Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Jun. 6th, 2005 01:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdPope condemns gay marriages as 'anarchic freedom';
AFA boycott of Ford suspended - it looks like Ford may be talking to them, which is bad;
AFL-CIO opposes Federal Marriage Amendment; fundamentalists outraged, socially conservative union members start action to change the union's position;
Today's Family News in Focus;
Concerned Women for America - yet another judicial nominee article;
CWFA complains about the lack of confirmation for John Bolton;
CWFA rails against complaints about protection rollbacks in the Administrative branch since President Bush took over;
CWFA against .XXX TLD;
Article on upcoming oral arguments in law forbidding gayfolk from serving in the military;
Traditional Values Coalition begins their formal push for an anti-marriage constitutional amendment in California;
Agape Press article, reprinted by Christian Underground, rallying against marriage rights;
American Family Association press release on putting their Ford boycott on hiatus.
----- 1 -----
Pope condemns gay marriages as 'anarchy'
Mon Jun 6, 2005 02:49 PM ET
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=8709268&src=rss/worldNews
ROME (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, in his first clear pronouncement on gay marriages since his election, on Monday condemned same-sex unions as fake and expressions of "anarchic freedom" that threatened the future of the family.
The Pope, who was elected in April, also condemned divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions, saying all of these practices were dangerous for the family.
"Today's various forms of dissolution of marriage, free unions, trial marriages as well as the pseudo-matrimonies between people of the same sex are instead expressions of anarchic freedom which falsely tries to pass itself off as the true liberation of man," he said.
The Pope spoke to families at Rome's St. John's Cathedral on an issue that has become highly controversial around the world, particularly in Europe and the United States.
In April, parliament in traditionally Catholic Spain gave initial approval to a law legalizing gay marriage. It is widely expected to be approved by the Senate and to become law.
But just last week, California's Assembly killed off a bill that would have allowed gay marriage in the most populous U.S. state.
The Pope, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger headed the Vatican's doctrinal department for more than two decades, said "pseudo freedoms" such as gay marriages were based on what he called the "banalisation of the human body" and of man himself.
[More]
----- 2 -----
Christian group suspends Ford boycott
Organization says dealers want time to lobby company
By Alex Johnson
MSNBC
Updated: 1:50 p.m. ET June 6, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8119504/
A conservative Christian activist group said Monday that it had suspended its boycott of Ford Motor Co. after Ford dealers promised to lobby the automaker to address the group’s concerns about its support for gay and lesbian rights.
The American Family Association, which is based in Tupelo, Miss., announced the boycott only a week ago, calling Ford “the company which has done the most to affirm and promote the homosexual lifestyle.” Ford extends benefits to employees’ same-sex partners, offers to make donations to gay advocacy groups when their members buy specific automobiles, sponsors gay pride celebrations and advertises in gay-oriented publications, part of what it says is an important diversity outreach.
The AFA, which recently ended a nine-year boycott of Walt Disney Co., said more than 110,000 people signed its pledge to boycott Ford for the company’s support of same-sex marriage.
On Monday, the AFA said in a statement that it had met with a group of Ford dealers who it said asked for time to see whether the organization’s complaints “could be addressed by the dealers in cooperation with officials from Ford Motor Company.” It said it would suspend the action until Dec. 31.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
AFL-CIO Comes Out Against Marriage
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
SUMMARY: The largest organizer of American unions is
opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment, though most of
its constituents support traditional marriage.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0036771.cfm
The AFL-CIO is lobbying against the Marriage Protection
Amendment (MPA) -- an effort to constitutionally define
marriage as between one man and one woman. The
organization represents 58 national and international
labor unions and more than 13 million workers, but its
policies are liberal compared to the people it represents.
The march toward the left by a few in leadership
misrepresents what most rank-and-file union members hold
as deep convictions.
In March 2005, a Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll reported that
68 percent of Americans "think marriages between
homosexuals . . . should not be recognized by the law as
valid."
State amendments have passed with great success in 18
states. In fact, the MPA passed with 60 percent of the
vote in union-friendly Michigan. Other states passed
amendments defending traditional marriage by margins that
were deflating to homosexual activists. Mississippi passed
with 86 percent of the vote; Georgia with 77 percent;
Kentucky, 75 percent and Oklahoma, 76 percent. This new
move by the AFL-CIO undermines what is obviously the will
of most union workers.
Keeping the AFL-CIO agenda under wraps would be the best
way to sneak the high-dollar lobbying past most local
labor unions. But pro-family workers aren't going to allow
the social agenda of a few to go unnoticed.
Ken Boutwell, a Mississippi union worker with
Georgia-Pacific is going on the offensive. He and what he
calls "a few men standing with me" have created a Web site
to petition John Sweeney, the AFL-CIO president, to change
his stand on the issue of marriage.
Though cumbersome to type,
http://unionworkersagainstgaymarriage.com, is a tool
Boutwell hopes workers will use to stop AFL-CIO activism.
"Sweeney has sold us out," Boutwell said. "Unions are
supposed to be democratic and give people a choice. When
Sweeney and his council speak for 13 million workers about
an issue this important . . . he's supposed to represent
the body."
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
Family News in Focus
Monday, June 06, 2005
Focus on the Family
Bob Phillips
* U.S. State Department has released its annual “Trafficking In Persons Report” estimating 800,000 victims of slavery
1. "Worldwide, over 800,000, mainly women and children, are exploited by the modern slavery market." Farm workers, work camps, brothels and sex shops, and forced military service by children." "The worst offenders are Islamic nations." "Four countries are placed on Tier 3 for their failure to... make significant efforts of combat forced-labour trafficking. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates." "Sex slavery, aided by the US pornography industry, is the largest problem." [Ed. Note: That last bit comes out of nowhere.]
* While Senate Democrats and Republicans spar over judicial nominees, President looks beyond the fray to the judicial vacancies needing to be filled
5. Bush "poised to announce as many as 30 new nominees." "Many of which are considered emergencies." 44 seats need filling, 18 "are considered emergencies." [Ed. note: the vacancy rate is the lowest since Reagan, iirc.] "Bush has focused on his Consitutional duty, filling court vacancies." Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters says many nominees will be contested. Accuses left of playing "spin the bottle" and going after judicial nominees "for fundraising." Filibusters are not expected, however.
* International efforts to control the AIDS pandemic woefully short of getting job done
3. World Vision: "Every single day we've got about 14,000 people becoming infected with this deadly virus." Talks about inadequate resources. "The church has a major obligation in the battle."
* Smithsonian Institute backs out of agreement to sponsor science film presenting evidence of Intelligent Design being central to life on Earth
7. Discovery Institute staff reviewed "The Privileged Planet." Discovery Institute paid Smithsonian to "sponsor" the film(? WTF does that mean?) Smithsonian "decided to backtrack" under "Darwinian" pressure. Smithsonian says the film "isn't scientific" now. Answers in Genesis is "disappointed with the Smithsonian." The film will still show at the Smithsonian on the 23rd, but will not have the Smithsonian Institute sponsourship. [Ed. note: what, is this an endorsement of some sort?]
* Calls from British Embassy in Washington has several Christian leaders way to meet with head of British Government
4. Ted Haggard, head of National Association of Evangelicals, to confer with Tony Blair over the G8 Summit. Also "several other Christian leaders." NAE believes "the greatest expansion of free trade and the development of capitalism worldwide" is the best solution to global poverty. Head of Southern Baptists invited, too.
* Uzbekistan, member of old U.S.S.R, has made the U.S. list of Countries of Particular Concern regarding repression and brutality
2. 750 killed by government troops. "Moderate Muslim citizens" were protesting their government. Government opened fire. "Concerns have been raised that this is a really repressive, Soviet-style government." Now on US list of "countries of particular concern."
* Repeated attempts by liberal lawmakers couldn't get California's gay-marriage bill passed
6. "Democrats changed house rules to allow gay marriage three tries to pass." California Family Council: "In the end, family values [forces] were stronger."
----- 5 -----
Balancing an Unbalanced Court 6/6/2005
By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel
Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8281/LEGAL/scourt/index.htm
One more irrelevant concern about Supreme Court nominations.
“It won’t change the balance of the Court” will be repeated ad nauseum by writers and talking heads in the days to come as speculation abounds about who’s on the President’s Supreme Court “short list.” Irrelevancies, like big lies, take on the semblance of legitimacy the more they’re regurgitated.
First of all, where in the Constitution does it require the President to make certain that those appointed to the Supreme Court “won’t change the balance of the Court”? Since the answer is “nowhere,” it should eliminate further discussion of the irrelevancy. But, let’s indulge the question because those who ask care little about what the Constitution states. What do the liberals mean by “balance of the Court”?
It means there can never be more than three Supreme Court justices who are tagged as “conservative,” “originalist,” “strict-constructionist,” “having deeply held beliefs,” AKA, “anti-Roe.” Those who view the courts as back-up enforcement for their dead-on-delivery legislative proposals insist there must be at least five, preferably six, justices on the Court who are “pro-Roe.” It plays out as follows.
If and when Chief Justice William Rehnquist retires, the President is expected to nominate another conservative as his replacement. If the replacement is a conservative associate justice, such as Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and the person who replaces him is a conservative, the “balance of the Court” remains the same—three conservatives with four liberals and two switch-hitting “centrists,” all six of whom think abortion is a constitutional right.
The fact that the “balance” hasn’t shifted doesn’t mean that liberals will go quietly into that good night to contemplate the consequences of losing the presidency and four Senate seats in the last election. For them, the losers get to go to Disneyland too.
But the battle supreme will come when one of the switch-hitters or a liberal justice retires and the President nominates a conservative replacement, as he should. The outcry against “imbalance” will resound as if the earth is falling off its axis and a tsunami is approaching. It will, of course, trigger the “extraordinary circumstances” in the Gang of 14’s sell-out compromise, which will “justify” launching the filibuster once again.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Senate Debate: To Confirm or Not to Confirm
Elaine McGinnis
Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwalac.org/article_212.shtml
Days after the band of 14 in the U.S. Senate declared a supposed truce over denying President Bush's nominees a fair up or down vote, they once again blocked ending the filibuster against John Bolton, nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
High hopes that Bolton would finally receive a vote were dashed just before the Memorial Day recess, leaving unclear the timing for a future vote.
Dr. Janice Crouse, Senior Fellow of CWA's think tank, The Beverly LaHaye Institute, said, "So much for the good will of those 'heroes' who supposedly compromised so that there would be an up or down vote on candidates and Senate business could move forward. Granted, this is not a judicial candidate, but the spirit of the 'compromise' is certainly trashed by the filibuster against Bolton."
President Bush expressed his disappointment at a press conference this week in the Rose Garden. "He's been through hearings and questions and questionnaires. You know, it's pretty obvious to the American people and me that you can tie up anything in the United States Senate if you want to," he said.
Democrats continue to demand more investigations into Bolton's professional career, alleging he is too blunt and outspoken and will further damage U.S. relations with the U.N.
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) spoke out in Bolton's defense. "The end result is that many of the accusations have proven to be groundless or at worst overstated...," Lugar said. "There's no doubt that Secretary Bolton has been blunt and combative in defense of his perspectives. Indeed, this is one of the qualities that President Bush and Secretary Rice have cited as a reason for their selection of this nominee."
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Lavender Revenge?
6/6/2005
By Robert Knight
Concerned Women for America
Homosexual activists, liberal congressmen target agency official who angered ‘gays.’
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8292/CFI/family/index.htm
Ever since U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch tried last year to uphold the law regarding federal employees’ civil rights by omitting a category never approved by Congress, the homosexual lobby has been working to discredit him.
The campaign heated up this week when John Aravosis, who unsuccessfully harassed Vice President Dick Cheney during the election last year over Mr. Cheney’s lesbian daughter Mary Cheney, announced that he was going after Mr. Bloch. Peppered with obscenity, Aravosis’ Web site often denounces pro-family groups and politicians who won’t bend to the homosexual agenda. For example, here is Mr. Aravosis addressing Ford Motor Company, which some pro-family groups are boycotting over its recent pro-homosexual activism:
These are hate groups, they know one thing: hate. They exist for one thing: hate. They will not stop attacking you until you become as bigoted and hateful as they.
Aravosis also refers to pro-family groups as “pigs” and “sick pseudo-religious [obscene term]s.”
After Mr. Bloch’s appearance on May 24 at a Senate panel, Mr. Aravosis posted a series of obscenities against Mr. Bloch and the Bush administration.
Appointed by President Bush in late 2003 to head the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the agency that handles federal whistleblower complaints, Bloch surprised many by editing out “sexual orientation” on the agency Web site’s list of specially protected categories three months after he took office. The term had been inserted by previous Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan, a lesbian activist who directed the office for five years under Bill Clinton.
Bloch noted in a May 24, 2005, hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Subcommittee that no law allows the creation of new categories of civil rights statutes, so that the agency had no authority to go beyond what was listed. He noted that neither Congress nor any federal court has authorized civil rights “status” claims based on “sexual orientation.” He said that all employees, including homosexuals, would be protected from any discrimination based on a law protecting non-work “conduct” that does not interfere with their work, but that conduct and status are vastly different levels of protection in law.
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
CWA Says ICANN’S XXX Domain Should Be Canned
6/6/2005
Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8296/MEDIA/pornography/index.htm
Washington, D.C. -- Concerned Women for America (CWA) says the plan by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to create a XXX domain for Internet porn sites is an idea that should be canned because it creates more problems than it can possibly solve.
“This idea has been kicked around for several years and the only possible winners are in the porn industry,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s chief counsel. “Because it’s voluntary, the porn site operators have the best of both worlds. They can double their pleasure, double their fun by locating on this domain and remain on any of the other domains on which they’re registered.
“The only restriction on XXX domain participants is for any sexually explicit content to feature only adults, but there’s no requirement to block access to kids. It legitimizes pornography and makes it even easier for kids to find it. It won’t make software filters any more effective,” LaRue added. “People who equate this with zoning brick-and-mortar sexually oriented businesses are clueless about cyberspace and how it operates.
“Most of the porn sites offer hard-core porn that is prosecutable under federal law. Giving them a XXX domain makes as little sense as giving illicit drug cartels a domain,” LaRue concluded.
----- 9 -----
Judge Will Hear Arguments on Military's Homosexual Ban
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 06, 2005
(Editor's note: Corrects date for oral arguments -- July 6, not June 6.)
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200506\NAT20050606a.html
(CNSNews.com) - Oral arguments are expected to take place July 6 in a case challenging the constitutionality of the federal government's ban on homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military.
A homosexual advocacy group, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, filed a legal challenge last December, in an attempt to overturn the Clinton-era law.
Next month, a federal judge in Boston will hear arguments on the government's motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed on behalf of 12 former service members discharged from the military under the homosexual ban.
SLDN, which is representing the plaintiffs, argues that a "gay ban" punishes service members for their "private, constitutionally protected conduct."
According to the lawsuit, the ban denies homosexuals "the right of privacy, equal protection of the law and freedom of speech."
The July 6 hearing is scheduled to take place at 2 p.m. in federal district court in Boston.
During his presidential campaign in 1992, President Bill Clinton advocated repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military. But in November 1993, Clinton signed a law reaffirming the long-standing principle that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.
The 1993 law says there is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces; it says "success in combat" requires strong "unit cohesion" and "bonds of trust" among individual service members; and it says the presence of "persons who demonstrate a propensity of intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
The law notes that "the prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service."
Contrary to popular assumption, Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is not part of the law he signed in 1993. According to the Center for Military Readiness, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is an enforcement policy, not a law, that has misled many homosexuals about their ability to serve.
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative
Why the California Marriage Ammendment is needed
Traditional Values Coalition
http://traditionalvalues.org/votersright/index.php
Marriage between a man and a woman is good and natural -- even sacred. Since the beginning of time, marriage has been the foundation of family and society. You need a man and a woman to further our civilization by bringing children into the world.
Sadly, marriage and the vote of the people to protect marriage in California (Proposition 22) has been under attack by judges and politicians (details below). That's why the only way to protect marriage and the will of the people is to qualify and pass a true-blue California constitutional marriage amendment, the Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative.
This means that California voters have the right and the ability to override the judges and politicians to protect marriage for a man and a woman once and for all in the State Constitution.
But not just any constitutional marriage amendment will do. A marriage amendment that doesn't protect the rights of marriage doesn't protect marriage. That's why we're asking you to read the good, strong language of the Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative. It's clear and principled because it protects everything about marriage -- marriage licenses, marriage rights, and marriage under law -- for one man and one woman. It's the true-blue standard we must unite under to truly protect marriage.
The California Marriage Amendment is vitally necessary to protect the people's vote on marriage.
Five years ago, Californians gave overwhelming support (61.4%) to Proposition 22, the Protection of Marriage Initiative (a statute, a regular law on the books, which was not an amendment to the California State Constitution). The people's will to keep marriage between one man and one woman was unmistakable. Proposition 22, which became Family Code, Section 308.5 clearly stated that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
----- 11 -----
Concerned Mass. Parents Mobilizing to Battle Homosexual Agenda in Schools
Christian Underground
Reprinted by permission from Agape Press
By Jim Brown
May 24, 2005
http://www.christian-underground.com/archive/read.php?sid=1737
Mothers and fathers in Lexington, Massachusetts, are coming together and speaking out in an effort to combat the school system's promotion of homosexuality in their children's classrooms.
Three events in Lexington schools have raised the ire of parents who feel the district has stepped over the line when it comes to teaching sexuality in the classroom. School officials are under fire for showing a so-called "diversity" video advocating lesbianism, holding a "Day of Silence" to remember the persecution of homosexuals, and having a parent arrested for protesting the presentation of pro-homosexual curricula in his son's kindergarten class. [Ed. Note: "advocating" lesbianism or homosexuality almost always means mentioning it in a non-condemnational way; that's been the usual definition for that phrase for at least 10 years. The parent who was arrested was arrested for trespassing, after he refused to leave a school building; he was arrested for the trespass, not the protest. C.f. every protest held over the last 40-odd years; also see earlier posts of mine in this series. I can't speak to the second item, as I have no data to contribute.]
Gerry Wambolt of the group Lexington Parents for Respect says area families have had enough. The cascading incidents of pro-homosexual activism in the community's schools are "more than a mere coincidence," he contends, and what has been happening is nothing less than "an attack on the family -- an attack on values."
Furthermore, Wambolt observes, "I wouldn't say it's an attack on Christian values, because it's not just that. It's an attack on Jewish values and Muslim values and virtually the values of anybody with common sense who has come into this country and into this town from other parts of the world."
The Lexington Parents for Respect spokesman says moms and dads in the community recently told the Lexington School Committee they are upset that radical homosexual policies are being implemented in the local schools. He notes that one parent in particular "mentioned a litany of things that took place, and he addressed it right to the superintendent of the schools here -- and said, 'If these things are true, then you should be put in jail.'"
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
AFA suspends Ford boycott for six months
American Family Association
For Immediate Release: 6/6/2005
http://media.afa.net/newdesign/ReleaseDetail.asp?id=3204
(Tupelo, MS) - After meeting with a group of Ford dealers, American Family Association (AFA) has suspended its boycott of Ford Motor Company until December 1, 2005.
In the meeting, the dealers requested time to see if the concerns raised by AFA in their boycott announcement could be addressed by the dealers in cooperation with officials from Ford Motor Company.
“We believe the dealers were making a good faith effort and agreed to accept their request,” said AFA chairman Donald Wildmon. “Therefore, we accepted the suspension request and will work with the dealers in attempting to resolve our differences.
“We urge those supporting the boycott to disregard the boycott until December 1, 2005, and on or about that date, we will notify our supporters as to the status of the boycott,” Wildmon stated.
AFA launched the Ford boycott Tuesday, May 31, 2005. In less than a week, over 110,000 people signed the pledge to boycott Ford for the company’s support of same-sex marriage.
AFA boycott of Ford suspended - it looks like Ford may be talking to them, which is bad;
AFL-CIO opposes Federal Marriage Amendment; fundamentalists outraged, socially conservative union members start action to change the union's position;
Today's Family News in Focus;
Concerned Women for America - yet another judicial nominee article;
CWFA complains about the lack of confirmation for John Bolton;
CWFA rails against complaints about protection rollbacks in the Administrative branch since President Bush took over;
CWFA against .XXX TLD;
Article on upcoming oral arguments in law forbidding gayfolk from serving in the military;
Traditional Values Coalition begins their formal push for an anti-marriage constitutional amendment in California;
Agape Press article, reprinted by Christian Underground, rallying against marriage rights;
American Family Association press release on putting their Ford boycott on hiatus.
----- 1 -----
Pope condemns gay marriages as 'anarchy'
Mon Jun 6, 2005 02:49 PM ET
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=8709268&src=rss/worldNews
ROME (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, in his first clear pronouncement on gay marriages since his election, on Monday condemned same-sex unions as fake and expressions of "anarchic freedom" that threatened the future of the family.
The Pope, who was elected in April, also condemned divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions, saying all of these practices were dangerous for the family.
"Today's various forms of dissolution of marriage, free unions, trial marriages as well as the pseudo-matrimonies between people of the same sex are instead expressions of anarchic freedom which falsely tries to pass itself off as the true liberation of man," he said.
The Pope spoke to families at Rome's St. John's Cathedral on an issue that has become highly controversial around the world, particularly in Europe and the United States.
In April, parliament in traditionally Catholic Spain gave initial approval to a law legalizing gay marriage. It is widely expected to be approved by the Senate and to become law.
But just last week, California's Assembly killed off a bill that would have allowed gay marriage in the most populous U.S. state.
The Pope, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger headed the Vatican's doctrinal department for more than two decades, said "pseudo freedoms" such as gay marriages were based on what he called the "banalisation of the human body" and of man himself.
[More]
----- 2 -----
Christian group suspends Ford boycott
Organization says dealers want time to lobby company
By Alex Johnson
MSNBC
Updated: 1:50 p.m. ET June 6, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8119504/
A conservative Christian activist group said Monday that it had suspended its boycott of Ford Motor Co. after Ford dealers promised to lobby the automaker to address the group’s concerns about its support for gay and lesbian rights.
The American Family Association, which is based in Tupelo, Miss., announced the boycott only a week ago, calling Ford “the company which has done the most to affirm and promote the homosexual lifestyle.” Ford extends benefits to employees’ same-sex partners, offers to make donations to gay advocacy groups when their members buy specific automobiles, sponsors gay pride celebrations and advertises in gay-oriented publications, part of what it says is an important diversity outreach.
The AFA, which recently ended a nine-year boycott of Walt Disney Co., said more than 110,000 people signed its pledge to boycott Ford for the company’s support of same-sex marriage.
On Monday, the AFA said in a statement that it had met with a group of Ford dealers who it said asked for time to see whether the organization’s complaints “could be addressed by the dealers in cooperation with officials from Ford Motor Company.” It said it would suspend the action until Dec. 31.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
AFL-CIO Comes Out Against Marriage
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
SUMMARY: The largest organizer of American unions is
opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment, though most of
its constituents support traditional marriage.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0036771.cfm
The AFL-CIO is lobbying against the Marriage Protection
Amendment (MPA) -- an effort to constitutionally define
marriage as between one man and one woman. The
organization represents 58 national and international
labor unions and more than 13 million workers, but its
policies are liberal compared to the people it represents.
The march toward the left by a few in leadership
misrepresents what most rank-and-file union members hold
as deep convictions.
In March 2005, a Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll reported that
68 percent of Americans "think marriages between
homosexuals . . . should not be recognized by the law as
valid."
State amendments have passed with great success in 18
states. In fact, the MPA passed with 60 percent of the
vote in union-friendly Michigan. Other states passed
amendments defending traditional marriage by margins that
were deflating to homosexual activists. Mississippi passed
with 86 percent of the vote; Georgia with 77 percent;
Kentucky, 75 percent and Oklahoma, 76 percent. This new
move by the AFL-CIO undermines what is obviously the will
of most union workers.
Keeping the AFL-CIO agenda under wraps would be the best
way to sneak the high-dollar lobbying past most local
labor unions. But pro-family workers aren't going to allow
the social agenda of a few to go unnoticed.
Ken Boutwell, a Mississippi union worker with
Georgia-Pacific is going on the offensive. He and what he
calls "a few men standing with me" have created a Web site
to petition John Sweeney, the AFL-CIO president, to change
his stand on the issue of marriage.
Though cumbersome to type,
http://unionworkersagainstgaymarriage.com, is a tool
Boutwell hopes workers will use to stop AFL-CIO activism.
"Sweeney has sold us out," Boutwell said. "Unions are
supposed to be democratic and give people a choice. When
Sweeney and his council speak for 13 million workers about
an issue this important . . . he's supposed to represent
the body."
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
Family News in Focus
Monday, June 06, 2005
Focus on the Family
Bob Phillips
* U.S. State Department has released its annual “Trafficking In Persons Report” estimating 800,000 victims of slavery
1. "Worldwide, over 800,000, mainly women and children, are exploited by the modern slavery market." Farm workers, work camps, brothels and sex shops, and forced military service by children." "The worst offenders are Islamic nations." "Four countries are placed on Tier 3 for their failure to... make significant efforts of combat forced-labour trafficking. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates." "Sex slavery, aided by the US pornography industry, is the largest problem." [Ed. Note: That last bit comes out of nowhere.]
* While Senate Democrats and Republicans spar over judicial nominees, President looks beyond the fray to the judicial vacancies needing to be filled
5. Bush "poised to announce as many as 30 new nominees." "Many of which are considered emergencies." 44 seats need filling, 18 "are considered emergencies." [Ed. note: the vacancy rate is the lowest since Reagan, iirc.] "Bush has focused on his Consitutional duty, filling court vacancies." Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters says many nominees will be contested. Accuses left of playing "spin the bottle" and going after judicial nominees "for fundraising." Filibusters are not expected, however.
* International efforts to control the AIDS pandemic woefully short of getting job done
3. World Vision: "Every single day we've got about 14,000 people becoming infected with this deadly virus." Talks about inadequate resources. "The church has a major obligation in the battle."
* Smithsonian Institute backs out of agreement to sponsor science film presenting evidence of Intelligent Design being central to life on Earth
7. Discovery Institute staff reviewed "The Privileged Planet." Discovery Institute paid Smithsonian to "sponsor" the film(? WTF does that mean?) Smithsonian "decided to backtrack" under "Darwinian" pressure. Smithsonian says the film "isn't scientific" now. Answers in Genesis is "disappointed with the Smithsonian." The film will still show at the Smithsonian on the 23rd, but will not have the Smithsonian Institute sponsourship. [Ed. note: what, is this an endorsement of some sort?]
* Calls from British Embassy in Washington has several Christian leaders way to meet with head of British Government
4. Ted Haggard, head of National Association of Evangelicals, to confer with Tony Blair over the G8 Summit. Also "several other Christian leaders." NAE believes "the greatest expansion of free trade and the development of capitalism worldwide" is the best solution to global poverty. Head of Southern Baptists invited, too.
* Uzbekistan, member of old U.S.S.R, has made the U.S. list of Countries of Particular Concern regarding repression and brutality
2. 750 killed by government troops. "Moderate Muslim citizens" were protesting their government. Government opened fire. "Concerns have been raised that this is a really repressive, Soviet-style government." Now on US list of "countries of particular concern."
* Repeated attempts by liberal lawmakers couldn't get California's gay-marriage bill passed
6. "Democrats changed house rules to allow gay marriage three tries to pass." California Family Council: "In the end, family values [forces] were stronger."
----- 5 -----
Balancing an Unbalanced Court 6/6/2005
By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel
Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8281/LEGAL/scourt/index.htm
One more irrelevant concern about Supreme Court nominations.
“It won’t change the balance of the Court” will be repeated ad nauseum by writers and talking heads in the days to come as speculation abounds about who’s on the President’s Supreme Court “short list.” Irrelevancies, like big lies, take on the semblance of legitimacy the more they’re regurgitated.
First of all, where in the Constitution does it require the President to make certain that those appointed to the Supreme Court “won’t change the balance of the Court”? Since the answer is “nowhere,” it should eliminate further discussion of the irrelevancy. But, let’s indulge the question because those who ask care little about what the Constitution states. What do the liberals mean by “balance of the Court”?
It means there can never be more than three Supreme Court justices who are tagged as “conservative,” “originalist,” “strict-constructionist,” “having deeply held beliefs,” AKA, “anti-Roe.” Those who view the courts as back-up enforcement for their dead-on-delivery legislative proposals insist there must be at least five, preferably six, justices on the Court who are “pro-Roe.” It plays out as follows.
If and when Chief Justice William Rehnquist retires, the President is expected to nominate another conservative as his replacement. If the replacement is a conservative associate justice, such as Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and the person who replaces him is a conservative, the “balance of the Court” remains the same—three conservatives with four liberals and two switch-hitting “centrists,” all six of whom think abortion is a constitutional right.
The fact that the “balance” hasn’t shifted doesn’t mean that liberals will go quietly into that good night to contemplate the consequences of losing the presidency and four Senate seats in the last election. For them, the losers get to go to Disneyland too.
But the battle supreme will come when one of the switch-hitters or a liberal justice retires and the President nominates a conservative replacement, as he should. The outcry against “imbalance” will resound as if the earth is falling off its axis and a tsunami is approaching. It will, of course, trigger the “extraordinary circumstances” in the Gang of 14’s sell-out compromise, which will “justify” launching the filibuster once again.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Senate Debate: To Confirm or Not to Confirm
Elaine McGinnis
Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwalac.org/article_212.shtml
Days after the band of 14 in the U.S. Senate declared a supposed truce over denying President Bush's nominees a fair up or down vote, they once again blocked ending the filibuster against John Bolton, nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
High hopes that Bolton would finally receive a vote were dashed just before the Memorial Day recess, leaving unclear the timing for a future vote.
Dr. Janice Crouse, Senior Fellow of CWA's think tank, The Beverly LaHaye Institute, said, "So much for the good will of those 'heroes' who supposedly compromised so that there would be an up or down vote on candidates and Senate business could move forward. Granted, this is not a judicial candidate, but the spirit of the 'compromise' is certainly trashed by the filibuster against Bolton."
President Bush expressed his disappointment at a press conference this week in the Rose Garden. "He's been through hearings and questions and questionnaires. You know, it's pretty obvious to the American people and me that you can tie up anything in the United States Senate if you want to," he said.
Democrats continue to demand more investigations into Bolton's professional career, alleging he is too blunt and outspoken and will further damage U.S. relations with the U.N.
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) spoke out in Bolton's defense. "The end result is that many of the accusations have proven to be groundless or at worst overstated...," Lugar said. "There's no doubt that Secretary Bolton has been blunt and combative in defense of his perspectives. Indeed, this is one of the qualities that President Bush and Secretary Rice have cited as a reason for their selection of this nominee."
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Lavender Revenge?
6/6/2005
By Robert Knight
Concerned Women for America
Homosexual activists, liberal congressmen target agency official who angered ‘gays.’
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8292/CFI/family/index.htm
Ever since U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch tried last year to uphold the law regarding federal employees’ civil rights by omitting a category never approved by Congress, the homosexual lobby has been working to discredit him.
The campaign heated up this week when John Aravosis, who unsuccessfully harassed Vice President Dick Cheney during the election last year over Mr. Cheney’s lesbian daughter Mary Cheney, announced that he was going after Mr. Bloch. Peppered with obscenity, Aravosis’ Web site often denounces pro-family groups and politicians who won’t bend to the homosexual agenda. For example, here is Mr. Aravosis addressing Ford Motor Company, which some pro-family groups are boycotting over its recent pro-homosexual activism:
These are hate groups, they know one thing: hate. They exist for one thing: hate. They will not stop attacking you until you become as bigoted and hateful as they.
Aravosis also refers to pro-family groups as “pigs” and “sick pseudo-religious [obscene term]s.”
After Mr. Bloch’s appearance on May 24 at a Senate panel, Mr. Aravosis posted a series of obscenities against Mr. Bloch and the Bush administration.
Appointed by President Bush in late 2003 to head the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the agency that handles federal whistleblower complaints, Bloch surprised many by editing out “sexual orientation” on the agency Web site’s list of specially protected categories three months after he took office. The term had been inserted by previous Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan, a lesbian activist who directed the office for five years under Bill Clinton.
Bloch noted in a May 24, 2005, hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Subcommittee that no law allows the creation of new categories of civil rights statutes, so that the agency had no authority to go beyond what was listed. He noted that neither Congress nor any federal court has authorized civil rights “status” claims based on “sexual orientation.” He said that all employees, including homosexuals, would be protected from any discrimination based on a law protecting non-work “conduct” that does not interfere with their work, but that conduct and status are vastly different levels of protection in law.
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
CWA Says ICANN’S XXX Domain Should Be Canned
6/6/2005
Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8296/MEDIA/pornography/index.htm
Washington, D.C. -- Concerned Women for America (CWA) says the plan by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to create a XXX domain for Internet porn sites is an idea that should be canned because it creates more problems than it can possibly solve.
“This idea has been kicked around for several years and the only possible winners are in the porn industry,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s chief counsel. “Because it’s voluntary, the porn site operators have the best of both worlds. They can double their pleasure, double their fun by locating on this domain and remain on any of the other domains on which they’re registered.
“The only restriction on XXX domain participants is for any sexually explicit content to feature only adults, but there’s no requirement to block access to kids. It legitimizes pornography and makes it even easier for kids to find it. It won’t make software filters any more effective,” LaRue added. “People who equate this with zoning brick-and-mortar sexually oriented businesses are clueless about cyberspace and how it operates.
“Most of the porn sites offer hard-core porn that is prosecutable under federal law. Giving them a XXX domain makes as little sense as giving illicit drug cartels a domain,” LaRue concluded.
----- 9 -----
Judge Will Hear Arguments on Military's Homosexual Ban
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 06, 2005
(Editor's note: Corrects date for oral arguments -- July 6, not June 6.)
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200506\NAT20050606a.html
(CNSNews.com) - Oral arguments are expected to take place July 6 in a case challenging the constitutionality of the federal government's ban on homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military.
A homosexual advocacy group, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, filed a legal challenge last December, in an attempt to overturn the Clinton-era law.
Next month, a federal judge in Boston will hear arguments on the government's motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed on behalf of 12 former service members discharged from the military under the homosexual ban.
SLDN, which is representing the plaintiffs, argues that a "gay ban" punishes service members for their "private, constitutionally protected conduct."
According to the lawsuit, the ban denies homosexuals "the right of privacy, equal protection of the law and freedom of speech."
The July 6 hearing is scheduled to take place at 2 p.m. in federal district court in Boston.
During his presidential campaign in 1992, President Bill Clinton advocated repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military. But in November 1993, Clinton signed a law reaffirming the long-standing principle that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.
The 1993 law says there is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces; it says "success in combat" requires strong "unit cohesion" and "bonds of trust" among individual service members; and it says the presence of "persons who demonstrate a propensity of intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
The law notes that "the prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service."
Contrary to popular assumption, Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is not part of the law he signed in 1993. According to the Center for Military Readiness, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is an enforcement policy, not a law, that has misled many homosexuals about their ability to serve.
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative
Why the California Marriage Ammendment is needed
Traditional Values Coalition
http://traditionalvalues.org/votersright/index.php
Marriage between a man and a woman is good and natural -- even sacred. Since the beginning of time, marriage has been the foundation of family and society. You need a man and a woman to further our civilization by bringing children into the world.
Sadly, marriage and the vote of the people to protect marriage in California (Proposition 22) has been under attack by judges and politicians (details below). That's why the only way to protect marriage and the will of the people is to qualify and pass a true-blue California constitutional marriage amendment, the Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative.
This means that California voters have the right and the ability to override the judges and politicians to protect marriage for a man and a woman once and for all in the State Constitution.
But not just any constitutional marriage amendment will do. A marriage amendment that doesn't protect the rights of marriage doesn't protect marriage. That's why we're asking you to read the good, strong language of the Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative. It's clear and principled because it protects everything about marriage -- marriage licenses, marriage rights, and marriage under law -- for one man and one woman. It's the true-blue standard we must unite under to truly protect marriage.
The California Marriage Amendment is vitally necessary to protect the people's vote on marriage.
Five years ago, Californians gave overwhelming support (61.4%) to Proposition 22, the Protection of Marriage Initiative (a statute, a regular law on the books, which was not an amendment to the California State Constitution). The people's will to keep marriage between one man and one woman was unmistakable. Proposition 22, which became Family Code, Section 308.5 clearly stated that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
----- 11 -----
Concerned Mass. Parents Mobilizing to Battle Homosexual Agenda in Schools
Christian Underground
Reprinted by permission from Agape Press
By Jim Brown
May 24, 2005
http://www.christian-underground.com/archive/read.php?sid=1737
Mothers and fathers in Lexington, Massachusetts, are coming together and speaking out in an effort to combat the school system's promotion of homosexuality in their children's classrooms.
Three events in Lexington schools have raised the ire of parents who feel the district has stepped over the line when it comes to teaching sexuality in the classroom. School officials are under fire for showing a so-called "diversity" video advocating lesbianism, holding a "Day of Silence" to remember the persecution of homosexuals, and having a parent arrested for protesting the presentation of pro-homosexual curricula in his son's kindergarten class. [Ed. Note: "advocating" lesbianism or homosexuality almost always means mentioning it in a non-condemnational way; that's been the usual definition for that phrase for at least 10 years. The parent who was arrested was arrested for trespassing, after he refused to leave a school building; he was arrested for the trespass, not the protest. C.f. every protest held over the last 40-odd years; also see earlier posts of mine in this series. I can't speak to the second item, as I have no data to contribute.]
Gerry Wambolt of the group Lexington Parents for Respect says area families have had enough. The cascading incidents of pro-homosexual activism in the community's schools are "more than a mere coincidence," he contends, and what has been happening is nothing less than "an attack on the family -- an attack on values."
Furthermore, Wambolt observes, "I wouldn't say it's an attack on Christian values, because it's not just that. It's an attack on Jewish values and Muslim values and virtually the values of anybody with common sense who has come into this country and into this town from other parts of the world."
The Lexington Parents for Respect spokesman says moms and dads in the community recently told the Lexington School Committee they are upset that radical homosexual policies are being implemented in the local schools. He notes that one parent in particular "mentioned a litany of things that took place, and he addressed it right to the superintendent of the schools here -- and said, 'If these things are true, then you should be put in jail.'"
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
AFA suspends Ford boycott for six months
American Family Association
For Immediate Release: 6/6/2005
http://media.afa.net/newdesign/ReleaseDetail.asp?id=3204
(Tupelo, MS) - After meeting with a group of Ford dealers, American Family Association (AFA) has suspended its boycott of Ford Motor Company until December 1, 2005.
In the meeting, the dealers requested time to see if the concerns raised by AFA in their boycott announcement could be addressed by the dealers in cooperation with officials from Ford Motor Company.
“We believe the dealers were making a good faith effort and agreed to accept their request,” said AFA chairman Donald Wildmon. “Therefore, we accepted the suspension request and will work with the dealers in attempting to resolve our differences.
“We urge those supporting the boycott to disregard the boycott until December 1, 2005, and on or about that date, we will notify our supporters as to the status of the boycott,” Wildmon stated.
AFA launched the Ford boycott Tuesday, May 31, 2005. In less than a week, over 110,000 people signed the pledge to boycott Ford for the company’s support of same-sex marriage.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-06 10:09 pm (UTC)liberal MP quits party, sits as independant, and vows to topple minority gov't over his disapproval of the same-sex legislation...
:P
no subject
Date: 2005-06-07 03:48 pm (UTC)