is a moral obligation that is not properly regulated by either election law or the federal tax code.
By this letter, we assure you that churches and Christians may lawfully exercise their fundamental First Amendment rights to urge their senators to properly discharge their duties. Any participant in Justice Sunday who is threatened by government officials or activist groups should immediately contact the ADF (1-800-TELLDAF, or www.telladf.org). Our attorneys will promptly review your situation and make every effort to defend your constitutional rights.
ADF is here to protect the precious constitutional rights of churches and Christians. Do not be silenced by fear or intimidation!
Sincerely
Gary S. McCaleb
Senior Counsel
Gary S. McCaleb
Senior Counsel
15333 N. Pima Road, Suite 165
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
PHONE: 480-444-0020 Ext. 504 FACSIMILE: 480-444-0028 E-MAIL: gmccaleb@telladf.org
[Ed. Note: Since this information was on a linked PDF on the web - highlighted, even - I left the contact information intact, including the phone numbers.]
Focus on the Family article condemning Nebraska ruling overturning their rather extensive anti-marriage, anti-civil-unions amendment, calling for a Federal amendment;
Focus on the Family article attacking NPR;
NY Times article on the attempt to turn NPR away from news coverage and more towards music, for reasons that appear to be substantially political;
I'm not including the Focus on the Family action items about judicial nominees, because they're the same ones, just ongoing - but they are ongoing. Meanwhile, here's the latest Concerned Women for America outraged article demanding the rules change;
Concerned Women for America promotes the Southern Baptist Convention resolution to tell local churches investigate their schools for "pro-homosexuality" clubs, anti-bullying programmes, non-condemnational content, etc - it urges them to get the programmes removed and clubs disbanded, or pull their children from those schools; also claims that 2/3 of "homosexual" men (which usually includes bisexual men in their usage) will be dead or HIV-positive by age 30;
Boston Globe article on fundamentalist targeting of insufficiently anti-gay Republican officials;
Guest on Dobson programme - with Dobson's concurrence - says that anyone who disagrees with "Biblical roles" for Men and Women are in league with the "serpent" of Eden - meaning Satan; “God’s plan is not dependent on perfect people or perfect circumstances because it is a perfect plan." This was linked to as a recommended article by Concerned Women for America, so presumably they also approve;
A Senate subcommittee meeting will be held on the "national consensus" that an anti-marriage Federal amendment is needed;
National Review's Stanley Kurtz rails about the necessity for a Federal anti-marriage amendment;
Andrew Sullivan writes about the filibuster rules change in the London Times;
Alliance Defense Fund letter to churches: we'll defend any church threatened with tax issues over political activity related to judicial confirmation rules changes;
----- 1 -----
Family News in Focus
Monday, May 16, 2005
Focus on the Family
http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Family_News_in_Focus/
* Gay-marriage locomotive in Canada may get shuttled onto a siding
2. "Gay marriage is in trouble in Canada." The LIberal Party's troubles "would sink Canada's gay marriage bill on a technicality." FotF Canada says it's "the break we've been looking for." "Gay activists in the UN and Canada often co-ordinate strategies." maggie Galligher: "The existence of quote-unquote gay marriage in Canada is at least part of an ongoing legal threat to the definition of marriage in America." Fear gayfolk returning "with a quasi-legal claim of legal marriage."
* U.S. Ambassador to the UN is a step closers to office, but battle looms on Senate floor
1. "Bolton will now face an even more hostile environment."... "Bolton is under fire because he is a conservative, no-nonsense kind of guy who will carry out the America First policies of the Bush administration at the UN." That's the FotF reporter. Presidential press secretary says he's "the right man for the position." FotF: "The corruption-riddled United Nation needs somebody with a strong hand." "Will help reform the UN." Action item: ask Senators to confirm Bolton.
* Senate Minority Leader comments called "character assassination" and "unconscionable"
4. "The existence of the file has been previously reported." FotF calls the file both "routine and classified." "An outrage... slander without evidence..." "Any senator can file a motion for censure of [Reid]," and saying that they should. "So far, no one is asking for a reprimand."
* Archbishop of Canterbury reacting to opposition in US Episcopal Church by the ordination of a gay bishop
6. "Rev. Christopher Layton of St. Paul's" in CT - "issues of conscience" - complains about ordaining two gay men, and Bishop Robinson. Claims the bishops are making it "difficult" for "conservative parishes." "Orthodox congregations" are given trouble. Archbishop is creating a "panel of reference" to try to deal with it.
* House Armed Services subcommittee vote bans Army women from serving in combat-related positions
5. DoD "has been using female personnel in close-in combat support." "Those units that engage in direct ground combat are very different and very special and women are exempt from having to serve in them." Hunter Amendment will kick women out of support areas near combat.
* Openly gay Massachusetts Senator proposing constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions - but there's more than meets the eye
3. Massachusetts Family Council president: "In actuality, it is definitely a political and strategic maneuver" - the introduction of a second amendment is intended to split the anti-gay vote in two, one group voting for the amendment that bans both marriage and CUs, one group voting for the amendment that just bans marriage.
* YMCA of the Rockies gained property tax-exemption status for 2 camps in CO, raising questions whether other faith-based businesses can claim similar status
7. Might encourage "other similar institutions" to claim similar status. "Secular organisations such as businesses" claim this creates unfair competition - the YMCA camp is a tourist camp, and the YMCA got its tax exemption as a religious organisation.
----- 2 ----
NEBRASKA ATTORNEY GENERAL SPEAKS OUT ON MARRIAGE RULING
Focus on the Family
by Pete Winn, associate editor
SUMMARY: "A single federal judge can overrule the will of
an entire population."
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0036546.cfm
Nebraska's Defense of Marriage Amendment, which was
approved last year by an overwhelming majority of the
people in the Cornhusker State, was nullified Thursday by
a federal judge. The measure defines marriage as being
between one man and one woman.
In the aftermath of the decision, CitizenLink interviewed
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who spoke by
telephone from his office in Lincoln.
Q. What was your reaction to the federal judge's decision?
A. Obviously, I'm very disappointed. We believe that the
will of 70 percent of Nebraskans should have been upheld.
Nebraskans ought to have a right to amend their
constitution as they see fit. Certainly, moral issues are
a part of that right. If they want to define marriage as
between a man and a woman, they ought to have that right,
like the citizens of any state. So, I'm very disappointed
with the decision.
But then again, it comes as no surprise -- this judge had
indicated very early on in this case his propensity to
rule against the state, and we've always expected that
this is a case that is going to be decided on appeal --
not the district court level.
Q. So you are going to appeal?
A. Absolutely. The state will appeal, and we're getting
the paperwork together as we speak. We anticipated we
might have to appeal, so it's always been a part of our
plan.
Q. Talk to me about the judge's rationale, if you would.
What do you make of the fact that he relied a lot upon
Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court's decision on Colorado
Amendment 2.
A. Essentially the judge said that this was violating
homosexuals' rights to have the opportunity to change the
law. They said that by changing the constitution, voters
were prohibiting homosexuals from having an opportunity to
change the law.
The ironic thing is, that's essentially the argument of
saying that, by changing the law, they (the voters) acted
illegally. That doesn't make any sense; it's very
circular. Certainly, homosexuals have the same right to
present a ballot initiative to the people of Nebraska as
did the folks who drew up this amendment. When it was put
together, it was put before the people, 70 percent of
Nebraskans voted for it. So if the homosexual population
wants to bring their own amendment, they are welcome to do
that. I think it is unlikely that it would be successful,
but they have the same opportunity that the people who put
this amendment together had.
Q. Do you anticipate the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold
the right of Nebraskans to do what they want to do, with
regard to this law?
A. Well, our next stop is the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
-- and we believe we are going to be victorious there. But
whether we are or whether we aren't, this will be appealed
to the United States Supreme Court by either side, that's
clear. The stakes are high.
What do I think the U.S. Supreme Court's going to do? I do
think we'll win.
The wild card in all this is that we have two justices
that are nearing retirement and I think it's highly likely
that the justices that fill those spots will be on the
same side as the 70 percent of Nebraskans that voted in
favor of this.
In Nebraska, there has been an incredible support system
that has been making sure that ballot initiatives like
this pass, and that's the folks of Nebraska Family First,
which is headed by David Bydalek. They are active and very
effective at the capital, and very effective in reminding
Nebraskans what it is we believe is important.
Q. There are approximately 40 states which have Defense of
Marriage Acts or amendments similar to Nebraska's. But
yours is a little different, isn't it.
A. Ours is a little different. It goes a little bit
further. It talks about civil unions and domestic
partnerships, and that makes it moderately unique, but, in
my opinion, not illegal. And certainly not contrary to the
United States Constitution.
The intent of it is very clear: Nebraskans want to be able
to define the institution of marriage as between one man
and one woman. To begin to allow preferences walks down a
slippery slope that has an end that's less predictable --
and certainly less desirable in the minds of most
Nebraskans.
Q. What would you tell the other states who may be looking
at this decision and wondering what might happen to them?
A. I would tell other states that, unfortunately, we now
have a system where a single federal judge can overrule
the will of an entire population. I can't stress enough
that, in Nebraska, 70 percent of the people voted for
this, and a single federal judge said that it was
unconstitutional.
So really, the only way to preserve these state
constitutional amendments is to have a federal
constitutional amendment. And I arrive at that conclusion
with somewhat of a heavy heart, because I hate to have to
add these things to the constitution of a state, or
federally, but I don't see any other choice. I would
prefer not to have to do that in the Constitution, but
simply to do that in statute, but clearly that's not good
enough under our system.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Democrats Object to Attempts to Balance PBS
Focus on the Family
NEWS BRIEFS
[Received in email: no URL]
Two members of Congress want an investigation into whether
the new head over PBS, a network many conservatives view
as leaning to the left, is making changes to move it to
the right.
Congressmen Dave Obey, D-Wis. and John Dingell, D-Mich.,
called for the investigation into the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting (CPB) chair, Kenneth Tomlinson. They
cite current law that states television programming must
be neutral, and said changes Tomlinson is making look as
though he's trying to move public broadcasting to the
right.
Tomlinson has been advocating for more conservative
programming and has spent some federal money to monitor
existing programs. Obey and Dingell call the proposed
changes at the CPB "disturbing" and "extremely troubling."
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media said since the law
specifies the programming must be politically neutral, CPB
is simply doing what it is supposed to do.
"All that Tomlinson is asking for is that the programs
comply with the law," Kincaid said. "How can you get into
trouble -- how can you violate the law --simply by asking
that the law be adhered to?"
----- 4 -----
A Battle Over Programming at National Public Radio
By STEPHEN LABATON
THE NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/business/media/16radio.html?th=&oref=login&emc=th&pagewanted=print
WASHINGTON, May 15 - Executives at National Public Radio are increasingly at odds with the Bush appointees who lead the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
In one of several points of conflict in recent months, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which allocates federal funds for public radio and television, is considering a plan to monitor Middle East coverage on NPR news programs for evidence of bias, a corporation spokesman said on Friday.
The corporation's board has told its staff that it should consider redirecting money away from national newscasts and toward music programs produced by NPR stations.
Top officials at NPR and member stations are upset as well about the corporation's decision to appoint two ombudsmen to judge the content of programs for balance. And managers of public radio stations criticized the corporation in a resolution offered at their annual meeting two weeks ago urging it not to interfere in NPR editorial decisions.
The corporation's chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, has also blocked NPR from broadcasting its programs on a station in Berlin owned by the United States government.
Mr. Tomlinson denied several requests last week to discuss the relationship between the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and NPR, but he issued a one-sentence statement saying that he looked forward to "working through any differences that may exist between our institutions." In a column last week in The Washington Times and in an appearance on Tucker Carlson's talk show on PBS, he repeated his belief that public broadcasting's reputation of being left-leaning was a problem.
Mr. Tomlinson has been waging a campaign to correct what he and other conservatives see as a liberal bias in public television programming. That effort has been criticized by leaders of public television who say it poses a threat to their editorial independence. At the request of two senior Democratic members of Congress, the inspector general at the corporation is examining whether Mr. Tomlinson's decision to monitor only one television program, "Now," with Bill Moyers, and his decision to retain a White House official who helped create guidelines for the two ombudsmen may have violated a law that is supposed to insulate public broadcasting from politics.
But the law also assigns the corporation the responsibility of ensuring balance and objectivity in programming, a function that Mr. Tomlinson says is of paramount importance for the sustained viability and political support of public broadcasting.
About a quarter of the corporation's $400 million budget goes to radio, with most of the rest to television. NPR recently received a huge bequest from the estate of Joan B. Kroc, the widow of the founder of McDonald's, and it gets only about 1 percent of its overall funds directly from the corporation. But its member stations are far more reliant on the corporation's money, and they use a significant part of that to buy programs produced by NPR and others.
Last month, the corporation's board, which is dominated by Republicans named by President Bush, told the staff at a meeting that it should prepare to redirect the relatively modest number of grants available for radio programs away from national news, officials at the corporation and NPR said.
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Why the Constitutional Option is Now the Only Option 5/16/2005
By Mario Díaz
Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8154/LEGAL/judges/index.htm
The Democrats have turned 200 years of tradition and history on its head.
[Editor's Note: In fact, Federal judicial appointees have been filibustered in the past. It has been 30-odd years, but this is not a new thing.]
The liberal Democrats in the Senate have distorted the judicial confirmation process to such an extent that only one option is left: Let them go nuclear—the Democrats, that is.
Here’s what Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid from Nevada said recently, “If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it's not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back. … I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up."
There is no question that Senate Democrats are ready to explode but let them suffer the consequences when the American people watch their meltdown.
The Democrats have turned a 200-year tradition where judges were confirmed by a simple majority into a requirement of a super majority or, as we are now learning, a “deal” in order to confirm a judge. Forget about the Constitution, history and tradition or even respect for that matter, that’s “so extreme, so confrontational.”
The process now looks more like trading baseball cards than anything else. “Here Johnny, I’ll give you my Mark McGuire rookie card if you give me Babe Ruth, Roger Maris and Janice Rogers Brown.”
But what the liberal Democrats in the Senate don’t appear to realize is that they have put themselves in such a position that they too need to support the constitutional option. How else would they ever confirm a judge? What do they think will happen if they ever win the presidency and the Senate majority? The Republicans will play the same game, and who can blame them? The only difference is that the Democrats won’t have anyone to blame but themselves. They have established how the game is to be played.
Democrats should start praying now that they would not only win one term, but win a second one. Remember, rule number one says that confirming a nominee could take more than four years. Can anybody say Priscilla Owen? Even if they were to confirm her now, do they really think that everything would be forgotten?
Until now, no judge with a clear majority of votes for Senate confirmation had been denied that vote. Since 2003, the number of judges is now 10 and it will only increase. Here is what Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) had to say about it, “We're not going to be bamboozled into rubber-stamping a slate of Scalias and Thomases who, by any measure, are conservative activist judges.” And Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) said, "If we allow a stealth right-winger on this court, we have only ourselves to blame.”
It’s evident that unless the constitutional option is enforced and order returns to the confirmation process, the American people will continue to suffer the consequences. The sooner Democrats realize this, the sooner we can start mending relationships in the Senate and the American people would be able to move on.
"But wait, Johnny, let's stick with a super majority (60) now and go back to a simple majority (51) when it's my turn." Does swampland come to mind?
Mario Diaz, CWA’s Multimedia Production Engineer, is a student at Catholic University School of Law in Washington, D.C..
----- 6 -----
Resolution Alerts Southern Baptists to Homosexual School Agenda
Concerned Women for America
5/14/2005
By Bethanie Swendsen
CWA’s Knight among experts quoted in support material.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8138/CFI/family/index.htm
A group of Southern Baptists is offering a resolution at the denomination’s national, annual convention in June that warns parents of a concerted homosexual agenda in public schools.
Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America’s Culture and Family Institute (CFI), is one of several experts cited in support materials for the resolution. This is Mr. Knight’s quote:
Under the rubric of “diversity,” “tolerance,” “safe schools,” and AIDS education, homosexual activists are selling a pansexual agenda right under parents’ noses. They gain access to public schools by initiating something with obvious appeal, such as the anti-bullying program “No Name-Calling Week.” Such projects are a Trojan horse for promoting homosexuality as normal and inevitable for some kids. Parents then find themselves being accused of bigotry for trying to steer children away from a set of behaviors whose risks are well documented. By the time it reaches that stage, the activists and their materials are entrenched in the school system.
Dr. Voddie Baucham Jr., a prominent Southern Baptist lecturer, and author Bruce N. Shortt (The Harsh Truth About Public Schools, The Chalcedon Foundation, 2004) have submitted a resolution addressing homosexuality and the public schools for consideration at the SBC’s 2005 Annual Meeting in June.
“Government schools are influencing our children to regard homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and silencing those within the schools who disagree. It is urgent that Christian parents become better informed,” Shortt said in a press release, part of which is excerpted here:
The resolution encourages every SBC church to investigate whether the school district in which it is located has either a homosexual club or any curriculum or program that attempts to influence children to accept homosexual behavior as a legitimate lifestyle. If the school district has any of these, the resolution urges churches to inform parents of this fact and encourage them to remove their children from the district’s schools immediately.Dr. Baucham said in the press release:
When these schools can hide behind stealth phrases like tolerance, safe schools, multiculturalism, and safer sex, parents are often unaware of the dangers lurking beneath the surface. ... This resolution is an effort to shine the light of truth in the dark corners of our schools and force our brethren to take a long, hard, honest look at what we have tolerated for far too long.Homosexual activists have long targeted public schools for programs that promote their agenda. In his book, Sexual Orientation and School Policy, pro-homosexual Dr. Ian K. Macgillivray of James Madison University says the public schools should be used "to outwit or educate the opposition." By “opposition,” he means conservative evangelicals and other people with traditional views of morality.
“By portraying homosexuality as a victim class, the activists put anyone with traditional values on the defensive,” Knight said. “The approach is brilliant; it appeals to the best in us, the part that wants to defend the underdog. But increasingly, the ‘underdogs’ are becoming the bullies, using school programs and compliant bureaucracy.”
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, an author and psychiatrist who teaches in the Department of Politics at Princeton University, states that these harmful effects are spreading:
Any program, club, or curriculum that signals to students that homosexual behavior is ‘just another lifestyle’ places children at tremendous risk. Data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) indicate that for boys and young men in North America who identify themselves as homosexual even if the identification is only temporary, which as has been documented in numerous large-scale sociological studies in America, France, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, as is the case with the majority of such self-identified homosexuals -- the risk of being either HIV positive or dead by age 30 may now be as high as 65 percent.The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and the homosexual caucus inside the National Education Association (NEA) are some of the many radical advocacy groups influencing teacher-training programs dealing with “sexual orientation” and “diversity."
“No matter where kids go to school, they need their parents to keep a close watch on what’s being taught,” said Knight. “Homosexual activists got caught recently in Montgomery County, Maryland, but they are usually cleverer at disguising their intent. I’m glad the Southern Baptists are shining a light on this agenda and on the public schools. Parents need to look at the total package and do what’s best for their children.”
For more information on the homosexual agenda and public schools, click here.
For more information on Dr. Ian K. Macgillivray and his book, click here.
Read Gay ‘Incrementalist’ Strategy Threatens California Schools, testimony by Karen Holgate of the Capitol Resource Institute at CFI’s seminar on homosexuality in the schools.
----- 7 -----
Mass. landmark ruling pushed issue onto ballots
By Nina J. Easton, Globe Staff | May 15, 2005
First of two parts
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/05/15/mass_landmark_ruling_pushed_issue_onto_ballots/
WASHINGTON -- Kansas House speaker pro tempore John Ballou, one of the state's most conservative lawmakers, suspected he was ''taking the last vote" of his political career when he opposed a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
He was right: On Election Day 2004, he and three other Republicans targeted by the religious right were booted out. On April 5, Ballou was still looking for a new job while Kansas voters marched to the polls to make their state the 14th in the past nine months to erect a constitutional firewall against the prospect of same-sex marriage being imported from Massachusetts.
Two weeks later and half a continent away, Connecticut's Republican governor signed a law permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil unions. And last week, both chambers of California's Democratic-controlled Legislature rejected constitutional bans on gay marriage; now a showdown looms as family-value groups launch a petition drive to get the measure on the ballot.
When Massachusetts, acting under a high-court ruling, became the first state in the union to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples as of May 2004, it unleashed a torrential political spillover. ''It was an earthquake," said Jonathan Rauch, a Brookings Institution writer and author of a recent book advocating same-sex unions. ''Massachusetts put every state in the union on notice that you could have gay marriage imposed by a court."
Not since Roe v. Wade gave a nationwide stamp of approval to abortion has a court decision so profoundly crystallized America's cultural divide. For proponents, the ruling was a landmark victory for civil rights and equality. For opponents, it was a startling assault on the traditional family and a symbol of judicial power run amok.
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Dorothy Patterson, on Dobson program, notes biblical stance on gender roles
May 13, 2005
By Gregory Tomlin
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20791
FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--God’s plan for humanity did not begin with “the tabernacle, the temple or any other vestige of government,” Dorothy Kelley Patterson said on James Dobson’s Focus on the Family radio program May 12.
“God started with the home,” Patterson said in a recording of an address she delivered at the annual convention of Concerned Women for America. “He chose that vehicle to reveal Himself to us.” For example, God is found in Scripture as “our Father” and “we are His children” and the church is found as “His bride,” she said.
Patterson is a professor in the women’s studies program at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, where her husband, Paige, is president.
Speaking from Genesis 2, Patterson said the account of creation illustrates clearly defined roles for men and women.
The first responsibility for man in the account, she said, was to tend the garden God had created. “It is important for a man to provide for his family,” she said. The man also was charged with guarding the garden. He was to protect it and the remainder of creation as husbands today should protect their wives and families.
But the greatest responsibility given to man, Patterson said, was that of spiritual leadership. In the same way, she said, “[M]y husband is to be the leader of my home.” There is a “spiritual hierarchy,” but one in which the husband is a servant leader. There is no “oppressive tyranny” in a biblical marriage, she said.
That does not mean that things in the home always run smoothly, Patterson said. Feelings are hurt on occasion, but she said that should not be the focus of the relationship. “God’s plan is not dependent on perfect people or perfect circumstances because it is a perfect plan,” she said.
Women are given a different role than men in society, Patterson said. That role has “nothing to do with gifts or intelligence.” She is to be a “helper” to her husband, she said, even though she is created equal to him.
“We are equal before God ... but from Genesis in creation it is clear that we have different roles. Now, you can go around moping and pouting about that; you can take the road of the feminists and rename yourself; you can rename the world and take over that; you can rename God -- and that’s just what the feminists do -- but it won’t change God’s plan.”
Those who try to change God’s plan follow the familiar path of deception displayed by the serpent in Genesis, Patterson said. They assume that their plan is better and they contradict God. Still, the plan for the home remains the same as it was in the Bible, she added.
Dobson said he chose Patterson’s address for the broadcast because she articulated well the same principles he has been advocating his entire career. He said his goal in life has been to combat the “radical feminist distortions” about marriage, the family and the role of women in society. While the radical feminist movement no longer exists, Dobson said, the ideas it promoted so permeated American society that they have influenced modern Christian culture.
Patterson is a woman “who knows of what she speaks,” Dobson said. She has authored several books on the subject of family, offering insights into biblical passages that address a woman’s role in marriage, the home and ministry. “Family: Unchanging Principles for Changing Times” is available through Focus on the Family and in bookstores.
----- 9 -----
""The National Consensus to Protect Marriage: Why a Constitutional Amendment is Needed" "
Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1507
DATE: May 19, 2005
TIME: 02:30 PM
ROOM: Senate Dirksen 226
OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE / WITNESS LIST:
NOTICE OF SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights has scheduled a hearing on "The National Consensus to Protect Marriage: Why a Constitutional Amendment is Needed" for Thursday, May 19, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Senator Brownback will preside.
By order of the Chairman
----- 10 -----
Courting FMA
A ruling in Nebraska demonstrates the need for a federal marriage amendment.
May 13, 2005, 8:07 a.m.
Stanley Kurtz
National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz.asp
Thursday’s decision by a federal court to overturn Nebraska’s state constitutional marriage amendment is a landmark moment in the battle over same-sex marriage. For the first time, a federal court has taken this matter out of the hands of a state. A constitutional amendment passed with a 70 percent majority of Nebraska’s voters has been voided. There could be no clearer demonstration of the arrogance of activist judges. This should remind Republican senators of the urgent need to confirm the president’s nominees to the bench. And of course this decision clearly shows that, without a federal marriage amendment, same-sex marriage is destined to be imposed on the country by the courts.
Eugene Volokh has posted a very sharp analysis of the Nebraska case. Let’s use Volokh’s thorough analysis as a way into this issue. The most important point Volokh makes is that the logic of the Nebraska decision, if upheld, would have the effect of imposing gay marriage on the entire country. As noted, this is exactly why a federal marriage amendment is needed. Yet Volokh himself is a libertarian-leaning law professor sympathetic to same-sex marriage and opposed to a federal marriage amendment. Volokh seems to think that this obviously wrongheaded decision is destined to be reversed on appeal. So why bother with a federal amendment if this fluke of a decision is about to be overturned?
Well, this decision is not a fluke. The parts of the decision Volokh thinks are the most obviously wrongheaded simply mimic the core arguments of same-sex-marriage advocates. Volokh criticizes the decision for holding that the state has no rational interest in promoting unions among specifically heterosexual couples. Volokh doesn’t personally endorse the idea that the state ought to claim such an interest, but he insists that reasonable people can differ on the matter. Says Volokh, it’s not irrational on its face that the state might have a special interest in promoting a particular sort of relationship between men and women. Yet the distinctive thing about public debate on this issue is the claim by same-sex-marriage advocates that there are no rational grounds for opposing gay marriage — that opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in sheer animus. The court here is simply buying into the widespread view that this is not a rational debate, but a debate between rationality and prejudice. The Goodridge decision in Massachusetts did something similar.
Volokh also criticizes the case for ignoring the distinction between the right to intimate association and the right to have the government recognize or subsidize your particular form of relationship. After all, says Volokh, the government doesn’t have to provide the benefits of marriage to single people. Volokh is right on substance, but misses the point nonetheless. A core premise of same-sex-marriage advocates is that a lack of government benefits does in fact violate their rights. The mere right to association is not enough, they say. They want benefits and state recognition for their relationships — and they insist that their entitlement to that recognition is a “right.” Even now, “single’s rights” advocates are making exactly the same argument for their own entitlement to the benefits of marriage. In fact, single’s rights groups self-consciously model their own demands on the demands of the gay marriage movement.
So I agree with Volokh that this decision is wrongheaded. It blurs key distinctions, refuses to recognize that there is a rational argument on both sides of the issue, and ultimately undercuts the rationale for state support of marriage. Yet that is exactly what the movement for same-sex marriage has been doing for years.
Volokh is “pretty sure” the Court of Appeals will reverse this decision. If it doesn’t, says Volokh, the Supreme Court will — and should — reverse. This strikes me as utterly naive. Volokh seems to think the judicial overreach in this case is obvious. But that doesn’t explain how the case got wrongly decided to begin with. The answer is clear. This judge has accepted the framing of the issue adopted by both same-sex-marriage advocates — and the entire mainstream media. This isn’t some judicial fluke. It’s evidence that the movement for same-sex marriage is successfully framing the debate — and thereby undermining the legal basis for marriage itself.
If this particular decision is reversed on appeal, that’s cold comfort. It’s all-too-obvious that the folks who think the way this judge does are not going to give way after a single reversal. They rightly believe that, over time, the courts have been shifting in their direction. It’s not just some crazy off-the-reservation judge who’s flying in the face of Volokh’s favored legal principles. It’s the entire liberal establishment. That is why, for those who oppose same-sex marriage, there is simply no alternative to a federal constitutional amendment.
----- 11 -----
Andrew Sullivan: If Bush beats the blather, his placemen win
The Sunday Times - Review
May 15, 2005
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1612396,00.html
It really wasn’t supposed to be this way. Last November saw George W Bush re-elected with a more comfortable margin than in 2000. The Senate and house saw small Republican gains. The religious right foresaw a legislative rapture.
The Democrats began to feel a little like the Tories, with less reason. They won 48% of the vote, after all. And yet it seemed as if history, especially after last January’s elections in Iraq, favoured a Bush boom.
Instead we have the Bush bump. Last week the Senate foreign relations committee, despite a Republican majority, decided to offer no recommendation on the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. One Republican senator said he’d vote against the nomination when it comes to the Senate floor soon. He called Bolton “the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be”.
At the same time, Washington is girding itself for a nailbiting month of brinkmanship as the Bush administration’s Senate allies threaten to abolish the chequered tradition of the Senate filibuster against judicial nominees.
The Democrats, seemingly liberated by electoral defeat, are promising a brutal fightback. They have finally decided to battle it out as hard as their opponents.
First, though, some history.
A president’s nominations to the federal courts and Supreme Court are constitutionally required to be approved with the “advice and consent” of the Senate.
In the past, nominees for important judicial posts were expected to poll at least 60 Senate votes to get on the bench; and the opposition party, as long as it had 40 Senate seats, could effectively block nominees it found too distasteful. In the good old days, a few chats over cocktails in Georgetown would help the president and Senate come to a prearranged deal and most nominees sailed through (or, if all else failed, never made it to or through the Senate judiciary committee). Since the 1980s, as both parties became more ideologically polarised, the fights got less civil.
Now we face open warfare. In order to confirm a dozen or so controversially conservative nominees, Bill Frist, Senate majority leader, has threatened to abolish the filibuster option by Senate vote, whereby Senators can speak without limit if they so wish. If others co-operate, they can pass the blathering baton from one to another, reading from the phone-book if necessary, in order to prevent Senate business from being conducted. So no judge gets confirmed. You need 60 votes to shut down a filibuster. Frist is proposing 50 for judicial nominations. That’s a big reduction in the rights of the minority. Even though the Republicans have 55 seats, it’s not certain he will get his way.
...
Sure, Bush could risk a backlash and face losses in the mid-term elections. But so what? If he gets the judicial nominees he wants he will have shifted America towards the religious right for a generation.
He believed he had effectively only two years to advance his agenda in a second term; and he sees no difference between a victory with 50 votes and one with 70. So he may go for broke.
We know by now that he’s not a traditional conservative — he’s a revolutionary. And the revolution in the courts is the one his followers care most about. It’s the one obstacle left to hard-right domination of American government. Why would he not want to remove it?
----- 12 -----
April 20, 2005
Dear Christians:
On “Justice Sunday,” April 24, 2005, the Family Research Council will host a live simulcast in which Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Al Mohler, and Chuck Colson and others will urge you to ensure that your Senator properly discharges his or her constitutional duty to either approve or reject each of President Bush’s nominees for the federal judiciary.
Some senators may evade their duty by filibustering, thus indefinitely blocking the President’s reasoned and necessary appointments. If such undemocratic tactics succeed, America will suffer from understaffed courts and worse, from decisions by activist judges who prefer to alter the law rather than interpret it. The best antidote to such an abuse of power is for American citizens—especially Christian citizens—to hold their senators responsible for their actions. The speakers on Justice Sunday will motivate Christians to achieve this vital goal.
Unfortunately, when the church publicly addresses civic needs, leftist groups oft respond with intimidation designed to silence Christians. Typically, such groups threaten churches with the loss of tax-exempt status or violations of various election laws. However, such a simplistic, brutal scare tactic would utterly lack any legal merit in this instance. Indeed, simply calling on senators to discharge their constitutional duty is a moral obligation that is not properly regulated by either election law or the federal tax code.
By this letter, we assure you that churches and Christians may lawfully exercise their fundamental First Amendment rights to urge their senators to properly discharge their duties. Any participant in Justice Sunday who is threatened by government officials or activist groups should immediately contact the ADF (1-800-TELLDAF, or www.telladf.org). Our attorneys will promptly review your situation and make every effort to defend your constitutional rights.
ADF is here to protect the precious constitutional rights of churches and Christians. Do not be silenced by fear or intimidation!
Sincerely
Gary S. McCaleb
Senior Counsel
Gary S. McCaleb
Senior Counsel
15333 N. Pima Road, Suite 165
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
PHONE: 480-444-0020 Ext. 504 FACSIMILE: 480-444-0028 E-MAIL: gmccaleb@telladf.org
[Ed. Note: Since this information was on a linked PDF on the web - highlighted, even - I left the contact information intact, including the phone numbers.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Hi
Date: 2005-05-17 05:01 am (UTC)