Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Jun. 29th, 2005 01:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdCanadian parliament passes C-38 - should be in effect by August - marriage will be legal across the country;
Alberta considers dropping recognition of marriage entirely and shifting all residents to Civil Unions;
Today's Family News in Focus TOTALLY IGNORES the Canada marriage story, but DOES cover the Tennessee "gay conversion" camp - linked to earlier. (It all started with this blog entry:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=7428306&blogID=28610354&Mytoken=20050610204542 )
Follow-up on a previous story; a Wiccan couple divorced, both want to raise their son in their faith, but were ordered in the divorce decree not to "expose" their child to their religious beliefs(!) because that might "confuse" him since he goes to a Catholic school - that decree has now been _upheld_ at the next state court level up. An appeal is in process to the Indiana Court of Appeals (both parents vs. the judge);
Focus on the Family calls the end-of-term Ten Commandments decisions "dangerous";
Focus on the Family complains about CDC school survey about sexual activity;
Another Ten Commandments article from FotF - "legal experts at a loss";
FotF article on "threats" to religious liberty - the number one being marriage rights, the mere existence of which he asserts is an affront to their religious liberty; number two is abortion, number three is secularism in culture;
"Christian" groups plan to install 100 Texas-like Ten Commandments displays in cities across the country, in reaction to the recent Supreme Court rulings;
Concerned Women for America blacks the new GBLT-themed television cable channel LOGO as an "assault on children";
Traditional Values Coalition attacks latest Supreme Court decisions as "attack[s] on religious freedom";
Libertarian businessman proposes hotel development at 34 Cilley Hill Road, in Weare, Vermont - the current home of Justice Souter of the United States Supreme Court, author of the recent Kelo v. New London decision.
----- 1 -----
Same-sex marriage law passes 158-133
Last Updated Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:45:06 EDT
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html
The Liberals' controversial same-sex marriage legislation has passed final reading in the House of Commons, sailing through in a 158-133 vote.
Supported by most members of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, the legislation passed easily, making Canada only the third country in the world, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to officially recognize same-sex marriage.
But the passage of Bill C-38, once again, came with a political price tag for the government. Joe Comuzzi, resigned from the cabinet so he could vote against the bill – an open rebuke of the government legislation.
Comuzzi was the minister responsible for Northern Ontario.
Although he was the only cabinet minister to break ranks with Prime Minister Paul Martin over the controversial plan to legalize the marriage of gays and lesbians, it highlighted the divisions within Canada and within the Liberal party, pitting supporters of equality rights against those who are defending religious freedoms.
For Comuzzi, the decision to resign meant putting principles ahead of the privileges of cabinet. "In 2004, during the election, I promised faithfully to the people of Thunder Bay-Superior North, that I would defend the definition of marriage," he said, explaining his move.
The prime minister said he regretted the decision of a man he called an "old friend," but accepts it because the government must speak with one voice on same-sex marriage.
The "vote is about the Charter of Rights," said Martin. "We're a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities you don't cherry-pick rights."
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Alberta may stop solemnizing marriages: Klein
Last Updated Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:21:39 EDT
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/29/newsamesex050629.html
Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has suggested that his province may get out of the marriage business altogether in the wake of the passage of same-sex marriage legislation in the House of Commons Tuesday.
Eight members of the provincial legislature, including Justice Minister Ron Stevens, met Wednesday morning to decide how to continue the fight against same-sex marriage.
But Klein acknowledged Tuesday that he had few options.
''There are no legal weapons. There's nothing left in the arsenal,'' Klein said. ''We're out on a lurch.''
Klein repeated that using the notwithstanding clause is not an option because the definition of marriage falls under federal jurisdiction, and the province can't affect that.
Instead, Klein proposed that the province might withdraw from sanctioning marriages and just recognize civil unions, leaving marriage to religious orders.
''We simply wouldn't be involved in the solemnization of marriage,'' he said.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Family News in Focus
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Focus on the Family
Terry Philips
http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Family_News_in_Focus/
* Saga inspired by charges of religious intolerance at Air Force Academy is written at Capitol Hill
1. "God and Country" has been "the motto of American servicemen since the beginning". Asserts the Air Force Academy hearings are about insuring that servicemen "should not be exposed to god," which isn't true. "We cannot expect to develop officers with the values and moral strengths unless they openly engage views on faith with their peers and increase awareness and respect for diverse cultures and beliefs." Quotes someone who believes the Academy must teach morals based on religious faith.
* UN meeting that will shape the organization for years to come is without a pro-life voice
2. "Pro-life groups are stinging after being excluded" - NGOs in are "pro-abortion activists;" Planned Parenthood is given as the example. Jenna Adaba cites faith-based groups invited, but none of them focused on "reproduction." Many anti-abortion NGOs applied, according to a Catholic source; all were rejected, according to the same voice. "All NGO groups within the United Nations work assiduously to keep Focus on the Family, CFAM, Family Research Council out of the debate."
* Religious groups press Washington for more money to fight world poverty
6. "Neither party in this country has shown the kind of leadership in overcoming poverty that we need in this nation." Calling for $25B over five years to fight world poverty.
* New home pregnancy test for "Girl or Boy?" raises concerns about sex-selection abortions
4. Claims that "finding out early in the pregnancy could open the door to abortion," when even they admit "abortion is safer."
* Program for people seeking to change their sexual orientation cleared of abuse charges
3. FULL TEXT: "A teen who was reluctantly attending Love in Action's Tennessee campus created a firestorm when he complained publicly of his treatment. The state's Department of Children Services has now investigated, and says his complaints of abuse are groundless. Love in Action director John Smid says the uproar could be God's way of letting people know about the programme. "I really see it as God's economy of advertising. The publicity and the picketing and the news articles have all spread the news of Love in Action to many, many more people that have never heard of us before." Love in Action is a Christ-centered ministry that helps free people from homosexuality."
* Christian Medical Association comes out against the AMA for its stand against pharmacist and pharmacy conscience protection laws
5. AMA says pharmacists should fill all legal prescriptions. CMA claims the next step will be mandating gynocologists to perform abortions. "The AMA has, in effect, trumped the right of conscience with the convenience of the patient."
----- 4 -----
Divorce decree violates civil rights, says father
Linsey Davis/Eyewitness News
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=3517358
Indianapolis, June 24 - Tom Jones Jr. no longer wears a wedding band. That's why he went to court two years ago.
But it's what he wears on the ring finger of his right hand that has him back in court now. "The pentacle is significant in that it represents the five elements. It's a symbol of protection."
But some see the symbol of the Wicca religion as one of controversy. In fact, national attention is now on Tom's case after he went to court for a finalization of divorce and ended up with a ruling on his religion.
"Eleven days later we got paperwork stating we could not allow our son to view or participate or to be taught our religious beliefs. It was a mind-blowing experience because I'm standing there reading the divorce decree and the first words out of my mouth are the exact words that have come out of everybody's mouth I have told about this. "They can't do that."
But they have. Not one, but two judges have already heard the case and now the Indiana Civil Liberties Union has submitted a brief to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
"There's separation of church and state, a violation of our civil rights, there's the vagueness of the judge classifying it as our own mainstream beliefs. Define nonmainstream."
Currently there are more than 500,000 practicing Wiccans throughout the United States.
As it stands right now, Tom Jones's nine-year-old son isn't allowed by law to be one of them.
Beverly Phillips, spokeswoman for Superior Court of Marion County, said, "This is not an attack on Wicca or the First Amendment. The judge and commissioner support the constitutional guarantee concerning freedom of religion. But this case is not just about freedom of religion. It's about the court's obligation to protect minor children from certain rituals that might be harmful to their well-being, whether or not those things are affiliated with a religion."
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
COURT ISSUES 'DANGEROUS' DECISIONS ON TEN COMMANDMENTS
Two key decisions on the Decalogue fail to clarify what's
constitutional.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037014.cfm
by Pete Winn, associate editor
SUMMARY: Two key decisions on public display of the
Decalogue fail to clarify what's constitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a pair of Ten Commandments
today, decisions Focus on the Family Chairman James
Dobson, Ph.D., said "tore a hole through the First
Amendment."
On separate 5-4 votes, the Court ruled unconstitutional
Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses,
while it upheld the constitutionality of a Ten
Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol.
But the Texas ruling is far from a victory, according to
Dobson.
"This was no affirmation of the right of religious
expression -- particularly Christian religious expression
-- in the public square," Dobson said. "It was an argument
rooted in logic along the lines of, "Well, the
Commandments have been around for a long time, so long, in
fact, that they're kind of like any other historical
decoration that might be used to adorn the walls or the
grounds of a public building. So let them stay in place
and keep accumulating dust."
In the Texas case, Van Orden v. Perry, a U.S. appeals
court had earlier ruled the 6-foot-high, 3-foot-wide
granite monument erected in 1961 on the Capitol grounds in
Austin could remain standing because it is part of a
larger presentation commemorating state history and
culture. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling -- barely.
[More at URL]
[Ed. Note: Note the continuing use of "Public square" to indicate
"government areas." Scalia uses this language as well - the idea
that if you don't have government endorsement of your religion,
that you've been entirely excluded from public view. I find this
disingenuous at best.]
----- 6 -----
Sixth Graders Quizzed About Sexual Activity
Focus on the Family
June 27, 2005
Newsbriefs
[Received in email; no URL]
School officials in Shrewsbury, Mass. told Mark Fisher
they had the right to ask his 12-year-old daughter
explicit questions about her sexual history without his
permission, Fox News reported.
The questionnaire from The Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System (YRBSS) asked questions such as, "How
often do you have oral sex?" and "How old were you when
you had sexual intercourse for the first time? Was a
condom used?"
YRBSS is produced by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
and is used nationwide with kids as young as sixth-grade
-- something that enraged parents like Fisher, who said he
feels "kept in the dark."
Wendy McElroy, editor of ifeminists.com, said parents need
to know the contents of school programs.
"Be nosy about the forms they fill out, demand to review
the information officials want," she said. "When in
doubt, refuse permission. Be a nuisance . . . In short,
be a parent. That's what your child needs."
Meanwhile, Fisher is fighting for a bill that would
require parental permission before a school could
administer such a survey.
----- 7 -----
HIGH COURT IGNORES LEMON TEST IN DECALOGUE DECISIONS
Legal experts at a loss to explain Supreme Court's Ten
Commandments rationale.
Focus on the Family
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037026.cfm
by Pete Winn, associate editor
SUMMARY: Legal experts at a loss to explain Supreme
Court's Ten Commandments rationale.
The Ten Commandments were again an issue for the U.S.
Supreme Court. The court today rejected appeals of lower
court decisions barring Ten Commandments monuments in
Indiana and Ohio.
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled a monument on the
grounds of the Texas State Capitol was constitutional, but
justices refused to allow displays in two Kentucky county
courthouses.
Pro-family experts are still at a loss to entirely
comprehend the court's reasoning.
The split decision was hard to explain, according to Chuck
Colson, who discussed the court's strange actions with
"Focus on the Family" host James C. Dobson, Ph.D., along
with Princeton University law professor Robbie George and
Alliance Defense Fund President Alan Sears on today's
broadcast.
"(The justices are) reading the minds of the people
involved in the litigation," Colson said. "They're saying,
'Kentucky violated the First Amendment because they
intended it for religious purposes, but it was OK in Texas
because they didn't intend it for religious purposes.' "
In the Kentucky case, the Ten Commandments were originally
displayed alone -- though county commissioners eventually
added other historical texts. In Texas, the justices
reasoned, the monument clearly had a secular purpose.
"The Supreme Court missed an opportunity to clear up a lot
of confusion in First Amendment law," Colson said. "They
could have easily modified what's known as the Lemon Test,
which comes from the Lemon v. Kurtzman case, where they
dealt with the intent. In other words, if there is a
secular purpose for what you do, it's OK, if there is a
religious purpose, there's not."
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family
Action, said the Lemon Test has been criticized by a
majority of the current justices sitting on the Supreme
Court. It had been thought they would either amend or
replace it.
"It basically provides whatever judge is hearing the case
a basis to exercise their subjective understanding of how
the case should come out -- and have something to justify
it," Hausknecht said. "That has happened time after time."
Hausknecht said the Lemon case set up a three-pronged test
for religious speech: 1. Does religious speech have a
secular religious purpose? 2. Does the speech advance or
inhibit religion? 3. Does the speech cause an excessive
entanglement between government and religion?
Robbie George, the McCormick professor of jurisprudence at
Princeton University, said the justices not only didn't
use the Lemon Test Monday to decide the cases, they
attacked 229 years of American history and tradition with
the reasoning they did employ.
"In his opinion for the majority in the case striking down
the posting of the Ten Commandments," he said, "Justice
Souter said the First Amendment of the Constitution is for
the government to be neutral, not only between competing
religious communities or communities of faith, but also
between religion and -- what it pleased him to call --
'non-religion.'
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Q&A: NEW BOOK EDUCATES ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Attorney Mathew Staver hopes to educate and empower you to
stand up for your rights.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037020.cfm
by Wendy Cloyd, senior editorial coordinator
SUMMARY: Attorney Mathew Staver hopes to educate and
empower you to stand up for your rights.
Americans are often unaware of what the Constitution has
to say about religious liberty and are often led astray by
a culture bent on secularism.
Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty
Counsel, has dedicated almost two decades to the
preservation of religious liberty. He's found it's most
often lack of knowledge that keeps people from exercising
their rights.
CitizenLink spoke with Staver about his book "Eternal
Vigilance -- Knowing and Protecting Your Religious
Freedom," possible Supreme Court vacancies and why you
should speak out.
Q: There are so many issues that families are facing in
today's culture. What do you see as the top three focal
points?
A: Number one is same-sex marriage. I think it undermines
the institution of marriage in a significant way that
nothing else ever has. I think it results in the
abolition of gender (and) the deconstruction of male and
female -- and when you do that, you have a huge ripple
effect through the family. I think it also affects our
religious freedom. When you elevate same-sex marriage to
that level you have a direct impact on our free exercise
of religion and freedom of speech.
I think the second major threat would be the issue of
sanctity of human life. We must never become accustomed
to the fact that we abort a baby in this country every 20
seconds.
A few weeks ago I photographed a baby that was around 20
to 21 weeks gestation and it was in a funeral home. It
had been aborted. And when you see that -- a perfectly
formed baby that is not ripped or torn -- when you see
that and the baby has fingernails like you and I do,
eyelashes like you and I do -- it really makes it real.
By the time you go to work and come home today, a number
of babies will have lost their lives. You can't become
accustomed to that.
The third thing is the threat to our religious freedom --
the ability to be able to share the gospel on equal terms
at least as other secular speech in public areas -- and
certainly in our churches -- and obviously in our homes.
I think the threat to the Gospel is certainly imminent.
But at the same time, having said all of that, I feel very
optimistic about all three of those issues. We can make a
big difference in this generation.
Q: Threats to religious freedom are all over the news.
The Air Force Academy is in the spotlight right now over
the issue of religion. What's behind the increase in the
threats to religious freedom?
A: I think what is behind the increase is a tendency to
become secular -- secularization of society fueled by the
engine of the Supreme Court of the United States by virtue
of its interpretation of the First Amendment.
On the other hand, I think that there may be some optimism
that we can see. The Supreme Court may be backing away
from the extreme separation views that it had in the '60s.
There's no question that it's backing away from those
views.
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
Group Plans 100 Ten Commandments Monuments
Focus on the Family
June 28, 2004
Newsbriefs
[Received in email; no URL]
After the announcement came Monday that a Ten Commandments
monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol is
permissible, a coalition of Christian organizations
announced plans to place such displays in 100 cities
across the nation, The Washington Post reported.
The Rev. Pat Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense
Coalition, said the intent is to preserve Christian
heritage in the United States.
"We see this as a historic opening," Mahoney said, "and
we're going to pursue it aggressively."
Mahoney said the groups involved will analyze the Supreme
Court rulings in order to be sure each monument placed
fits within the legal boundaries.
----- 10 -----
CWA Calls Launch of LOGO Network “Assault on Children’s Innocence”
6/29/2005
Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8440/MEDIA/family/index.htm
Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women for America (CWA) decried MTV’s plan to launch the nation’s first “gay” channel, LOGO, designed specifically to appeal to a “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender audience.” LOGO will feature the 16th Annual Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Awards, as well as series like “Queer as Folk” and new feature films like “Happy Endings.” The channel will be available in about 10 million American homes. It will benefit from the popularity of MTV which for the past decade has been the #1 rated designation for teens.
“This is a sad day for America’s children,” said Dr. Janice Crouse, senior fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America. “LOGO is another assault on our children’s innocence. Gay activism, solidly established in our schools, is now spreading right into the nation’s living rooms.”
“MTV has made radical special interest programming a priority,” Crouse said. “Their campaigns –– ‘Fight for your Rights,’ ‘Protect Yourself’ and ‘Choose or Lose’ –– have targeted the nation’s teens with demagoguery. Now they are taking their activism a step further to indoctrinate our children through a special gay network that will portray homosexuality in a positive, appealing way, legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle for children in millions of American homes.”
MTV’s LOGO will be sponsored by Miller Lite, Motorola, Tylenol PM, Orbitz, Subaru, Lions Gate Films and Showtime Networks, among others.
“Once again Corporate America is giving its stamp of approval on a lifestyle that is not only immoral, but devastates lives by the diseases it inflicts, when the message we all need to hear is that there is hope for homosexuals to break free from that destructive way of life,” said Crouse. “Last year, Motorola and Tylenol PM donated $50,000 and $25,000 respectively to underwrite an event sponsored by GLAAD. It is an outrage that these marketers consistently recycle their earnings to endorse causes such as LOGO, which will only be detrimental to children and families.”
----- 11 -----
Supreme Court Continues Its Attack On Religious Freedom...
...In Ten Commandments Decision
For Immediate Release June 27, 2005
Contact: Amy Skeen (202) 547-8570
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2340
Washington, DC – “It appears that the two Supreme Court decisions on public display of the Ten Commandments are mixed and confusing,” said Traditional Values Coalition Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon today. “These cases only point to the need for us to reverse the vote from a 5-4 decision against religious freedom to 5-4 for our nation’s religious heritage.”
In one case, the court ruled that a Ten Commandments monument could be displayed on government land in Texas. Yet, in a Kentucky case, the court ruled against framed displays of the Ten Commandments.
The 5-4 court decision alleges that framed displays of the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls in Kentucky somehow violate the separation of church and state, notes Rev. Sheldon. “The liberal justices apparently believe that a frame around the Ten Commandments implies an endorsement of religion.”
“The Ten Commandments formed the foundation upon which our nation’s legal system was built,” notes Sheldon. “To deny the public display of this important document is to insult the memory of our nation’s Founding Fathers and their belief in God as the giver of our freedoms—not the Supreme Court.”
Rev. Sheldon believes these cases serve as yet two more examples of the need for constitutionalists on the Supreme Court who respect our nation’s religious heritage and who believe in interpreting the Constitution, not inventing new “rights” based upon the liberal ideologies of renegade Justices.
“If Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retires soon, we will have the opportunity to place someone on the court who appreciates and understands the moral and religious foundations upon which America was founded,” said Rev. Sheldon.
----- 12 -----
Freestar Media LLC
Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
# # #
Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC
Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com
Alberta considers dropping recognition of marriage entirely and shifting all residents to Civil Unions;
Today's Family News in Focus TOTALLY IGNORES the Canada marriage story, but DOES cover the Tennessee "gay conversion" camp - linked to earlier. (It all started with this blog entry:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=7428306&blogID=28610354&Mytoken=20050610204542 )
Follow-up on a previous story; a Wiccan couple divorced, both want to raise their son in their faith, but were ordered in the divorce decree not to "expose" their child to their religious beliefs(!) because that might "confuse" him since he goes to a Catholic school - that decree has now been _upheld_ at the next state court level up. An appeal is in process to the Indiana Court of Appeals (both parents vs. the judge);
Focus on the Family calls the end-of-term Ten Commandments decisions "dangerous";
Focus on the Family complains about CDC school survey about sexual activity;
Another Ten Commandments article from FotF - "legal experts at a loss";
FotF article on "threats" to religious liberty - the number one being marriage rights, the mere existence of which he asserts is an affront to their religious liberty; number two is abortion, number three is secularism in culture;
"Christian" groups plan to install 100 Texas-like Ten Commandments displays in cities across the country, in reaction to the recent Supreme Court rulings;
Concerned Women for America blacks the new GBLT-themed television cable channel LOGO as an "assault on children";
Traditional Values Coalition attacks latest Supreme Court decisions as "attack[s] on religious freedom";
Libertarian businessman proposes hotel development at 34 Cilley Hill Road, in Weare, Vermont - the current home of Justice Souter of the United States Supreme Court, author of the recent Kelo v. New London decision.
----- 1 -----
Same-sex marriage law passes 158-133
Last Updated Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:45:06 EDT
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html
The Liberals' controversial same-sex marriage legislation has passed final reading in the House of Commons, sailing through in a 158-133 vote.
Supported by most members of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, the legislation passed easily, making Canada only the third country in the world, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to officially recognize same-sex marriage.
But the passage of Bill C-38, once again, came with a political price tag for the government. Joe Comuzzi, resigned from the cabinet so he could vote against the bill – an open rebuke of the government legislation.
Comuzzi was the minister responsible for Northern Ontario.
Although he was the only cabinet minister to break ranks with Prime Minister Paul Martin over the controversial plan to legalize the marriage of gays and lesbians, it highlighted the divisions within Canada and within the Liberal party, pitting supporters of equality rights against those who are defending religious freedoms.
For Comuzzi, the decision to resign meant putting principles ahead of the privileges of cabinet. "In 2004, during the election, I promised faithfully to the people of Thunder Bay-Superior North, that I would defend the definition of marriage," he said, explaining his move.
The prime minister said he regretted the decision of a man he called an "old friend," but accepts it because the government must speak with one voice on same-sex marriage.
The "vote is about the Charter of Rights," said Martin. "We're a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities you don't cherry-pick rights."
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Alberta may stop solemnizing marriages: Klein
Last Updated Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:21:39 EDT
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/29/newsamesex050629.html
Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has suggested that his province may get out of the marriage business altogether in the wake of the passage of same-sex marriage legislation in the House of Commons Tuesday.
Eight members of the provincial legislature, including Justice Minister Ron Stevens, met Wednesday morning to decide how to continue the fight against same-sex marriage.
But Klein acknowledged Tuesday that he had few options.
''There are no legal weapons. There's nothing left in the arsenal,'' Klein said. ''We're out on a lurch.''
Klein repeated that using the notwithstanding clause is not an option because the definition of marriage falls under federal jurisdiction, and the province can't affect that.
Instead, Klein proposed that the province might withdraw from sanctioning marriages and just recognize civil unions, leaving marriage to religious orders.
''We simply wouldn't be involved in the solemnization of marriage,'' he said.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Family News in Focus
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Focus on the Family
Terry Philips
http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Family_News_in_Focus/
* Saga inspired by charges of religious intolerance at Air Force Academy is written at Capitol Hill
1. "God and Country" has been "the motto of American servicemen since the beginning". Asserts the Air Force Academy hearings are about insuring that servicemen "should not be exposed to god," which isn't true. "We cannot expect to develop officers with the values and moral strengths unless they openly engage views on faith with their peers and increase awareness and respect for diverse cultures and beliefs." Quotes someone who believes the Academy must teach morals based on religious faith.
* UN meeting that will shape the organization for years to come is without a pro-life voice
2. "Pro-life groups are stinging after being excluded" - NGOs in are "pro-abortion activists;" Planned Parenthood is given as the example. Jenna Adaba cites faith-based groups invited, but none of them focused on "reproduction." Many anti-abortion NGOs applied, according to a Catholic source; all were rejected, according to the same voice. "All NGO groups within the United Nations work assiduously to keep Focus on the Family, CFAM, Family Research Council out of the debate."
* Religious groups press Washington for more money to fight world poverty
6. "Neither party in this country has shown the kind of leadership in overcoming poverty that we need in this nation." Calling for $25B over five years to fight world poverty.
* New home pregnancy test for "Girl or Boy?" raises concerns about sex-selection abortions
4. Claims that "finding out early in the pregnancy could open the door to abortion," when even they admit "abortion is safer."
* Program for people seeking to change their sexual orientation cleared of abuse charges
3. FULL TEXT: "A teen who was reluctantly attending Love in Action's Tennessee campus created a firestorm when he complained publicly of his treatment. The state's Department of Children Services has now investigated, and says his complaints of abuse are groundless. Love in Action director John Smid says the uproar could be God's way of letting people know about the programme. "I really see it as God's economy of advertising. The publicity and the picketing and the news articles have all spread the news of Love in Action to many, many more people that have never heard of us before." Love in Action is a Christ-centered ministry that helps free people from homosexuality."
* Christian Medical Association comes out against the AMA for its stand against pharmacist and pharmacy conscience protection laws
5. AMA says pharmacists should fill all legal prescriptions. CMA claims the next step will be mandating gynocologists to perform abortions. "The AMA has, in effect, trumped the right of conscience with the convenience of the patient."
----- 4 -----
Divorce decree violates civil rights, says father
Linsey Davis/Eyewitness News
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=3517358
Indianapolis, June 24 - Tom Jones Jr. no longer wears a wedding band. That's why he went to court two years ago.
But it's what he wears on the ring finger of his right hand that has him back in court now. "The pentacle is significant in that it represents the five elements. It's a symbol of protection."
But some see the symbol of the Wicca religion as one of controversy. In fact, national attention is now on Tom's case after he went to court for a finalization of divorce and ended up with a ruling on his religion.
"Eleven days later we got paperwork stating we could not allow our son to view or participate or to be taught our religious beliefs. It was a mind-blowing experience because I'm standing there reading the divorce decree and the first words out of my mouth are the exact words that have come out of everybody's mouth I have told about this. "They can't do that."
But they have. Not one, but two judges have already heard the case and now the Indiana Civil Liberties Union has submitted a brief to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
"There's separation of church and state, a violation of our civil rights, there's the vagueness of the judge classifying it as our own mainstream beliefs. Define nonmainstream."
Currently there are more than 500,000 practicing Wiccans throughout the United States.
As it stands right now, Tom Jones's nine-year-old son isn't allowed by law to be one of them.
Beverly Phillips, spokeswoman for Superior Court of Marion County, said, "This is not an attack on Wicca or the First Amendment. The judge and commissioner support the constitutional guarantee concerning freedom of religion. But this case is not just about freedom of religion. It's about the court's obligation to protect minor children from certain rituals that might be harmful to their well-being, whether or not those things are affiliated with a religion."
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
COURT ISSUES 'DANGEROUS' DECISIONS ON TEN COMMANDMENTS
Two key decisions on the Decalogue fail to clarify what's
constitutional.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037014.cfm
by Pete Winn, associate editor
SUMMARY: Two key decisions on public display of the
Decalogue fail to clarify what's constitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a pair of Ten Commandments
today, decisions Focus on the Family Chairman James
Dobson, Ph.D., said "tore a hole through the First
Amendment."
On separate 5-4 votes, the Court ruled unconstitutional
Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses,
while it upheld the constitutionality of a Ten
Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol.
But the Texas ruling is far from a victory, according to
Dobson.
"This was no affirmation of the right of religious
expression -- particularly Christian religious expression
-- in the public square," Dobson said. "It was an argument
rooted in logic along the lines of, "Well, the
Commandments have been around for a long time, so long, in
fact, that they're kind of like any other historical
decoration that might be used to adorn the walls or the
grounds of a public building. So let them stay in place
and keep accumulating dust."
In the Texas case, Van Orden v. Perry, a U.S. appeals
court had earlier ruled the 6-foot-high, 3-foot-wide
granite monument erected in 1961 on the Capitol grounds in
Austin could remain standing because it is part of a
larger presentation commemorating state history and
culture. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling -- barely.
[More at URL]
[Ed. Note: Note the continuing use of "Public square" to indicate
"government areas." Scalia uses this language as well - the idea
that if you don't have government endorsement of your religion,
that you've been entirely excluded from public view. I find this
disingenuous at best.]
----- 6 -----
Sixth Graders Quizzed About Sexual Activity
Focus on the Family
June 27, 2005
Newsbriefs
[Received in email; no URL]
School officials in Shrewsbury, Mass. told Mark Fisher
they had the right to ask his 12-year-old daughter
explicit questions about her sexual history without his
permission, Fox News reported.
The questionnaire from The Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System (YRBSS) asked questions such as, "How
often do you have oral sex?" and "How old were you when
you had sexual intercourse for the first time? Was a
condom used?"
YRBSS is produced by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
and is used nationwide with kids as young as sixth-grade
-- something that enraged parents like Fisher, who said he
feels "kept in the dark."
Wendy McElroy, editor of ifeminists.com, said parents need
to know the contents of school programs.
"Be nosy about the forms they fill out, demand to review
the information officials want," she said. "When in
doubt, refuse permission. Be a nuisance . . . In short,
be a parent. That's what your child needs."
Meanwhile, Fisher is fighting for a bill that would
require parental permission before a school could
administer such a survey.
----- 7 -----
HIGH COURT IGNORES LEMON TEST IN DECALOGUE DECISIONS
Legal experts at a loss to explain Supreme Court's Ten
Commandments rationale.
Focus on the Family
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037026.cfm
by Pete Winn, associate editor
SUMMARY: Legal experts at a loss to explain Supreme
Court's Ten Commandments rationale.
The Ten Commandments were again an issue for the U.S.
Supreme Court. The court today rejected appeals of lower
court decisions barring Ten Commandments monuments in
Indiana and Ohio.
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled a monument on the
grounds of the Texas State Capitol was constitutional, but
justices refused to allow displays in two Kentucky county
courthouses.
Pro-family experts are still at a loss to entirely
comprehend the court's reasoning.
The split decision was hard to explain, according to Chuck
Colson, who discussed the court's strange actions with
"Focus on the Family" host James C. Dobson, Ph.D., along
with Princeton University law professor Robbie George and
Alliance Defense Fund President Alan Sears on today's
broadcast.
"(The justices are) reading the minds of the people
involved in the litigation," Colson said. "They're saying,
'Kentucky violated the First Amendment because they
intended it for religious purposes, but it was OK in Texas
because they didn't intend it for religious purposes.' "
In the Kentucky case, the Ten Commandments were originally
displayed alone -- though county commissioners eventually
added other historical texts. In Texas, the justices
reasoned, the monument clearly had a secular purpose.
"The Supreme Court missed an opportunity to clear up a lot
of confusion in First Amendment law," Colson said. "They
could have easily modified what's known as the Lemon Test,
which comes from the Lemon v. Kurtzman case, where they
dealt with the intent. In other words, if there is a
secular purpose for what you do, it's OK, if there is a
religious purpose, there's not."
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family
Action, said the Lemon Test has been criticized by a
majority of the current justices sitting on the Supreme
Court. It had been thought they would either amend or
replace it.
"It basically provides whatever judge is hearing the case
a basis to exercise their subjective understanding of how
the case should come out -- and have something to justify
it," Hausknecht said. "That has happened time after time."
Hausknecht said the Lemon case set up a three-pronged test
for religious speech: 1. Does religious speech have a
secular religious purpose? 2. Does the speech advance or
inhibit religion? 3. Does the speech cause an excessive
entanglement between government and religion?
Robbie George, the McCormick professor of jurisprudence at
Princeton University, said the justices not only didn't
use the Lemon Test Monday to decide the cases, they
attacked 229 years of American history and tradition with
the reasoning they did employ.
"In his opinion for the majority in the case striking down
the posting of the Ten Commandments," he said, "Justice
Souter said the First Amendment of the Constitution is for
the government to be neutral, not only between competing
religious communities or communities of faith, but also
between religion and -- what it pleased him to call --
'non-religion.'
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Q&A: NEW BOOK EDUCATES ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Attorney Mathew Staver hopes to educate and empower you to
stand up for your rights.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037020.cfm
by Wendy Cloyd, senior editorial coordinator
SUMMARY: Attorney Mathew Staver hopes to educate and
empower you to stand up for your rights.
Americans are often unaware of what the Constitution has
to say about religious liberty and are often led astray by
a culture bent on secularism.
Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty
Counsel, has dedicated almost two decades to the
preservation of religious liberty. He's found it's most
often lack of knowledge that keeps people from exercising
their rights.
CitizenLink spoke with Staver about his book "Eternal
Vigilance -- Knowing and Protecting Your Religious
Freedom," possible Supreme Court vacancies and why you
should speak out.
Q: There are so many issues that families are facing in
today's culture. What do you see as the top three focal
points?
A: Number one is same-sex marriage. I think it undermines
the institution of marriage in a significant way that
nothing else ever has. I think it results in the
abolition of gender (and) the deconstruction of male and
female -- and when you do that, you have a huge ripple
effect through the family. I think it also affects our
religious freedom. When you elevate same-sex marriage to
that level you have a direct impact on our free exercise
of religion and freedom of speech.
I think the second major threat would be the issue of
sanctity of human life. We must never become accustomed
to the fact that we abort a baby in this country every 20
seconds.
A few weeks ago I photographed a baby that was around 20
to 21 weeks gestation and it was in a funeral home. It
had been aborted. And when you see that -- a perfectly
formed baby that is not ripped or torn -- when you see
that and the baby has fingernails like you and I do,
eyelashes like you and I do -- it really makes it real.
By the time you go to work and come home today, a number
of babies will have lost their lives. You can't become
accustomed to that.
The third thing is the threat to our religious freedom --
the ability to be able to share the gospel on equal terms
at least as other secular speech in public areas -- and
certainly in our churches -- and obviously in our homes.
I think the threat to the Gospel is certainly imminent.
But at the same time, having said all of that, I feel very
optimistic about all three of those issues. We can make a
big difference in this generation.
Q: Threats to religious freedom are all over the news.
The Air Force Academy is in the spotlight right now over
the issue of religion. What's behind the increase in the
threats to religious freedom?
A: I think what is behind the increase is a tendency to
become secular -- secularization of society fueled by the
engine of the Supreme Court of the United States by virtue
of its interpretation of the First Amendment.
On the other hand, I think that there may be some optimism
that we can see. The Supreme Court may be backing away
from the extreme separation views that it had in the '60s.
There's no question that it's backing away from those
views.
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
Group Plans 100 Ten Commandments Monuments
Focus on the Family
June 28, 2004
Newsbriefs
[Received in email; no URL]
After the announcement came Monday that a Ten Commandments
monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol is
permissible, a coalition of Christian organizations
announced plans to place such displays in 100 cities
across the nation, The Washington Post reported.
The Rev. Pat Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense
Coalition, said the intent is to preserve Christian
heritage in the United States.
"We see this as a historic opening," Mahoney said, "and
we're going to pursue it aggressively."
Mahoney said the groups involved will analyze the Supreme
Court rulings in order to be sure each monument placed
fits within the legal boundaries.
----- 10 -----
CWA Calls Launch of LOGO Network “Assault on Children’s Innocence”
6/29/2005
Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8440/MEDIA/family/index.htm
Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women for America (CWA) decried MTV’s plan to launch the nation’s first “gay” channel, LOGO, designed specifically to appeal to a “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender audience.” LOGO will feature the 16th Annual Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Awards, as well as series like “Queer as Folk” and new feature films like “Happy Endings.” The channel will be available in about 10 million American homes. It will benefit from the popularity of MTV which for the past decade has been the #1 rated designation for teens.
“This is a sad day for America’s children,” said Dr. Janice Crouse, senior fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America. “LOGO is another assault on our children’s innocence. Gay activism, solidly established in our schools, is now spreading right into the nation’s living rooms.”
“MTV has made radical special interest programming a priority,” Crouse said. “Their campaigns –– ‘Fight for your Rights,’ ‘Protect Yourself’ and ‘Choose or Lose’ –– have targeted the nation’s teens with demagoguery. Now they are taking their activism a step further to indoctrinate our children through a special gay network that will portray homosexuality in a positive, appealing way, legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle for children in millions of American homes.”
MTV’s LOGO will be sponsored by Miller Lite, Motorola, Tylenol PM, Orbitz, Subaru, Lions Gate Films and Showtime Networks, among others.
“Once again Corporate America is giving its stamp of approval on a lifestyle that is not only immoral, but devastates lives by the diseases it inflicts, when the message we all need to hear is that there is hope for homosexuals to break free from that destructive way of life,” said Crouse. “Last year, Motorola and Tylenol PM donated $50,000 and $25,000 respectively to underwrite an event sponsored by GLAAD. It is an outrage that these marketers consistently recycle their earnings to endorse causes such as LOGO, which will only be detrimental to children and families.”
----- 11 -----
Supreme Court Continues Its Attack On Religious Freedom...
...In Ten Commandments Decision
For Immediate Release June 27, 2005
Contact: Amy Skeen (202) 547-8570
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2340
Washington, DC – “It appears that the two Supreme Court decisions on public display of the Ten Commandments are mixed and confusing,” said Traditional Values Coalition Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon today. “These cases only point to the need for us to reverse the vote from a 5-4 decision against religious freedom to 5-4 for our nation’s religious heritage.”
In one case, the court ruled that a Ten Commandments monument could be displayed on government land in Texas. Yet, in a Kentucky case, the court ruled against framed displays of the Ten Commandments.
The 5-4 court decision alleges that framed displays of the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls in Kentucky somehow violate the separation of church and state, notes Rev. Sheldon. “The liberal justices apparently believe that a frame around the Ten Commandments implies an endorsement of religion.”
“The Ten Commandments formed the foundation upon which our nation’s legal system was built,” notes Sheldon. “To deny the public display of this important document is to insult the memory of our nation’s Founding Fathers and their belief in God as the giver of our freedoms—not the Supreme Court.”
Rev. Sheldon believes these cases serve as yet two more examples of the need for constitutionalists on the Supreme Court who respect our nation’s religious heritage and who believe in interpreting the Constitution, not inventing new “rights” based upon the liberal ideologies of renegade Justices.
“If Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retires soon, we will have the opportunity to place someone on the court who appreciates and understands the moral and religious foundations upon which America was founded,” said Rev. Sheldon.
----- 12 -----
Freestar Media LLC
Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
# # #
Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC
Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com
