Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Jun. 20th, 2005 11:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdFocus on the Family agitates against lifting the ban on gayfolk in the armed services;
FotF newsbrief arguing that a same-sex divorce in Iowa (dissolution of a Vermont CU) means that the country needs the Federal anti-Marriage Amendment;
FotF newsbrief on Wisconsin lower house passing an on-campus ban on emergency contraception - governor promises a veto;
Federal court in California upholds DOMA, quote from Judge Gary Taylor's decision: "Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest... By excluding same-sex couples from the federal rights and responsibilities of marriage, and by providing those rights and responsibilities only to people in opposite-sex marriages, the government is communicating to citizens that opposite-sex relationships have special significance" - also, New Jersey judge upholds their local marriage ban;
Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney endorses anti-marriage amendment in Massachusetts, one that includes both marriage _and_ civil unions - note included action item to thank him for support;
Hostettler amendment to ban the use of Federal funds to enforce judicial opinions against any "Ten Commandments" display passes the House of Representatives;
Today's Family News in Focus;
Concerned Women for America's Robert Knight rails against Indiana governor Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. order protecting gayfolk from discrimination in state hiring/firing decisions at state agencies;
Southern Baptist Convention sees another decline in baptisms - group is concerned about direction;
Longer story on Mitt Romney's endorsement of the more extreme anti-marriage amendment in Massachusetts, that bans both marriage and civil unions in any form;
LONG New York Times article on the fundamentalist fight against marriage rights and on gayfolk in general;
Challenge on Michigan's marriage ban brought by weird neopagans - gay rights leaders upset, wanted a more picturesque couple - CWA's Robert Knight and the American Family Association are both gleeful;
Washington Post article on President Bush's options to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist;
U.S. Medical Privacy Law Gutted. << Don't gloss over this one, I got to it last but it's not lame.
----- 1 -----
LIFTING GAY BAN WON'T END MILITARY'S RECRUITING WOES
Analysts, former servicemen agree that allowing open
homosexuals to serve is a bad idea.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036893.cfm
SUMMARY: Analysts, former servicemen agree that allowing
open homosexuals to serve is a bad idea.
The military is having a hard time meeting its recruitment
goals, and gay activists are using it as an opportunity to
lobby for the end of the armed forces' ban on openly gay
members.
Those with firsthand knowledge of how a military unit
operates, though, say allowing open homosexuals to serve
would hardly solve the problem.
"If you think we have problems with recruiting now, that's
the way to make it worse," explained Elaine Donnelly,
president of the Center for Military Readiness. The
heartland of America, she said, just isn't ready to put
its sons and daughters into close quarters with those who
admit to same-sex attraction.
"Decisions to join the military are made at the kitchen
tables of America," she added. "Saying that open
homosexuality is going to be welcome would certainly hurt
recruiting."
Advocates for special rights for homosexuals, though,
disagree.
"It does seem counterproductive when we're not meeting
recruiting goals to exclude an entire part of the American
population," said Sharra Greer, director of law and policy
for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
But former Army Sgt. Mark Smith isn't buying it.
"There doesn't seem to be any logic or rationale," he
said, "for affording any kind of protected status to that
kind of a lifestyle choice."
Congress appears to agree, Donnelly added. The House Armed
Services committee recently OK'd a military spending bill
and passed on the opportunity to introduce an amendment
overturning the ban. The committee has 62 members --
including 28 Democrats -- and none moved to change current
policy.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: To learn more about the issue of
homosexuals in the military, see the Citizen magazine
feature "Don't Ask, Don't Tell . . . Don't Discharge" by
Robert H. Knight.
http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0020962.cfm
----- 2 -----
Iowa Supreme Court Avoids Ruling in Same-Sex Divorce
Focus on the Family
News Briefs
[Received in email; no URL]
The Iowa Supreme Court denied an appeal from citizens and
lawmakers to overturn a lesbian divorce today, saying the
plaintiffs did not have standing.
The two women sought dissolution of a Vermont civil union.
After that was granted, lawmakers appealed the decision,
arguing it is impossible to dissolve something that is not
legally recognized.
"To have a same-sex divorce you must have a same-sex
union," said Iowa Family Policy Center President Chuck
Hurley. "It's only matter of time before homosexual
activists try to use this ruling to further redefine
marriage in Iowa.
"They'll argue that if same-sex unions are recognized for
purposes of divorce," he added, "why not recognize for
them for lesser issues?"
Kevin Theriot, senior legal counsel for the Alliance
Defense Fund, was also disappointed with the decision and
said, "we disagree in no uncertain terms."
"It is illogical to recognize the unrecognizable, even for
purposes of termination," he said. "The people of Iowa
have already spoken loudly and clearly: Marriage is
between one man and one woman.
"The court has invited legal confusion."
Today's ruling emphasizes the need for a federal marriage
amendment.
----- 3 -----
Emergency Contraception Ban Approved in Badger State House
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
[Received in email; no URL]
The Wisconsin Assembly approved a measure Thursday that
would prohibit health centers on state college campuses
from dispensing the so-called morning-after pill, The
Associated Press reported.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Daniel LeMahieu, would ban
campuses from advertising, prescribing or dispensing
emergency contraception, which can sometimes cause an
early abortion. LeMahieu drafted the legislation after
seeing an ad in campus newspapers inviting students to get
prescriptions for the drug to use over spring break.
"Are we going to change the lifestyle of every UW
student?" LeMahieu said. "No. But we can tell the
university that you are not going to condone it, you are
not going to participate in it, and you are not going to
use our tax dollars to do it."
If the bill passes the state Senate, it would be a first
for the nation's college campuses. However Democratic Gov.
Jim Doyle has promised a veto if it reaches his desk.
----- 4 -----
FEDERAL DOMA UPHELD IN CALIFORNIA CASE
Judge says: "There is no fundamental right to same-sex
marriage."
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0036890.cfm
SUMMARY: Judge says: "There is no fundamental right to
same-sex marriage."
It's a banner week for the marriage-protection movement.
For the second time this week, a court has affirmed the
common-sense definition of marriage as being between one
man and one woman.
A federal district court in Orange County, Calif., ruled
today the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is
constitutional.
Judge Gary Taylor upheld the law, saying its definition of
marriage -- "one man and one woman" -- passes what he
called the "rational basis" test.
In his decision, Taylor noted that "because procreation is
necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal
union for procreation is a legitimate government interest
. . . "
He further said: "By excluding same-sex couples from the
federal rights and responsibilities of marriage, and by
providing those rights and responsibilities only to people
in opposite-sex marriages, the government is communicating
to citizens that opposite-sex relationships have special
significance."
Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, argued the case
on behalf of the Campaign for California Families.
"This is a great ruling, in the sense that it clearly
indicates that government has a defensible legitimate
interest to limit marriage as the union of one man and one
woman," Staver told CitizenLink. "It is kind of a shock
that a federal court would say this, but it is good to see
this."
The court also found there is no fundamental right to
same-sex marriage. Specifically, the judge wrote: "The
argument is not legally helpful that children raised by
same-sex couples may also enjoy benefits, possibly
different, but equal to those experienced by children
raised by opposite-sex couples. It is for Congress, not
the Court, to weigh the evidence."
Staver said Judge Taylor had "a common-sense and accurate
description of our federal constitution."
"At least in this case," Staver said, "we have a judge who
not only did the right thing, he chose the path of common
sense."
Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Byron Babione,
who represented the Proposition 22 Fund, said "the
democratic process and the rule of law have been
affirmed." Prop 22 was a statewide referendum conducted in
2000, in which Californians overwhelmingly approved
restricting marriage to one man and one woman.
"This court has defended the rights of voters to express
what we know about marriage," Babione said, "that it is,
was, and always will be a union between one man and one
woman. Marriage isn't right because it's traditional, it's
traditional because it's right."
On Tuesday, a state appeals court in New Jersey upheld a
lower court decision that said it does not violate the
state constitution to define marriage as between one man
and one woman.
That decision also contained a striking condemnation of
judicial activism. Specifically, the New Jersey judges
wrote: "A constitution is not simply an empty receptacle
into which judges may pour their own conceptions of
evolving social mores."
The California court issued its ruling in three parts. The
judge declined to rule on whether California marriage laws
(including Prop 22) violate the U.S. Constitution until
after the California courts decide the issue under the
state constitution.
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family
Action, said while it has been a wonderfully encouraging
week for the marriage protection movement, in the end,
even a decision like this one underscores the need to
amend the U.S. Constitution.
"Today's decision is encouraging," Hausknecht said, "but
the fact that marriage keeps hanging by the thread of a
single judge's decision in each of these cases merely
underscores the absolute necessity for a federal marriage
amendment to end the incessant attack on traditional
marriage in the courts."
----- 5 -----
Bay State Governor Supports Gay Marriage Ban
Focus on the Family
News Brief
June 16, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has promised to support
grassroots efforts in his state to put a constitutional
amendment banning same-sex marriages and civil unions on
the ballot in the 2008 election, The Associated Press
reported.
"Governor Romney believes that voters should be given a
straightforward amendment to decide the definition of
marriage," said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. "Not one
that muddies the water by creating civil unions that would
be equivalent of marriage in all respects but name."
Massachusetts became the first state in the union to allow
marriage between same-sex couples just over a year ago.
CALL TO ACTION: Please thank Gov. Romney for lending his
support to restoring the definition of marriage. You can
find contact information in the CitizenLink Action Center:
http://www.family.org/cforum/action_center.cfm?capwizurl=http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/bio/?id=131502&lvl=S&chamber=G
----- 6 -----
House Votes to Protect Ten Commandments Display
Focus on the Family
Newsbrief
June 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
An effort to protect a Ten Commandments display in Gibson
County, Ind., passed the U.S. House in a 242-to-182 vote
Wednesday.
The amendment, attached to a funding bill, was introduced
by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind.
If it makes it through the Senate, it would prohibit
federal funds from being used to enforce a judge's opinion
regarding any ruling against a Ten Commandments display. A
court ruled the Gibson County display to be a violation of
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Hostettler, a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee
on the Constitution, delivered the following statement on
the House floor: "Mr. Chairman, in Russelburg v. Gibson
County, a federal district judge in the Southern District
of Indiana ruled that the presence of a monument depicting
the Ten Commandments in Gibson County amounts to a
government establishment of religion because, as he
stated, the display 'is in violation of the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.'
"This decision is inconsistent with both the clear intent
of the Framers and the Christian heritage of the United
States, which was recounted by the Supreme Court in 1892.
"While it is true this opinion is consistent with more
recent Supreme Court decisions, it is time that Congress
exercise its authority to end the practical effect of this
judicial misunderstanding. My amendment would prevent any
funds from being used to enforce this unconstitutional and
unlawful judgment."
----- 7 -----
Family News in Focus
Monday, June 20, 2005
Focus on the Family
Terry Phillips
* Pro-life battle to protect lives of human embryos goes to CA court; question of legal rights is raised
3. "Advancement of Pre-Born Children" group wants to end California stem-cell research budget; "stand for the truth that a human embryo is an equal member in the community of man." Aiming for Constitutional amendment (state? Local?) establishing the "personhood of the child at the moment of fertilisation." Trying to get a court ruling that embryos are people.
* Recommendations to President on Tax Reform moved off sixty days; some tax activists think it may be good news
1. National Taxpayers Union hopes the delay "means a better project." "Hopefully... they want more time to look at really major, complete tax reform. Not halfway... something that completely gets rid of this monstrosity, the Federal Income Tax." Indiana (R) congressman: nothing moving on tax reform right now. Backburner issue at this point; waiting for leadership from President Bush on the issue.
* Public Broadcasting System hiring ombudsmen to improve editorial standards, but attempt may be too late to save 25% of federal funding
5. "Seen by critics to be unacceptably slanted left." Robert Thompson, Centre for the Study of Popular Television, "Trying to dispell the perception that they are unbalanced or unfair, and especially in the light that there's a lot of funding at stake right now." Cliff Kincade, Accuracy In Media (AIM): $8B spent on CPB. Claims PBS could "maintain programming without spending tax dollars." "Latest measures are not good enough... this is a little too late."
* Owner of several Ill. pharmacies is suing Governor to keep Plan-B off his shelves
7. Illinois requires pharmacists to dispense all legal medications, including emergency contraception, which they call "an abortion pill." Emergency contraception "can kill a newly conceived baby." Christian Medical Association wants the Illinois law overturned to allow refusal of prescription based upon pharmacist moral objection.
* Bill is working through Congress that pushes states to adopt stiffer penalties for drunk driving; tying state compliance to federal highway funding
2. "Giant Highway Bill"? MADD supporting the bill. Repeat offenders particularly targetted.
* In Canada, national legislation that would redefine marriage to be union of any two persons is on the move again
4. C-38, House of Commons, etc. Terrance Rollston of Focus on the Family Canada is, of course, opposed. "Removes from the construct of marriage and the construct of family the vitality and the importance of both a man and the woman."
* Attorneys at the Alliance Defense Fund and Christian Legal Society gained victory for religious rights in settlement reached with University of Toledo
6. School had refused to accept a Christian legal society chapter at the school, claiming it violated their nondiscrimination policy. "Universities have ... recognised that the first amendment provides a right for Christian groups to choose their members and select their leaders based upon their religion." University has now recognised the group.
----- 8 -----
Indiana Governor’s Memo Paves Way for Quotas for Homosexuals, Transvestites
6/17/2005
By Robert Knight
Concerned Women for America
Adds ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ to special rights categories.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8368/CFI/family/index.htm
Indiana may soon begin hiring men in dresses in order to satisfy the governor’s affirmative action plan. That’s a possibility because of an April 26, 2005, policy statement issued by Republican Gov. Mitchell E. Daniels Jr.
After listing categories now covered by anti-discrimination law, Daniels’ memo said that:
[S]exual orientation and gender identity shall not be a consideration in decisions concerning hiring, development, advancement and termination of civilian employees.
Daniels also said, “We will comply with the spirit as well as the letter of applicable state and federal law.”
“What state and federal law?” said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America’s chief counsel. “There are no federal or Indiana employment laws that give special protection based on ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’ The governor is making up law, not complying with it. Executive activism is as bad as judicial activism.”
The practical effect may be that state agency executives cannot take into account anything regarding sexuality, including whether men wear dresses, makeup, high heels or other feminine garb, or act in an outrageously unorthodox manner. As a protected status, “sexual orientation” can justify conduct interpreted as being part of personal identity, or “who I am.”
It makes such behavior the problem of other employees, not the person flaunting his or her “lifestyle.” A few years ago in California, two homosexuals in an office were recounting how they had viewed explicit pornography over the weekend. When a fellow employee, an Orthodox Jew, asked them to refrain from subjecting him to the details, the two homosexuals reported the Jewish man to the human resources department, charging him with discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” 1
While the Indiana governor’s policy is limited to state government, it sets the tone and paves the way for the homosexual agenda, including demands for marital-type benefits for same-sex partners, “gay pride” celebrations, and school programs that affirm homosexuality. It also constitutes a government endorsement of bisexuality, which means having partners of either sex, behavior that is inconsistent with supporting the institution of marriage.
[more at URL]
----- 9 -----
SBC sees decline in baptism
Posted on Sat, Jun. 18, 2005
Annual meeting will address trend leaders see as a turning point
ADELLE M. BANKS
Religion News Service
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/living/religion/11926264.htm
Troubled by a decline in baptisms, Southern Baptist leaders say their annual meeting Tuesday and Wednesday in Nashville, Tenn., could be a turning point for a denomination that claims evangelism as a hallmark.
Four out of the last five years, Southern Baptists have seen a decline in baptisms. A report declares the denomination is in the midst of an "evangelistic crisis" after years of stagnation.
"This convention is going to expose where we are on the issue of reaching people," said the Rev. Bobby Welch, president of the Southern Baptist Convention. "Are we in a position that can be corrected by connecting with the people, or have we slid into a position that may not be corrected?"
After a four-year decline, Baptist officials reported 387,947 baptisms in 2004, an increase from 377,357 the previous year.
A longer view shows a plateau for the 16.2 million-member group, which is still the country's largest Protestant body. There are about 1.2 million Southern Baptists in North Carolina, 725,000 in South Carolina and 55,000 in Mecklenburg.
...
In other business expected to come up at the annual meeting:
Southern Baptists are being urged to vote on resolutions at the convention that would denounce public schools for their "toxic spiritual nature" and recommend parents remove children from schools with gay student clubs. The resolution targeting gay clubs has drawn support from dozens of state affiliates of conservative groups such as Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association.
----- 10 -----
Romney Blamed for 'Mean-Spirited' Attack on 'Gay' Families
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Correspondent
June 17, 2005
http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200506/CUL20050617c.html
(CNSNews.com) - In Massachusetts, the only state where same sex marriage is legal, one homosexual activist is accusing the state's Republican governor and possible 2008 presidential candidate of a "mean-spirited, inhumane and cruel ... attack on gay and lesbian families."
Joshua Friedes, advocacy director of the Right to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts, was reacting to word Thursday that Gov. Mitt Romney would back an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to ban not only same sex marriage, but also civil unions. A previous effort to change the state constitution stopped short of trying to ban the civil unions.
"For over a year now gay and lesbian couples have been marrying in Massachusetts and it's been a very positive experience for Massachusetts," Friedes told Cybercast News Service. Romney's support of the new effort to change the constitution also represents an "attack on religious liberties," he said.
"This new step is very out of line with Massachusetts voters," Friedes added.
However, conservative groups around the country Thursday cheered Romney's decision.
"We are excited that this is a first now underway in Massachusetts to put a clean marriage amendment on the ballot to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Certainly, we welcome Gov. Romney's support for this amendment," Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, told Cybercast News Service.
"It's never too late to do the right thing. Backing this amendment is a good thing, and if it undoes the damage, that would be wonderful," said Robert Knight, director of the Family and Culture Institute of Concerned Women for America.
"The governor should also move to remove the four lunatic judges that imposed this atrocity on Massachusetts and the nation," Knight added, referring to the Massachusetts Supreme Court judges who ruled in favor of homosexual marriage in February 2004.
In his announcement, Romney said the new amendment is "far superior" to previous efforts because it "clearly defines marriage as a man and a woman.
"If the question is, do you support gay marriage or civil unions? I'd say neither. If they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I'd rather have civil unions than gay marriage. But I'd rather have neither," Romney told reporters.
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
What's Their Real Problem With Gay Marriage? (It's the Gay Part)
By RUSSELL SHORTO
Published: June 19, 2005
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/magazine/19ANTIGAY.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1119288441-9/1QH+wn0orz4oorkIOmRg
The small but grandiose building at the corner of Eighth and G Streets NW in Washington, tucked directly behind the National Portrait Gallery, holds its own in a city packed with monumental architecture. You step into the lobby and automatically look around for a plaque, figuring that with its dark wood paneling and marble columns, this must be the onetime home of Rutherford B. Hayes or some other historical personage heavy with Victorian-era dignity. As it turns out, the structure, with its architectural signals of tradition and power, was built in 1996 for its tenant: the Family Research Council, the conservative public policy center.
In the gift shop just off the lobby -- where you can buy research-council thermoses and paperweights and the latest titles by Peggy Noonan, Alan Keyes, John Ashcroft and Pat Buchanan -- sits one of Washington's most unusual museum displays. Moms and dads who are planning to take the kids to the nation's capital this summer for an infusion of American history might want to add it to their itinerary, since it carries the lesson up to the present and right into their own living rooms. Beneath a large wall-mounted plaque emblazoned with the group's slogan -- Defending Family, Faith and Freedom -- and flanking a rather ferocious-looking American eagle statue are two large, museum-quality glass cases. The one on the left contains a complete groom's outfit -- tux, tie, fluffy shirt -- and the one on the right holds a bridal gown and all the trimmings, right down to the dried bouquet. Color snapshots of happy wedding parties festoon both display cases, and the back wall of the bridal unit features verses from the book of Genesis, King James version:
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . .
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
This shrine to marriage as a heterosexual, Judeo-Christian institution is a totem of conservative Christianity's mighty political wing and a flag marking its territorial gains in what its leaders see as a decisive battle in the culture war. In May 2003 the heads of 26 conservative organizations, including the Family Research Council, formed an entity, which they called the Arlington Group, to pool resources and come up with a combined strategy for fighting the forces of secularism. They thought it would be an amorphous battle, with many fronts. But just a month later the United States Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that had declared consenting homosexual sex illegal. Gay rights groups saw the Lawrence v. Texas ruling as a watershed: an endorsement, at the federal level, of homosexuality itself. So did the conservative leaders. Then in November of that year came the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that gave same-sex couples in the state the right to marry.
The effect of this one-two punch, which was heightened by the mayor of San Francisco's granting of same-sex marriage licenses the following February, was galvanizing for the Arlington Group members. The nebulous culture war instantly focused into a single issue. Since the ultimate goal of Arlington's member organizations is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as a heterosexual union, they formed another entity, the Marriage Amendment Project, to spearhead this mission. The Family Research Council offered space in its building for the project, and as an expression of the enthusiasm of the research-council staff for the initiative, the manager of the gift shop came up with the idea of the shrine to marriage, which comprises real-life wedding memorabilia donated by employees.
The exhibit itself could very likely serve as a cultural litmus test. Perhaps half the population would see the disembodied wedding outfits preserved in glass cases and guarded by a wooden eagle as bizarre, even lurid, while for the other half the display would trip different signifiers: sanctity, defiance, determination. On so many fronts that is where we are as a nation these days: divided, clearly and seemingly unbridgeably, in sensibility, values, foundations, even sense of humor.
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Challenge of Michigan’s ‘Gay’ Marriage Ban Troubles Homosexual Activists
6/16/2005
By Martha Kleder
Concerned Women for America
Plaintiffs’ ties to witches, ‘vampires’ and other groups seen as downside.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8366&department=CFI&categoryid=family
Homosexual activists are wringing their hands over a recent challenge to Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban. The “rogue” challenge, filed June 8 in U.S. District Court in Kalamazoo, was brought by Jessie Olson and her partner Tabitha Flatau, the only two plaintiffs in the case.
Making matters worse for those seeking to derail the marriage-protection movement: The plaintiffs are associated with groups of witches, vampires, pagans, “magick” and the “impeach-Bush” movement.
“I think it’s actually rather appropriate that bizarre characters like this are leading the charge against the Michigan marriage amendment,” said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America’s Culture & Family Institute. “For too long, the attack on marriage has come dressed in three-piece suits, as if it were perfectly reasonable to overturn thousands of years of human understanding regarding marriage.”
“These people are asking to overturn votes cast by 2 million voters in Michigan,” said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. “One man or woman cannot realistically overturn that decision,” he told The State News of Michigan State University about the challenge to Proposal 2.
The rogue challenge is a major obstacle for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund’s Marriage Project. David Buckel, the project’s director, told the homosexual publication PlanetOut that many points in the Olson complaint are copied directly from a similar challenge two years ago in Nebraska. Some of those points, like the claim that no other state actively prohibits marriage between partners of the same sex, are outdated.
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
Possible Court Nominees Pose a Quandary for Bush
A Conservative Anchor vs. an Ethnic First
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 19, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061801233.html
President Bush's advisers are focusing their search for a new Supreme Court justice on a trio of candidates who could present the president with a choice that would help shape his legacy -- pick a reliable conservative to anchor the court for decades or go for history by naming the first Hispanic chief justice at the risk of alienating his base.
While the cancer-stricken Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has not publicly signaled his decision, many in the White House and around Washington expect him to announce his retirement at the end of the court's current term next week, opening the nation's top judicial post for the first time in 19 years and setting up a potentially savage nomination battle.
White House officials have prepared for the prospect by culling long lists of possible candidates, poring through old cases and weighing a variety of factors from judicial philosophy to age. Bush and his inner circle have had tightly held deliberations and no one can say for sure whom he might pick for chief justice, but outside advisers to the White House believe the main candidates are federal appeals Judges John G. Roberts and J. Michael Luttig and possibly Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.
For a time, many officials and analysts in Washington assumed that Gonzales, a longtime Bush confidant and his first-term White House counsel, had been ruled out as a candidate because he took over the Justice Department in February. But in recent days, several advisers with close ties to the White House said Bush appears to be considering Gonzales, after all.
If so, it sets up a delicate conundrum for Bush. A Gonzales appointment would be a politically appealing "first" that could ease the confirmation process among Democrats and help expand the Republican base, according to some strategists. But many conservative leaders see him as too moderate on issues such as abortion and affirmative action, and a Gonzales-for-Rehnquist trade would effectively move the court somewhat to the left.
"He's clearly in the running," said one adviser who, like others, shared insights on the condition of anonymity to preserve relations with the White House. "And that's an easy confirmation -- that's the easy confirmation."
...
Yet a Gonzales nomination could trigger internal dissension among GOP activists, some of whom have warned the White House against naming the attorney general. At a meeting of conservative groups last week to plot strategy for a possible Supreme Court nomination, one leader spoke out against a Gonzales appointment, according to people in the room.
"Some of the groups share that concern," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the Concerned Women for America, who attended the session. While she noted that her organization has not taken a position, she predicted that if Gonzales is chosen, some activists "may not as vigorously support" the nomination, while Roberts or Luttig "would certainly have broader support across the coalition of conservatives."
"Everyone in my circle crinkles their nose when his name comes up," another activist said of Gonzales. "It would be a disaster if that happened."
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
U.S. Medical Privacy Law Gutted
Bruce Schneier
Crypto-Gram Newsletter
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0506.html#9
[Note: You'll have to scroll down to see the actual article]
In the U.S., medical privacy is largely governed by a 1996 law called HIPAA. Among many other provisions, HIPAA regulates the privacy and security surrounding electronic medical records. HIPAA specifies civil penalties against companies that don't comply with the regulations, as well as criminal penalties against individuals and corporations who knowingly steal or misuse patient data.
The civil penalties have long been viewed as irrelevant by the healthcare industry. Now the criminal penalties have been gutted. The Justice Department has ruled that the criminal penalties apply to insurers, doctors, hospitals, and other providers -- but not necessarily their employees or outsiders who steal personal health data. This means that if an employee mishandles personal data, he cannot be prosecuted under HIPAA unless his boss told him to do it. And the provider cannot be prosecuted unless it is official organization policy.
This is a complicated issue. Peter Swire worked extensively on this bill as the President's Chief Counselor for Privacy, and I am going to quote him extensively. First, a story about someone who was convicted under the criminal part of this statute.
"In 2004 the U.S. Attorney in Seattle announced that Richard Gibson was being indicted for violating the HIPAA privacy law. Gibson was a phlebotomist a lab assistant in a hospital. While at work he accessed the medical records of a person with a terminal cancer condition. Gibson then got credit cards in the patient's name and ran up over $9,000 in charges, notably for video game purchases. In a statement to the court, the patient said he 'lost a year of life both mentally and physically dealing with the stress' of dealing with collection agencies and other results of Gibson's actions. Gibson signed a plea agreement and was sentenced to 16 months in jail."
According to this Justice Department ruling, Gibson was wrongly convicted. I presume his attorney is working on the matter, and I hope he can be re-tried under our identity theft laws. But because Gibson (or someone else like him) was working in his official capacity, he cannot be prosecuted under HIPAA. And because Gibson (or someone like him) was doing something not authorized by his employer, the hospital cannot be prosecuted under HIPAA.
The healthcare industry has been opposed to HIPAA from the beginning, because it puts constraints on their business in the name of security and privacy. This ruling comes after intense lobbying by the industry at the Department of Heath and Human Services and the Justice Department, and is the result of an HHS request for an opinion.
From Swire's analysis the Justice Department ruling: "For a law professor who teaches statutory interpretation, the OLC opinion is terribly frustrating to read. The opinion reads like a brief for one side of an argument. Even worse, it reads like a brief that knows it has the losing side but has to come out with a predetermined answer."
[More at URL]
FotF newsbrief arguing that a same-sex divorce in Iowa (dissolution of a Vermont CU) means that the country needs the Federal anti-Marriage Amendment;
FotF newsbrief on Wisconsin lower house passing an on-campus ban on emergency contraception - governor promises a veto;
Federal court in California upholds DOMA, quote from Judge Gary Taylor's decision: "Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest... By excluding same-sex couples from the federal rights and responsibilities of marriage, and by providing those rights and responsibilities only to people in opposite-sex marriages, the government is communicating to citizens that opposite-sex relationships have special significance" - also, New Jersey judge upholds their local marriage ban;
Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney endorses anti-marriage amendment in Massachusetts, one that includes both marriage _and_ civil unions - note included action item to thank him for support;
Hostettler amendment to ban the use of Federal funds to enforce judicial opinions against any "Ten Commandments" display passes the House of Representatives;
Today's Family News in Focus;
Concerned Women for America's Robert Knight rails against Indiana governor Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. order protecting gayfolk from discrimination in state hiring/firing decisions at state agencies;
Southern Baptist Convention sees another decline in baptisms - group is concerned about direction;
Longer story on Mitt Romney's endorsement of the more extreme anti-marriage amendment in Massachusetts, that bans both marriage and civil unions in any form;
LONG New York Times article on the fundamentalist fight against marriage rights and on gayfolk in general;
Challenge on Michigan's marriage ban brought by weird neopagans - gay rights leaders upset, wanted a more picturesque couple - CWA's Robert Knight and the American Family Association are both gleeful;
Washington Post article on President Bush's options to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist;
U.S. Medical Privacy Law Gutted. << Don't gloss over this one, I got to it last but it's not lame.
----- 1 -----
LIFTING GAY BAN WON'T END MILITARY'S RECRUITING WOES
Analysts, former servicemen agree that allowing open
homosexuals to serve is a bad idea.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036893.cfm
SUMMARY: Analysts, former servicemen agree that allowing
open homosexuals to serve is a bad idea.
The military is having a hard time meeting its recruitment
goals, and gay activists are using it as an opportunity to
lobby for the end of the armed forces' ban on openly gay
members.
Those with firsthand knowledge of how a military unit
operates, though, say allowing open homosexuals to serve
would hardly solve the problem.
"If you think we have problems with recruiting now, that's
the way to make it worse," explained Elaine Donnelly,
president of the Center for Military Readiness. The
heartland of America, she said, just isn't ready to put
its sons and daughters into close quarters with those who
admit to same-sex attraction.
"Decisions to join the military are made at the kitchen
tables of America," she added. "Saying that open
homosexuality is going to be welcome would certainly hurt
recruiting."
Advocates for special rights for homosexuals, though,
disagree.
"It does seem counterproductive when we're not meeting
recruiting goals to exclude an entire part of the American
population," said Sharra Greer, director of law and policy
for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
But former Army Sgt. Mark Smith isn't buying it.
"There doesn't seem to be any logic or rationale," he
said, "for affording any kind of protected status to that
kind of a lifestyle choice."
Congress appears to agree, Donnelly added. The House Armed
Services committee recently OK'd a military spending bill
and passed on the opportunity to introduce an amendment
overturning the ban. The committee has 62 members --
including 28 Democrats -- and none moved to change current
policy.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: To learn more about the issue of
homosexuals in the military, see the Citizen magazine
feature "Don't Ask, Don't Tell . . . Don't Discharge" by
Robert H. Knight.
http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0020962.cfm
----- 2 -----
Iowa Supreme Court Avoids Ruling in Same-Sex Divorce
Focus on the Family
News Briefs
[Received in email; no URL]
The Iowa Supreme Court denied an appeal from citizens and
lawmakers to overturn a lesbian divorce today, saying the
plaintiffs did not have standing.
The two women sought dissolution of a Vermont civil union.
After that was granted, lawmakers appealed the decision,
arguing it is impossible to dissolve something that is not
legally recognized.
"To have a same-sex divorce you must have a same-sex
union," said Iowa Family Policy Center President Chuck
Hurley. "It's only matter of time before homosexual
activists try to use this ruling to further redefine
marriage in Iowa.
"They'll argue that if same-sex unions are recognized for
purposes of divorce," he added, "why not recognize for
them for lesser issues?"
Kevin Theriot, senior legal counsel for the Alliance
Defense Fund, was also disappointed with the decision and
said, "we disagree in no uncertain terms."
"It is illogical to recognize the unrecognizable, even for
purposes of termination," he said. "The people of Iowa
have already spoken loudly and clearly: Marriage is
between one man and one woman.
"The court has invited legal confusion."
Today's ruling emphasizes the need for a federal marriage
amendment.
----- 3 -----
Emergency Contraception Ban Approved in Badger State House
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
[Received in email; no URL]
The Wisconsin Assembly approved a measure Thursday that
would prohibit health centers on state college campuses
from dispensing the so-called morning-after pill, The
Associated Press reported.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Daniel LeMahieu, would ban
campuses from advertising, prescribing or dispensing
emergency contraception, which can sometimes cause an
early abortion. LeMahieu drafted the legislation after
seeing an ad in campus newspapers inviting students to get
prescriptions for the drug to use over spring break.
"Are we going to change the lifestyle of every UW
student?" LeMahieu said. "No. But we can tell the
university that you are not going to condone it, you are
not going to participate in it, and you are not going to
use our tax dollars to do it."
If the bill passes the state Senate, it would be a first
for the nation's college campuses. However Democratic Gov.
Jim Doyle has promised a veto if it reaches his desk.
----- 4 -----
FEDERAL DOMA UPHELD IN CALIFORNIA CASE
Judge says: "There is no fundamental right to same-sex
marriage."
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0036890.cfm
SUMMARY: Judge says: "There is no fundamental right to
same-sex marriage."
It's a banner week for the marriage-protection movement.
For the second time this week, a court has affirmed the
common-sense definition of marriage as being between one
man and one woman.
A federal district court in Orange County, Calif., ruled
today the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is
constitutional.
Judge Gary Taylor upheld the law, saying its definition of
marriage -- "one man and one woman" -- passes what he
called the "rational basis" test.
In his decision, Taylor noted that "because procreation is
necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal
union for procreation is a legitimate government interest
. . . "
He further said: "By excluding same-sex couples from the
federal rights and responsibilities of marriage, and by
providing those rights and responsibilities only to people
in opposite-sex marriages, the government is communicating
to citizens that opposite-sex relationships have special
significance."
Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, argued the case
on behalf of the Campaign for California Families.
"This is a great ruling, in the sense that it clearly
indicates that government has a defensible legitimate
interest to limit marriage as the union of one man and one
woman," Staver told CitizenLink. "It is kind of a shock
that a federal court would say this, but it is good to see
this."
The court also found there is no fundamental right to
same-sex marriage. Specifically, the judge wrote: "The
argument is not legally helpful that children raised by
same-sex couples may also enjoy benefits, possibly
different, but equal to those experienced by children
raised by opposite-sex couples. It is for Congress, not
the Court, to weigh the evidence."
Staver said Judge Taylor had "a common-sense and accurate
description of our federal constitution."
"At least in this case," Staver said, "we have a judge who
not only did the right thing, he chose the path of common
sense."
Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Byron Babione,
who represented the Proposition 22 Fund, said "the
democratic process and the rule of law have been
affirmed." Prop 22 was a statewide referendum conducted in
2000, in which Californians overwhelmingly approved
restricting marriage to one man and one woman.
"This court has defended the rights of voters to express
what we know about marriage," Babione said, "that it is,
was, and always will be a union between one man and one
woman. Marriage isn't right because it's traditional, it's
traditional because it's right."
On Tuesday, a state appeals court in New Jersey upheld a
lower court decision that said it does not violate the
state constitution to define marriage as between one man
and one woman.
That decision also contained a striking condemnation of
judicial activism. Specifically, the New Jersey judges
wrote: "A constitution is not simply an empty receptacle
into which judges may pour their own conceptions of
evolving social mores."
The California court issued its ruling in three parts. The
judge declined to rule on whether California marriage laws
(including Prop 22) violate the U.S. Constitution until
after the California courts decide the issue under the
state constitution.
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family
Action, said while it has been a wonderfully encouraging
week for the marriage protection movement, in the end,
even a decision like this one underscores the need to
amend the U.S. Constitution.
"Today's decision is encouraging," Hausknecht said, "but
the fact that marriage keeps hanging by the thread of a
single judge's decision in each of these cases merely
underscores the absolute necessity for a federal marriage
amendment to end the incessant attack on traditional
marriage in the courts."
----- 5 -----
Bay State Governor Supports Gay Marriage Ban
Focus on the Family
News Brief
June 16, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has promised to support
grassroots efforts in his state to put a constitutional
amendment banning same-sex marriages and civil unions on
the ballot in the 2008 election, The Associated Press
reported.
"Governor Romney believes that voters should be given a
straightforward amendment to decide the definition of
marriage," said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. "Not one
that muddies the water by creating civil unions that would
be equivalent of marriage in all respects but name."
Massachusetts became the first state in the union to allow
marriage between same-sex couples just over a year ago.
CALL TO ACTION: Please thank Gov. Romney for lending his
support to restoring the definition of marriage. You can
find contact information in the CitizenLink Action Center:
http://www.family.org/cforum/action_center.cfm?capwizurl=http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/bio/?id=131502&lvl=S&chamber=G
----- 6 -----
House Votes to Protect Ten Commandments Display
Focus on the Family
Newsbrief
June 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
An effort to protect a Ten Commandments display in Gibson
County, Ind., passed the U.S. House in a 242-to-182 vote
Wednesday.
The amendment, attached to a funding bill, was introduced
by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind.
If it makes it through the Senate, it would prohibit
federal funds from being used to enforce a judge's opinion
regarding any ruling against a Ten Commandments display. A
court ruled the Gibson County display to be a violation of
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Hostettler, a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee
on the Constitution, delivered the following statement on
the House floor: "Mr. Chairman, in Russelburg v. Gibson
County, a federal district judge in the Southern District
of Indiana ruled that the presence of a monument depicting
the Ten Commandments in Gibson County amounts to a
government establishment of religion because, as he
stated, the display 'is in violation of the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.'
"This decision is inconsistent with both the clear intent
of the Framers and the Christian heritage of the United
States, which was recounted by the Supreme Court in 1892.
"While it is true this opinion is consistent with more
recent Supreme Court decisions, it is time that Congress
exercise its authority to end the practical effect of this
judicial misunderstanding. My amendment would prevent any
funds from being used to enforce this unconstitutional and
unlawful judgment."
----- 7 -----
Family News in Focus
Monday, June 20, 2005
Focus on the Family
Terry Phillips
* Pro-life battle to protect lives of human embryos goes to CA court; question of legal rights is raised
3. "Advancement of Pre-Born Children" group wants to end California stem-cell research budget; "stand for the truth that a human embryo is an equal member in the community of man." Aiming for Constitutional amendment (state? Local?) establishing the "personhood of the child at the moment of fertilisation." Trying to get a court ruling that embryos are people.
* Recommendations to President on Tax Reform moved off sixty days; some tax activists think it may be good news
1. National Taxpayers Union hopes the delay "means a better project." "Hopefully... they want more time to look at really major, complete tax reform. Not halfway... something that completely gets rid of this monstrosity, the Federal Income Tax." Indiana (R) congressman: nothing moving on tax reform right now. Backburner issue at this point; waiting for leadership from President Bush on the issue.
* Public Broadcasting System hiring ombudsmen to improve editorial standards, but attempt may be too late to save 25% of federal funding
5. "Seen by critics to be unacceptably slanted left." Robert Thompson, Centre for the Study of Popular Television, "Trying to dispell the perception that they are unbalanced or unfair, and especially in the light that there's a lot of funding at stake right now." Cliff Kincade, Accuracy In Media (AIM): $8B spent on CPB. Claims PBS could "maintain programming without spending tax dollars." "Latest measures are not good enough... this is a little too late."
* Owner of several Ill. pharmacies is suing Governor to keep Plan-B off his shelves
7. Illinois requires pharmacists to dispense all legal medications, including emergency contraception, which they call "an abortion pill." Emergency contraception "can kill a newly conceived baby." Christian Medical Association wants the Illinois law overturned to allow refusal of prescription based upon pharmacist moral objection.
* Bill is working through Congress that pushes states to adopt stiffer penalties for drunk driving; tying state compliance to federal highway funding
2. "Giant Highway Bill"? MADD supporting the bill. Repeat offenders particularly targetted.
* In Canada, national legislation that would redefine marriage to be union of any two persons is on the move again
4. C-38, House of Commons, etc. Terrance Rollston of Focus on the Family Canada is, of course, opposed. "Removes from the construct of marriage and the construct of family the vitality and the importance of both a man and the woman."
* Attorneys at the Alliance Defense Fund and Christian Legal Society gained victory for religious rights in settlement reached with University of Toledo
6. School had refused to accept a Christian legal society chapter at the school, claiming it violated their nondiscrimination policy. "Universities have ... recognised that the first amendment provides a right for Christian groups to choose their members and select their leaders based upon their religion." University has now recognised the group.
----- 8 -----
Indiana Governor’s Memo Paves Way for Quotas for Homosexuals, Transvestites
6/17/2005
By Robert Knight
Concerned Women for America
Adds ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ to special rights categories.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8368/CFI/family/index.htm
Indiana may soon begin hiring men in dresses in order to satisfy the governor’s affirmative action plan. That’s a possibility because of an April 26, 2005, policy statement issued by Republican Gov. Mitchell E. Daniels Jr.
After listing categories now covered by anti-discrimination law, Daniels’ memo said that:
[S]exual orientation and gender identity shall not be a consideration in decisions concerning hiring, development, advancement and termination of civilian employees.
Daniels also said, “We will comply with the spirit as well as the letter of applicable state and federal law.”
“What state and federal law?” said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America’s chief counsel. “There are no federal or Indiana employment laws that give special protection based on ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’ The governor is making up law, not complying with it. Executive activism is as bad as judicial activism.”
The practical effect may be that state agency executives cannot take into account anything regarding sexuality, including whether men wear dresses, makeup, high heels or other feminine garb, or act in an outrageously unorthodox manner. As a protected status, “sexual orientation” can justify conduct interpreted as being part of personal identity, or “who I am.”
It makes such behavior the problem of other employees, not the person flaunting his or her “lifestyle.” A few years ago in California, two homosexuals in an office were recounting how they had viewed explicit pornography over the weekend. When a fellow employee, an Orthodox Jew, asked them to refrain from subjecting him to the details, the two homosexuals reported the Jewish man to the human resources department, charging him with discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” 1
While the Indiana governor’s policy is limited to state government, it sets the tone and paves the way for the homosexual agenda, including demands for marital-type benefits for same-sex partners, “gay pride” celebrations, and school programs that affirm homosexuality. It also constitutes a government endorsement of bisexuality, which means having partners of either sex, behavior that is inconsistent with supporting the institution of marriage.
[more at URL]
----- 9 -----
SBC sees decline in baptism
Posted on Sat, Jun. 18, 2005
Annual meeting will address trend leaders see as a turning point
ADELLE M. BANKS
Religion News Service
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/living/religion/11926264.htm
Troubled by a decline in baptisms, Southern Baptist leaders say their annual meeting Tuesday and Wednesday in Nashville, Tenn., could be a turning point for a denomination that claims evangelism as a hallmark.
Four out of the last five years, Southern Baptists have seen a decline in baptisms. A report declares the denomination is in the midst of an "evangelistic crisis" after years of stagnation.
"This convention is going to expose where we are on the issue of reaching people," said the Rev. Bobby Welch, president of the Southern Baptist Convention. "Are we in a position that can be corrected by connecting with the people, or have we slid into a position that may not be corrected?"
After a four-year decline, Baptist officials reported 387,947 baptisms in 2004, an increase from 377,357 the previous year.
A longer view shows a plateau for the 16.2 million-member group, which is still the country's largest Protestant body. There are about 1.2 million Southern Baptists in North Carolina, 725,000 in South Carolina and 55,000 in Mecklenburg.
...
In other business expected to come up at the annual meeting:
Southern Baptists are being urged to vote on resolutions at the convention that would denounce public schools for their "toxic spiritual nature" and recommend parents remove children from schools with gay student clubs. The resolution targeting gay clubs has drawn support from dozens of state affiliates of conservative groups such as Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association.
----- 10 -----
Romney Blamed for 'Mean-Spirited' Attack on 'Gay' Families
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Correspondent
June 17, 2005
http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200506/CUL20050617c.html
(CNSNews.com) - In Massachusetts, the only state where same sex marriage is legal, one homosexual activist is accusing the state's Republican governor and possible 2008 presidential candidate of a "mean-spirited, inhumane and cruel ... attack on gay and lesbian families."
Joshua Friedes, advocacy director of the Right to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts, was reacting to word Thursday that Gov. Mitt Romney would back an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to ban not only same sex marriage, but also civil unions. A previous effort to change the state constitution stopped short of trying to ban the civil unions.
"For over a year now gay and lesbian couples have been marrying in Massachusetts and it's been a very positive experience for Massachusetts," Friedes told Cybercast News Service. Romney's support of the new effort to change the constitution also represents an "attack on religious liberties," he said.
"This new step is very out of line with Massachusetts voters," Friedes added.
However, conservative groups around the country Thursday cheered Romney's decision.
"We are excited that this is a first now underway in Massachusetts to put a clean marriage amendment on the ballot to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Certainly, we welcome Gov. Romney's support for this amendment," Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, told Cybercast News Service.
"It's never too late to do the right thing. Backing this amendment is a good thing, and if it undoes the damage, that would be wonderful," said Robert Knight, director of the Family and Culture Institute of Concerned Women for America.
"The governor should also move to remove the four lunatic judges that imposed this atrocity on Massachusetts and the nation," Knight added, referring to the Massachusetts Supreme Court judges who ruled in favor of homosexual marriage in February 2004.
In his announcement, Romney said the new amendment is "far superior" to previous efforts because it "clearly defines marriage as a man and a woman.
"If the question is, do you support gay marriage or civil unions? I'd say neither. If they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I'd rather have civil unions than gay marriage. But I'd rather have neither," Romney told reporters.
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
What's Their Real Problem With Gay Marriage? (It's the Gay Part)
By RUSSELL SHORTO
Published: June 19, 2005
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/magazine/19ANTIGAY.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1119288441-9/1QH+wn0orz4oorkIOmRg
The small but grandiose building at the corner of Eighth and G Streets NW in Washington, tucked directly behind the National Portrait Gallery, holds its own in a city packed with monumental architecture. You step into the lobby and automatically look around for a plaque, figuring that with its dark wood paneling and marble columns, this must be the onetime home of Rutherford B. Hayes or some other historical personage heavy with Victorian-era dignity. As it turns out, the structure, with its architectural signals of tradition and power, was built in 1996 for its tenant: the Family Research Council, the conservative public policy center.
In the gift shop just off the lobby -- where you can buy research-council thermoses and paperweights and the latest titles by Peggy Noonan, Alan Keyes, John Ashcroft and Pat Buchanan -- sits one of Washington's most unusual museum displays. Moms and dads who are planning to take the kids to the nation's capital this summer for an infusion of American history might want to add it to their itinerary, since it carries the lesson up to the present and right into their own living rooms. Beneath a large wall-mounted plaque emblazoned with the group's slogan -- Defending Family, Faith and Freedom -- and flanking a rather ferocious-looking American eagle statue are two large, museum-quality glass cases. The one on the left contains a complete groom's outfit -- tux, tie, fluffy shirt -- and the one on the right holds a bridal gown and all the trimmings, right down to the dried bouquet. Color snapshots of happy wedding parties festoon both display cases, and the back wall of the bridal unit features verses from the book of Genesis, King James version:
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . .
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
This shrine to marriage as a heterosexual, Judeo-Christian institution is a totem of conservative Christianity's mighty political wing and a flag marking its territorial gains in what its leaders see as a decisive battle in the culture war. In May 2003 the heads of 26 conservative organizations, including the Family Research Council, formed an entity, which they called the Arlington Group, to pool resources and come up with a combined strategy for fighting the forces of secularism. They thought it would be an amorphous battle, with many fronts. But just a month later the United States Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that had declared consenting homosexual sex illegal. Gay rights groups saw the Lawrence v. Texas ruling as a watershed: an endorsement, at the federal level, of homosexuality itself. So did the conservative leaders. Then in November of that year came the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that gave same-sex couples in the state the right to marry.
The effect of this one-two punch, which was heightened by the mayor of San Francisco's granting of same-sex marriage licenses the following February, was galvanizing for the Arlington Group members. The nebulous culture war instantly focused into a single issue. Since the ultimate goal of Arlington's member organizations is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as a heterosexual union, they formed another entity, the Marriage Amendment Project, to spearhead this mission. The Family Research Council offered space in its building for the project, and as an expression of the enthusiasm of the research-council staff for the initiative, the manager of the gift shop came up with the idea of the shrine to marriage, which comprises real-life wedding memorabilia donated by employees.
The exhibit itself could very likely serve as a cultural litmus test. Perhaps half the population would see the disembodied wedding outfits preserved in glass cases and guarded by a wooden eagle as bizarre, even lurid, while for the other half the display would trip different signifiers: sanctity, defiance, determination. On so many fronts that is where we are as a nation these days: divided, clearly and seemingly unbridgeably, in sensibility, values, foundations, even sense of humor.
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Challenge of Michigan’s ‘Gay’ Marriage Ban Troubles Homosexual Activists
6/16/2005
By Martha Kleder
Concerned Women for America
Plaintiffs’ ties to witches, ‘vampires’ and other groups seen as downside.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8366&department=CFI&categoryid=family
Homosexual activists are wringing their hands over a recent challenge to Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban. The “rogue” challenge, filed June 8 in U.S. District Court in Kalamazoo, was brought by Jessie Olson and her partner Tabitha Flatau, the only two plaintiffs in the case.
Making matters worse for those seeking to derail the marriage-protection movement: The plaintiffs are associated with groups of witches, vampires, pagans, “magick” and the “impeach-Bush” movement.
“I think it’s actually rather appropriate that bizarre characters like this are leading the charge against the Michigan marriage amendment,” said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America’s Culture & Family Institute. “For too long, the attack on marriage has come dressed in three-piece suits, as if it were perfectly reasonable to overturn thousands of years of human understanding regarding marriage.”
“These people are asking to overturn votes cast by 2 million voters in Michigan,” said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. “One man or woman cannot realistically overturn that decision,” he told The State News of Michigan State University about the challenge to Proposal 2.
The rogue challenge is a major obstacle for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund’s Marriage Project. David Buckel, the project’s director, told the homosexual publication PlanetOut that many points in the Olson complaint are copied directly from a similar challenge two years ago in Nebraska. Some of those points, like the claim that no other state actively prohibits marriage between partners of the same sex, are outdated.
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
Possible Court Nominees Pose a Quandary for Bush
A Conservative Anchor vs. an Ethnic First
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 19, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061801233.html
President Bush's advisers are focusing their search for a new Supreme Court justice on a trio of candidates who could present the president with a choice that would help shape his legacy -- pick a reliable conservative to anchor the court for decades or go for history by naming the first Hispanic chief justice at the risk of alienating his base.
While the cancer-stricken Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has not publicly signaled his decision, many in the White House and around Washington expect him to announce his retirement at the end of the court's current term next week, opening the nation's top judicial post for the first time in 19 years and setting up a potentially savage nomination battle.
White House officials have prepared for the prospect by culling long lists of possible candidates, poring through old cases and weighing a variety of factors from judicial philosophy to age. Bush and his inner circle have had tightly held deliberations and no one can say for sure whom he might pick for chief justice, but outside advisers to the White House believe the main candidates are federal appeals Judges John G. Roberts and J. Michael Luttig and possibly Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.
For a time, many officials and analysts in Washington assumed that Gonzales, a longtime Bush confidant and his first-term White House counsel, had been ruled out as a candidate because he took over the Justice Department in February. But in recent days, several advisers with close ties to the White House said Bush appears to be considering Gonzales, after all.
If so, it sets up a delicate conundrum for Bush. A Gonzales appointment would be a politically appealing "first" that could ease the confirmation process among Democrats and help expand the Republican base, according to some strategists. But many conservative leaders see him as too moderate on issues such as abortion and affirmative action, and a Gonzales-for-Rehnquist trade would effectively move the court somewhat to the left.
"He's clearly in the running," said one adviser who, like others, shared insights on the condition of anonymity to preserve relations with the White House. "And that's an easy confirmation -- that's the easy confirmation."
...
Yet a Gonzales nomination could trigger internal dissension among GOP activists, some of whom have warned the White House against naming the attorney general. At a meeting of conservative groups last week to plot strategy for a possible Supreme Court nomination, one leader spoke out against a Gonzales appointment, according to people in the room.
"Some of the groups share that concern," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the Concerned Women for America, who attended the session. While she noted that her organization has not taken a position, she predicted that if Gonzales is chosen, some activists "may not as vigorously support" the nomination, while Roberts or Luttig "would certainly have broader support across the coalition of conservatives."
"Everyone in my circle crinkles their nose when his name comes up," another activist said of Gonzales. "It would be a disaster if that happened."
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
U.S. Medical Privacy Law Gutted
Bruce Schneier
Crypto-Gram Newsletter
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0506.html#9
[Note: You'll have to scroll down to see the actual article]
In the U.S., medical privacy is largely governed by a 1996 law called HIPAA. Among many other provisions, HIPAA regulates the privacy and security surrounding electronic medical records. HIPAA specifies civil penalties against companies that don't comply with the regulations, as well as criminal penalties against individuals and corporations who knowingly steal or misuse patient data.
The civil penalties have long been viewed as irrelevant by the healthcare industry. Now the criminal penalties have been gutted. The Justice Department has ruled that the criminal penalties apply to insurers, doctors, hospitals, and other providers -- but not necessarily their employees or outsiders who steal personal health data. This means that if an employee mishandles personal data, he cannot be prosecuted under HIPAA unless his boss told him to do it. And the provider cannot be prosecuted unless it is official organization policy.
This is a complicated issue. Peter Swire worked extensively on this bill as the President's Chief Counselor for Privacy, and I am going to quote him extensively. First, a story about someone who was convicted under the criminal part of this statute.
"In 2004 the U.S. Attorney in Seattle announced that Richard Gibson was being indicted for violating the HIPAA privacy law. Gibson was a phlebotomist a lab assistant in a hospital. While at work he accessed the medical records of a person with a terminal cancer condition. Gibson then got credit cards in the patient's name and ran up over $9,000 in charges, notably for video game purchases. In a statement to the court, the patient said he 'lost a year of life both mentally and physically dealing with the stress' of dealing with collection agencies and other results of Gibson's actions. Gibson signed a plea agreement and was sentenced to 16 months in jail."
According to this Justice Department ruling, Gibson was wrongly convicted. I presume his attorney is working on the matter, and I hope he can be re-tried under our identity theft laws. But because Gibson (or someone else like him) was working in his official capacity, he cannot be prosecuted under HIPAA. And because Gibson (or someone like him) was doing something not authorized by his employer, the hospital cannot be prosecuted under HIPAA.
The healthcare industry has been opposed to HIPAA from the beginning, because it puts constraints on their business in the name of security and privacy. This ruling comes after intense lobbying by the industry at the Department of Heath and Human Services and the Justice Department, and is the result of an HHS request for an opinion.
From Swire's analysis the Justice Department ruling: "For a law professor who teaches statutory interpretation, the OLC opinion is terribly frustrating to read. The opinion reads like a brief for one side of an argument. Even worse, it reads like a brief that knows it has the losing side but has to come out with a predetermined answer."
[More at URL]
