Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Dec. 21st, 2005 06:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdFotF on upcoming decision from Washington State Supreme Court on marriage rights;
Anti-marriage amendment petition validated in Massachusetts; now goes to the legislature, which must approve it twice before it can go on the ballot;
Focus on the Family attacks Federal court decision against "intelligent design" by a conservative Republican judge, calls it an attack on religious freedom and on the free speech rights of teachers;
6th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds 10 Commandments public display, and specifically attacks the concept of church-state separation, calling it "tiresome";
Alliance Defense Fund press release (at therealitycheck.org, a theocon website) applauding the 6th Circuit Court;
For background, therealitycheck.org column comparing Brokeback Mountain to The Triumph of the Will, the 1934 Leni Riefenstahl Nazi propoganda film;
San Jose city government decision to recognise same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions for the purposes of city employee benefits struck down as illegal;
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM to urge Kevin Martin to extend broadcast 'indecency' laws to satellite;
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM: Christmas Cards to support the nomination of Samuel Alito;
FotF: USAID promoting abortion via the morning-after pill;
FotF article on Massachusetts's abstinence education programme;
CWA: American Girl boycott called off, success claimed;
Population Research Institute - a "pro-life educational organization dedicated to protecting and defending human life, ending human rights abuses committed in the name of family planning, and dispelling the myth of overpopulation" - has a more complete and look at the USAID issue - it looks like USAID has sanctioned some groups over emergency contraception; again, more description of it as an abortifacient, which it isn't;
AFA action item against NBC mid-season replacement show, The Book of Daniel;
----- 1 -----
WASHINGTON MAY BE THE NEXT TO 'OK' GAY MARRIAGE
Both sides are waiting for a court decision to be announced.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
December 21, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039002.cfm
The Washington State Supreme Court could announce as early
as Thursday whether it will redefine marriage to include
same-sex couples.
Equal Rights Washington, the state's largest gay-rights
group, is preparing a checklist so couples are set to get
married the minute the three-day waiting period expires.
Lynn Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University,
called the rush to have same-sex couples marry a political
ploy to thwart efforts to pass an amendment to define
marriage as one man and one woman.
"It certainly does make it a little more difficult to
persuade people because the argument will be asserted,
'Well, you're taking away rights that the court gave us,'"
he said.
Joe Fuiten, senior pastor of the Cedar Park Assembly of
God Church in Bothell, Wash., said he expects the ploy to
backfire.
"They're wanting to make a show of it," he said.
"Personally I think it's going to hurt them a little bit,
because I hope to gear up to amend the constitution in
this state to prevent that."
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Bay State Signatures Accepted by Secretary of State
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
December 21, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin announced
Tuesday that signed petitions requesting a proposed
constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage
-- and rescind court-imposed same-sex marriage -- met
requirements and were officially certified, Boston.com
reported.
Activists had gathered three times the number of
signatures required to make sure that far more than enough
would be leftover after the usual challenges.
Now the new amendment must receive 50 votes in two
successive sessions of the Legislature before being placed
on the ballot in the fall of 2008.
----- 3 -----
JUDGE SAYS INTELLIGENT DESIGN HAS NO PLACE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Ruling says teachers should not disparage evolution.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
December 20, 2005
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038988.cfm
U.S. District Court Judge John Jones ruled today that
intelligent design has no place in public school science
classes, calling it religion in disguise.
The landmark case, Kitzmiller v. Dover School District,
was a test of whether the theory of intelligent design
(ID) -- the idea that some aspects of biology are too
complicated to attribute to random chance -- could even be
mentioned as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
Jones concluded that letting public school students know
about ID violated the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment.
"We have concluded that ID cannot uncouple itself from its
creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones wrote
in his decision. "To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution
is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory
cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not
be used as a pretext to thrust an un-testable alternative
hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom
or to misrepresent well-established scientific
propositions."
Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and
public policy at Focus on the Family Action, reacted to
the ruling with dissatisfaction.
"Judge John Jones has become party to the charade
presented by the American Civil Liberties Union in the
Kitzmiller case by deciding that local school boards
cannot inform students that the Darwinian theory is just
that -- a theory," he said. "Most unfortunately, this case
underscores what was obvious from the beginning -- that
any theory challenging Darwinism is hysterically opposed
by the left as an unconstitutional establishment of
religion.
"Intelligent design is not a religious theory. The First
Amendment is the true loser today," he added.
[More at URL]
----- 4 ----
Same Ten Commandments -- Different Outcome
SUMMARY: An appeals court rules an Ohio display is constitutional.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Commentary
December 20, 2005
by Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/commentary/a0038989.cfm
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a courthouse
display today which is essentially identical to the one
struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in last summer's
McCreary County case. The difference turned on religious
motivation -- or in this case, the lack thereof.
The decision was notable for its rejection of the ACLU's
argument that the ACLU was offended:
"And the ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure
that . . . the government (is kept) out of the religion
business,' does not embody the reasonable person," the
opinion read.
Then the court went on to kick a hole in the old
"separation of church and state" mantra:
"The ACLU's argument contains three fundamental flaws.
First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to 'the
separation of church and state.' This extra-constitutional
construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not
demand a wall of separation between church and state."
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
6th Circuit Court of Appeals: First Amendment does not demand wall between church and state
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND NEWS RELEASE
December 20, 2005 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT ADF MEDIA RELATIONS: (480) 444-0020
In victory for Ten Commandments posted in Kentucky,
court criticizes ACLU for misusing concept that is outside of the Constitution
http://www.therealitycheck.org/TRCMediawire/adf122105.htm
CINCINNATI - In a ruling handed down today affirming as constitutional a Ten Commandments display in Mercer County, Ken., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit declared, "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state." The court also criticized the ACLU's repeated reference to the construct, calling it "tiresome" and "extra-constitutional."
"For years, the Alliance Defense Fund has argued against claims by the ACLU and its allies that their interpretation of the Establishment Clause is a correct interpretation. The good news for Americans is that today's ruling says the ACLU's interpretation is outside the Constitution. This is a dramatic rollback of the far-left's misguided legal agenda," said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb.
In American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky v. Mercer County, the court wrote that "the ACLU makes repeated reference to 'the separation of church and state.' This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
The court went on to note that the ACLU's argument that the Ten Commandments are religious does not answer the question of whether the display actually endorses religion. The court stated that the ACLU "erroneously-though perhaps intentionally" equates merely recognizing religion as government endorsement of religion. "To endorse is necessarily to recognize, but the converse does not follow," the court wrote.
The full text of the court's opinion can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ACLUvMCopinion.pdf. ADF attorneys had no role in the appeal, but attorney and ally Frank Manion, with the assistance of a friend-of-the-court brief funded by ADF, was successful in his efforts to have the lawsuit dismissed prior to the ACLU's appeal of the dismissal to the 6th Circuit.
ADF is a legal alliance defending America's first liberty--religious freedom--through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
www.telladf.org
----- 6 -----
The Last Temptation of Hollywood: Homos on the Range
by Doug Patton
The Reality Check
December 19, 2005
http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/dpatton121905.htm
Many thanks to film critic Michael Medved for his review of Hollywood’s latest piece of social propaganda, “Brokeback Mountain.” Medved has spared 98 percent of American males what he calls “the eww! factor” by warning us of its graphic scenes of homosexuality.
This “love story” is set in 1963 between two young, married sheepherders who seek regular fulfillment of their lust for each other by engaging in homosexual adultery while their unsuspecting wives sit home believing they are off together on “hunting trips.”
Medved compares the film, which is skillfully directed by Ang Lee (“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”) to “Triumph of the Will,” Leni Riefenstahl’s 1934 documentary of Adolf Hitler: a brilliant, convincing bit of filmmaking, the sole purpose of which was to promote a political and/or social agenda.
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
San Jose's Recognition of Same-Sex "Marriages" Illegal, Says Court
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND NEWS RELEASE
December 19, 2005 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT ADF MEDIA RELATIONS: (480) 444-0020
Judge calls policy approved by city council "contrary to California law"
http://www.therealitycheck.org/TRCMediawire/adf121905b.htm
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge today declared the city of San Jose's policy of recognizing the same-sex "marriages" of its employees illegal, ruling in favor of the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Values Advocacy Council.
"By focusing on the legal aspects of marriage rather than the divisive political aspects of marriage, the judge reaffirmed that marriage is a matter of statewide concern that local officials must follow. The message of the ruling is clear: same-sex 'marriage' is simply not recognized or valid in California," said Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney Andrew Pugno, the primary litigator for the plaintiffs in the case.
"This victory is ongoing evidence that same-sex 'marriage' is not inevitable. It loses whenever a state puts the issue before voters, and most courts reject it, too," Pugno added. "Just as in San Francisco, city officials in San Jose defied the law. San Jose's actions were in clear violation of Proposition 22, California's Defense of Marriage Act, which states that marriage in California is only legal between one man and one woman."
Proposition 22 was approved in March 2000 by an overwhelming number of California voters. Despite that, the mayor and city council of San Jose last year decided to recognize all same-sex "marriages" of city employees certified by other jurisdictions.
Judge Mary Jo Levinger of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, wrote in today's ruling, "This court hereby finds and declares the San Jose City Council's March 9, 2004 approval of Mayor Gonzales and Councilmember Yeager's recommendation that the City of San Jose recognize all marriages of City employees certified by other jurisdictions is contrary to California law and is therefore preempted. Furthermore, only marriages between a man and a woman may be recognized by the City of San Jose...."
The lawsuit Proposition 22 Legal Defense & Education Fund and Values Advocacy Council v. Ron Gonzales was filed on May 13, 2004 (www.telladf.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=2726), by Pugno and attorneys with ADF, including Robert Tyler, now with Advocates for Faith and Freedom. A copy of the court's opinion issued today can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/Prop22vSJorder.pdf.
"The mayor and city council of San Jose were irresponsibly wasting taxpayer dollars to implement and follow an illegal policy. The court was right to put a stop to it," Pugno said.
For more information on the battle to protect marriage in California, visit www.telladf.org/actions/victories/family.aspx?cid=2725 or www.domawatch.org.
ADF is a legal alliance defending America's first liberty--religious freedom--through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
www.telladf.org www.domawatch.org
----- 8 -----
Should Satellite Broadcasts be Subject to Indecency Laws?
Focus on the Family
December 20, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The news has been filled with stories about Howard Stern's
departure from regulated broadcast radio to Sirius
Satellite Radio, which is not under the same regulations
regarding indecency. Stern has said he intends to take
advantage of that.
Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, said
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines are
being twisted to suit a newly developed medium of
dispersing smut on the air.
"In 1987, the FCC redefined the term 'broadcasting' to
exclude 'subscription' services," he said, "and the
argument is now made that satellite radio should not be
subject to the broadcasting indecency law because members
of the public must subscribe to the service and pay a
monthly fee."
Peters points out the definition of broadcasting included
the "intent for public distribution…even though a segment
of the public is unable to receive programs without
special equipment."
And satellite companies that openly brag about the
unedited Howard Stern, he said, are forgetting about kids.
"In FCC v. Pacifica, the Supreme Court upheld the
broadcast-indecency law, reasoning that broadcast
indecency confronts the citizen not only in public, but
also in the privacy of the home," Peters said.
Besides, he added, there's not much protection for people
who tune in during the middle of a program.
"The radio audience is constantly tuning in and out so
that prior warnings cannot completely protect listeners,"
he said.
The finding should apply to satellite radio, Peters said,
especially since every new car will soon be equipped with
the technology.
"There is an alternative to transforming the public
airwaves -- and satellite radio in particular -- into an
open sewer," he said.
Daniel Weiss, senior analyst for media and sexuality for
Focus on the Family Action, said FCC commissioner Kevin
Martin needs to revisit and revise the 1987 ruling that
excludes subscription services.
"Satellite radio uses the public airwaves every bit as
much as does traditional broadcast transmissions," Weiss
said. "Congress intended that any entity using public
airwaves would need to serve the public interest. Howard
Stern serves no public interest whatsoever."
TAKE ACTION: Contact FCC chairman Kevin Martin and
respectfully encourage him to make satellite programming
subject to indecency standards. You may contact him
through the CitizenLink Action Center:
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/mail/?agencyindid=246&type=AN
----- 9 -----
Send Christmas Cards in Support of Alito
Focus on the Family
Action Item
December 19, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
If you happen to have a couple of leftover Christmas cards
and want to put them to good use, here's an idea: Send one
to each of your senators letting them know that what you
want for Christmas is a fair up-or-down vote on Supreme
Court nominee Samuel Alito.
Amanda Banks, federal issues analyst for Focus on the
Family Action, said it's a little Christmas cheer that can
have a serious impact on future Supreme Court decisions
that are important to the family.
"I hope that thousands will mail these special Christmas
cards to their senators," she said. "They will send a
unique and powerful message -- one their senators are
unlikely to soon forget."
We encourage you to get them in the mail this week and
address them to the senators' district offices so the
cards will arrive before hearings begin Jan. 9.
Make sure to wish them a Merry Christmas while you're at
it.
You can find mailing addresses in the CitizenLink Action
Center.
Long URL elided
----- 10 -----
Groups Sanctioned for Promoting Abortion
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
December 19, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) told
two health agencies in Peru last week they have to return
grant money after it was discovered the groups used the
money to promote the controversial morning-after pill,
Human Events Online reported.
Peru's constitution protects life from conception to
natural death and the morning-after pill -- a drug which
can cause an early abortion -- has been declared illegal
in the country.
[Ed. Note: the morning-after pill is not an abortifacient, despite
successful fundamentalist propaganda to convince people
otherwise.]
Carlos Polo, Latin-American director of the Population
Research Institute, filed a formal complaint concerning
the use of USAID money by the Peruvian ombudsman's office
and feminist group Manuela Ramos.
"We are the first organization to tell USAID about these
activities with documented evidence and a strategy," he
said. "During the last 20 years, I saw many complaints
about USAID but no results."
Polo said he hopes this action by USAID will lead to more
respect for the laws and customs of the people of Peru.
"USAID funded the beginning of reproductive-health
programs," he said. "They said it was international
cooperation, but we now see clearly it was a business."
----- 11 -----
Bay State Adopts Abstinence-only Program
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
December 19, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Massachusetts state health officials will teach an
abstinence-only sex-education curriculum beginning next
year, despite objections from teachers who want to present
information about birth control, Metro West Daily News
reported.
The Department of Public Health is requesting funding from
the federal government to implement the program in schools
-- reaching kids age 12-to-14.
Annemarie Howes, a school nurse who teaches comprehensive
sex education, is not happy about the change; she believes
that even abstinence education should include information
on contraception.
"We believe in a mix -- kids getting the total
comprehensive information on contraception," she said.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family
Institute, said teaching kids about contraception has led
to an increase in teen pregnancies and has had destructive
consequences.
The only approach "that is 100 percent effective in
preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs (sexually
transmitted diseases) is abstinence," he said. "Children
need to understand that."
----- 12 -----
Victory in the Battle to Save American Girl Dolls!
Concerned Women for America
12/16/2005
Long URL elided
The Pro-Life Action League has announced victory in their boycott of American Girl Dolls. The company is backing away from its “I Can” campaign that supported the pro-abortion/pro-homosexual Girls, Inc. Instead, the company will launch a “Save Girlhood” campaign, to promote the preservation of girl’s innocence. Martha Kleder spoke with Ann Scheidler, Executive Director of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League, who led this effort. Click here ( http://www.cwfa.org/play.asp?id=cw20051216b ) to listen.
www.prolifeaction.org
More multimedia content.
[Editor's Note: play link brings up a nonfunctional playlist. No transcription is therefore possible.]
----- 13 -----
Ford Motor Company Reinstates Ads in ‘Gay’ Magazines
Concerned Women for America
12/21/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9764&department=CWA&categoryid=misc
In a surprising about face, Ford Motor Company has broken a promise made to the American Family Association (AFA) and has resumed advertising in homosexual publications. Ford’s promise was an attempt to head off a boycott called after Ford began offering $1000 and $500 donations to homosexual causes with the purchase of their Jaguar and Land Rover models. Bob Knight, Director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute, has more on this development. Click here ( http://www.cwfa.org/play.asp?id=cw20051220b ) to listen.
[Transcription: Robert Knight: "Ford was advertising in homosexual activist publications like The Advocate and Out magazine... they were also offering to donate to homosexual activist groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the gay and lesbian alliance against defamation if you'd buy a Jaguar or Land Rover... the American Ford Association went to Ford and said, we're going to boycott you if you don't stop supporting the homosexual activist movement. You've entered the Culture War on the wrong side... well, AFA went ahead and pulled the trigger..." [More recap of the history as they present it.] "Shortly after that, Ford announced it was no longer advertising in the homosexual magazines, it said it was yanking at least several brands, Jaguar, and Landrover, and so the major homosexual groups said, 'well, we're sitting down with Ford and telling them what's what, we're going to read the riot act to them.' They did so last week. And the very next day, Ford announced, well, we've decided to change our policy yet again, we're going to go ahead and advertise in all these magazines, and the heck with it. So I think what we're gonna see is AFA announce another boycott of Ford. And this time I wonder if it's going to last more than a week. I would think so."
"They've jumped aboard - you kind of wonder what was said in this meeting, you got people representing less than 2% of the population of the United States, and you've got American Family Association, which along with CWA and other Christian groups represents millions and millions of people, and yet Ford turned right around on a dime after one meeting with the gay activists, and so you know, it'd be nice to know what occurred in that room - why they have so much clout - I don't know how many homosexual consumers are out there buying Ford products, but Ford must think there're an awful lot of them."
"The shareholders have to be concerned - the big three are in trouble, they're weighted down with agreements that are lasting far longer than they had anticipated - the stocks have plunged, Ford's stock is down to an all-time low, so is GM - and they can ill afford to cultivate an image as the supporter of radical causes... this doesn't seem like smart business, in addition to being wrong!"
"This is a tough corner for [the AFA] - after all, a lot of Christians own Ford dealerships and work in Ford dealerships and work for Ford Motor Company for that matter, and so they have to be heartsick when their parent company goes this far out front supporting a radical political agenda with which they disagree, so I'm hoping people within the company, and especially the Ford dealers themselves speak up and say 'Stop this, before it takes us right over a cliff.'"]
----- 14 -----
Getting the U.S. Out of Abortion
By Joseph A. D'Agostino
Population Research Institute
December 16, 2005
http://www.pop.org/main.cfm?id=203&r1=2.00&r2=1.00&r3=0&r4=0&level=2&eid=881
In another gift just in time for Christmas, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has imposed sanctions on two groups in Peru that used American tax money to promote the legalization of the morning-after pill (MAP) in that country. Each will have to return part of its grant as a punishment for violating USAID policy. In response to information and a complaint from PRI's Latin American Director Carlos Polo, USAID decided to penalize the groups. Peru's constitution protects life from conception on, and a Peruvian court has declared that MAP, as an abortion-inducing drug, cannot be sold there.
USAID grantees have been promoting abortion, including MAP, in many countries for a long time now. The federal government's Mexico City policy prohibits the use of federal money for the promotion of any changes in abortion laws overseas, but this provision of law is often circumvented. In any case, USAID follows FDA policy, which classifies MAP as "emergency contraception" rather than as an abortifacient, even though many of MAP's medical promoters acknowledge that it sometimes causes an abortion rather than prevents conception.
However, USAID Assistant Administrator for Global Health Kent Hill wrote in a December 13 letter to Polo that it is USAID policy to remain neutral on what he calls "emergency contraceptive pills" (ECPs) in Peru because "this issue has proven particularly controversial" in that country. As Carlos Polo says, "The point is not what the U.S. government thinks about ECPs but Peruvians' laws and thinking." The two grantees from which USAID is seeking a so-far-unspecified amount of money are the Peruvian ombudsman's office, called Defensoria del Pueblo, and a major Peruvian feminist group, Mañuela Ramos, which has received tens of millions of dollars in USAID funding.
The precedent set here is a big one. "We are the first organization to tell USAID about these activities with documented evidence and a strategy," Polo said. "During the last 20 years, I saw many complaints about USAID but no results. To the contrary, USAID officials saw pro-life groups as enemies denouncing USAID without much evidence.*
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
New NBC Drama Show Mocks Christianity
American Family Association
(As December 21, 2005)
http://www.afa.net/petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=175
Email NBC Chairman Bob Wright over NBC's latest show, "The Book of Daniel."
NBC is touting the network's mid-season replacement series "The Book of Daniel" with language that implies it is a serious drama about Christian people and Christian faith. The main character is Daniel Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest whose wife depends heavily on her mid-day martinis.
Webster regularly sees and talks with a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus. The Webster family is rounded out by a 23-year-old homosexual Republican son, a 16-year-old daughter who is a drug dealer, and a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop's daughter.
At the office, his lesbian secretary is sleeping with his sister-in-law.
Network hype – and the mainstream media – call it "edgy," "challenging" and "courageous." The hour-long limited drama series will debut January 6 with back-to-back episodes and will air on Friday nights. The writer for the series is a practicing homosexual.
The homosexual son will be network prime-time's only regular male homosexual character in a drama series.
Please use the link below to send a letter to NBC Chairman Bob Wright.
Next, please forward this to your family and friends today!
Those at NBC responsible for this program consider it a good, religiously oriented show typical of Christian families.
Anti-marriage amendment petition validated in Massachusetts; now goes to the legislature, which must approve it twice before it can go on the ballot;
Focus on the Family attacks Federal court decision against "intelligent design" by a conservative Republican judge, calls it an attack on religious freedom and on the free speech rights of teachers;
6th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds 10 Commandments public display, and specifically attacks the concept of church-state separation, calling it "tiresome";
Alliance Defense Fund press release (at therealitycheck.org, a theocon website) applauding the 6th Circuit Court;
For background, therealitycheck.org column comparing Brokeback Mountain to The Triumph of the Will, the 1934 Leni Riefenstahl Nazi propoganda film;
San Jose city government decision to recognise same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions for the purposes of city employee benefits struck down as illegal;
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM to urge Kevin Martin to extend broadcast 'indecency' laws to satellite;
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM: Christmas Cards to support the nomination of Samuel Alito;
FotF: USAID promoting abortion via the morning-after pill;
FotF article on Massachusetts's abstinence education programme;
CWA: American Girl boycott called off, success claimed;
Population Research Institute - a "pro-life educational organization dedicated to protecting and defending human life, ending human rights abuses committed in the name of family planning, and dispelling the myth of overpopulation" - has a more complete and look at the USAID issue - it looks like USAID has sanctioned some groups over emergency contraception; again, more description of it as an abortifacient, which it isn't;
AFA action item against NBC mid-season replacement show, The Book of Daniel;
----- 1 -----
WASHINGTON MAY BE THE NEXT TO 'OK' GAY MARRIAGE
Both sides are waiting for a court decision to be announced.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
December 21, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039002.cfm
The Washington State Supreme Court could announce as early
as Thursday whether it will redefine marriage to include
same-sex couples.
Equal Rights Washington, the state's largest gay-rights
group, is preparing a checklist so couples are set to get
married the minute the three-day waiting period expires.
Lynn Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University,
called the rush to have same-sex couples marry a political
ploy to thwart efforts to pass an amendment to define
marriage as one man and one woman.
"It certainly does make it a little more difficult to
persuade people because the argument will be asserted,
'Well, you're taking away rights that the court gave us,'"
he said.
Joe Fuiten, senior pastor of the Cedar Park Assembly of
God Church in Bothell, Wash., said he expects the ploy to
backfire.
"They're wanting to make a show of it," he said.
"Personally I think it's going to hurt them a little bit,
because I hope to gear up to amend the constitution in
this state to prevent that."
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Bay State Signatures Accepted by Secretary of State
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
December 21, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin announced
Tuesday that signed petitions requesting a proposed
constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage
-- and rescind court-imposed same-sex marriage -- met
requirements and were officially certified, Boston.com
reported.
Activists had gathered three times the number of
signatures required to make sure that far more than enough
would be leftover after the usual challenges.
Now the new amendment must receive 50 votes in two
successive sessions of the Legislature before being placed
on the ballot in the fall of 2008.
----- 3 -----
JUDGE SAYS INTELLIGENT DESIGN HAS NO PLACE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Ruling says teachers should not disparage evolution.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
December 20, 2005
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038988.cfm
U.S. District Court Judge John Jones ruled today that
intelligent design has no place in public school science
classes, calling it religion in disguise.
The landmark case, Kitzmiller v. Dover School District,
was a test of whether the theory of intelligent design
(ID) -- the idea that some aspects of biology are too
complicated to attribute to random chance -- could even be
mentioned as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
Jones concluded that letting public school students know
about ID violated the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment.
"We have concluded that ID cannot uncouple itself from its
creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones wrote
in his decision. "To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution
is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory
cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not
be used as a pretext to thrust an un-testable alternative
hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom
or to misrepresent well-established scientific
propositions."
Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and
public policy at Focus on the Family Action, reacted to
the ruling with dissatisfaction.
"Judge John Jones has become party to the charade
presented by the American Civil Liberties Union in the
Kitzmiller case by deciding that local school boards
cannot inform students that the Darwinian theory is just
that -- a theory," he said. "Most unfortunately, this case
underscores what was obvious from the beginning -- that
any theory challenging Darwinism is hysterically opposed
by the left as an unconstitutional establishment of
religion.
"Intelligent design is not a religious theory. The First
Amendment is the true loser today," he added.
[More at URL]
----- 4 ----
Same Ten Commandments -- Different Outcome
SUMMARY: An appeals court rules an Ohio display is constitutional.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Commentary
December 20, 2005
by Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/commentary/a0038989.cfm
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a courthouse
display today which is essentially identical to the one
struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in last summer's
McCreary County case. The difference turned on religious
motivation -- or in this case, the lack thereof.
The decision was notable for its rejection of the ACLU's
argument that the ACLU was offended:
"And the ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure
that . . . the government (is kept) out of the religion
business,' does not embody the reasonable person," the
opinion read.
Then the court went on to kick a hole in the old
"separation of church and state" mantra:
"The ACLU's argument contains three fundamental flaws.
First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to 'the
separation of church and state.' This extra-constitutional
construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not
demand a wall of separation between church and state."
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
6th Circuit Court of Appeals: First Amendment does not demand wall between church and state
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND NEWS RELEASE
December 20, 2005 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT ADF MEDIA RELATIONS: (480) 444-0020
In victory for Ten Commandments posted in Kentucky,
court criticizes ACLU for misusing concept that is outside of the Constitution
http://www.therealitycheck.org/TRCMediawire/adf122105.htm
CINCINNATI - In a ruling handed down today affirming as constitutional a Ten Commandments display in Mercer County, Ken., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit declared, "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state." The court also criticized the ACLU's repeated reference to the construct, calling it "tiresome" and "extra-constitutional."
"For years, the Alliance Defense Fund has argued against claims by the ACLU and its allies that their interpretation of the Establishment Clause is a correct interpretation. The good news for Americans is that today's ruling says the ACLU's interpretation is outside the Constitution. This is a dramatic rollback of the far-left's misguided legal agenda," said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb.
In American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky v. Mercer County, the court wrote that "the ACLU makes repeated reference to 'the separation of church and state.' This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
The court went on to note that the ACLU's argument that the Ten Commandments are religious does not answer the question of whether the display actually endorses religion. The court stated that the ACLU "erroneously-though perhaps intentionally" equates merely recognizing religion as government endorsement of religion. "To endorse is necessarily to recognize, but the converse does not follow," the court wrote.
The full text of the court's opinion can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ACLUvMCopinion.pdf. ADF attorneys had no role in the appeal, but attorney and ally Frank Manion, with the assistance of a friend-of-the-court brief funded by ADF, was successful in his efforts to have the lawsuit dismissed prior to the ACLU's appeal of the dismissal to the 6th Circuit.
ADF is a legal alliance defending America's first liberty--religious freedom--through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
www.telladf.org
----- 6 -----
The Last Temptation of Hollywood: Homos on the Range
by Doug Patton
The Reality Check
December 19, 2005
http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/dpatton121905.htm
Many thanks to film critic Michael Medved for his review of Hollywood’s latest piece of social propaganda, “Brokeback Mountain.” Medved has spared 98 percent of American males what he calls “the eww! factor” by warning us of its graphic scenes of homosexuality.
This “love story” is set in 1963 between two young, married sheepherders who seek regular fulfillment of their lust for each other by engaging in homosexual adultery while their unsuspecting wives sit home believing they are off together on “hunting trips.”
Medved compares the film, which is skillfully directed by Ang Lee (“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”) to “Triumph of the Will,” Leni Riefenstahl’s 1934 documentary of Adolf Hitler: a brilliant, convincing bit of filmmaking, the sole purpose of which was to promote a political and/or social agenda.
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
San Jose's Recognition of Same-Sex "Marriages" Illegal, Says Court
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND NEWS RELEASE
December 19, 2005 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT ADF MEDIA RELATIONS: (480) 444-0020
Judge calls policy approved by city council "contrary to California law"
http://www.therealitycheck.org/TRCMediawire/adf121905b.htm
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge today declared the city of San Jose's policy of recognizing the same-sex "marriages" of its employees illegal, ruling in favor of the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Values Advocacy Council.
"By focusing on the legal aspects of marriage rather than the divisive political aspects of marriage, the judge reaffirmed that marriage is a matter of statewide concern that local officials must follow. The message of the ruling is clear: same-sex 'marriage' is simply not recognized or valid in California," said Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney Andrew Pugno, the primary litigator for the plaintiffs in the case.
"This victory is ongoing evidence that same-sex 'marriage' is not inevitable. It loses whenever a state puts the issue before voters, and most courts reject it, too," Pugno added. "Just as in San Francisco, city officials in San Jose defied the law. San Jose's actions were in clear violation of Proposition 22, California's Defense of Marriage Act, which states that marriage in California is only legal between one man and one woman."
Proposition 22 was approved in March 2000 by an overwhelming number of California voters. Despite that, the mayor and city council of San Jose last year decided to recognize all same-sex "marriages" of city employees certified by other jurisdictions.
Judge Mary Jo Levinger of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, wrote in today's ruling, "This court hereby finds and declares the San Jose City Council's March 9, 2004 approval of Mayor Gonzales and Councilmember Yeager's recommendation that the City of San Jose recognize all marriages of City employees certified by other jurisdictions is contrary to California law and is therefore preempted. Furthermore, only marriages between a man and a woman may be recognized by the City of San Jose...."
The lawsuit Proposition 22 Legal Defense & Education Fund and Values Advocacy Council v. Ron Gonzales was filed on May 13, 2004 (www.telladf.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=2726), by Pugno and attorneys with ADF, including Robert Tyler, now with Advocates for Faith and Freedom. A copy of the court's opinion issued today can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/Prop22vSJorder.pdf.
"The mayor and city council of San Jose were irresponsibly wasting taxpayer dollars to implement and follow an illegal policy. The court was right to put a stop to it," Pugno said.
For more information on the battle to protect marriage in California, visit www.telladf.org/actions/victories/family.aspx?cid=2725 or www.domawatch.org.
ADF is a legal alliance defending America's first liberty--religious freedom--through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
www.telladf.org www.domawatch.org
----- 8 -----
Should Satellite Broadcasts be Subject to Indecency Laws?
Focus on the Family
December 20, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The news has been filled with stories about Howard Stern's
departure from regulated broadcast radio to Sirius
Satellite Radio, which is not under the same regulations
regarding indecency. Stern has said he intends to take
advantage of that.
Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, said
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines are
being twisted to suit a newly developed medium of
dispersing smut on the air.
"In 1987, the FCC redefined the term 'broadcasting' to
exclude 'subscription' services," he said, "and the
argument is now made that satellite radio should not be
subject to the broadcasting indecency law because members
of the public must subscribe to the service and pay a
monthly fee."
Peters points out the definition of broadcasting included
the "intent for public distribution…even though a segment
of the public is unable to receive programs without
special equipment."
And satellite companies that openly brag about the
unedited Howard Stern, he said, are forgetting about kids.
"In FCC v. Pacifica, the Supreme Court upheld the
broadcast-indecency law, reasoning that broadcast
indecency confronts the citizen not only in public, but
also in the privacy of the home," Peters said.
Besides, he added, there's not much protection for people
who tune in during the middle of a program.
"The radio audience is constantly tuning in and out so
that prior warnings cannot completely protect listeners,"
he said.
The finding should apply to satellite radio, Peters said,
especially since every new car will soon be equipped with
the technology.
"There is an alternative to transforming the public
airwaves -- and satellite radio in particular -- into an
open sewer," he said.
Daniel Weiss, senior analyst for media and sexuality for
Focus on the Family Action, said FCC commissioner Kevin
Martin needs to revisit and revise the 1987 ruling that
excludes subscription services.
"Satellite radio uses the public airwaves every bit as
much as does traditional broadcast transmissions," Weiss
said. "Congress intended that any entity using public
airwaves would need to serve the public interest. Howard
Stern serves no public interest whatsoever."
TAKE ACTION: Contact FCC chairman Kevin Martin and
respectfully encourage him to make satellite programming
subject to indecency standards. You may contact him
through the CitizenLink Action Center:
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/mail/?agencyindid=246&type=AN
----- 9 -----
Send Christmas Cards in Support of Alito
Focus on the Family
Action Item
December 19, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
If you happen to have a couple of leftover Christmas cards
and want to put them to good use, here's an idea: Send one
to each of your senators letting them know that what you
want for Christmas is a fair up-or-down vote on Supreme
Court nominee Samuel Alito.
Amanda Banks, federal issues analyst for Focus on the
Family Action, said it's a little Christmas cheer that can
have a serious impact on future Supreme Court decisions
that are important to the family.
"I hope that thousands will mail these special Christmas
cards to their senators," she said. "They will send a
unique and powerful message -- one their senators are
unlikely to soon forget."
We encourage you to get them in the mail this week and
address them to the senators' district offices so the
cards will arrive before hearings begin Jan. 9.
Make sure to wish them a Merry Christmas while you're at
it.
You can find mailing addresses in the CitizenLink Action
Center.
Long URL elided
----- 10 -----
Groups Sanctioned for Promoting Abortion
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
December 19, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) told
two health agencies in Peru last week they have to return
grant money after it was discovered the groups used the
money to promote the controversial morning-after pill,
Human Events Online reported.
Peru's constitution protects life from conception to
natural death and the morning-after pill -- a drug which
can cause an early abortion -- has been declared illegal
in the country.
[Ed. Note: the morning-after pill is not an abortifacient, despite
successful fundamentalist propaganda to convince people
otherwise.]
Carlos Polo, Latin-American director of the Population
Research Institute, filed a formal complaint concerning
the use of USAID money by the Peruvian ombudsman's office
and feminist group Manuela Ramos.
"We are the first organization to tell USAID about these
activities with documented evidence and a strategy," he
said. "During the last 20 years, I saw many complaints
about USAID but no results."
Polo said he hopes this action by USAID will lead to more
respect for the laws and customs of the people of Peru.
"USAID funded the beginning of reproductive-health
programs," he said. "They said it was international
cooperation, but we now see clearly it was a business."
----- 11 -----
Bay State Adopts Abstinence-only Program
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
December 19, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Massachusetts state health officials will teach an
abstinence-only sex-education curriculum beginning next
year, despite objections from teachers who want to present
information about birth control, Metro West Daily News
reported.
The Department of Public Health is requesting funding from
the federal government to implement the program in schools
-- reaching kids age 12-to-14.
Annemarie Howes, a school nurse who teaches comprehensive
sex education, is not happy about the change; she believes
that even abstinence education should include information
on contraception.
"We believe in a mix -- kids getting the total
comprehensive information on contraception," she said.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family
Institute, said teaching kids about contraception has led
to an increase in teen pregnancies and has had destructive
consequences.
The only approach "that is 100 percent effective in
preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs (sexually
transmitted diseases) is abstinence," he said. "Children
need to understand that."
----- 12 -----
Victory in the Battle to Save American Girl Dolls!
Concerned Women for America
12/16/2005
Long URL elided
The Pro-Life Action League has announced victory in their boycott of American Girl Dolls. The company is backing away from its “I Can” campaign that supported the pro-abortion/pro-homosexual Girls, Inc. Instead, the company will launch a “Save Girlhood” campaign, to promote the preservation of girl’s innocence. Martha Kleder spoke with Ann Scheidler, Executive Director of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League, who led this effort. Click here ( http://www.cwfa.org/play.asp?id=cw20051216b ) to listen.
www.prolifeaction.org
More multimedia content.
[Editor's Note: play link brings up a nonfunctional playlist. No transcription is therefore possible.]
----- 13 -----
Ford Motor Company Reinstates Ads in ‘Gay’ Magazines
Concerned Women for America
12/21/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9764&department=CWA&categoryid=misc
In a surprising about face, Ford Motor Company has broken a promise made to the American Family Association (AFA) and has resumed advertising in homosexual publications. Ford’s promise was an attempt to head off a boycott called after Ford began offering $1000 and $500 donations to homosexual causes with the purchase of their Jaguar and Land Rover models. Bob Knight, Director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute, has more on this development. Click here ( http://www.cwfa.org/play.asp?id=cw20051220b ) to listen.
[Transcription: Robert Knight: "Ford was advertising in homosexual activist publications like The Advocate and Out magazine... they were also offering to donate to homosexual activist groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the gay and lesbian alliance against defamation if you'd buy a Jaguar or Land Rover... the American Ford Association went to Ford and said, we're going to boycott you if you don't stop supporting the homosexual activist movement. You've entered the Culture War on the wrong side... well, AFA went ahead and pulled the trigger..." [More recap of the history as they present it.] "Shortly after that, Ford announced it was no longer advertising in the homosexual magazines, it said it was yanking at least several brands, Jaguar, and Landrover, and so the major homosexual groups said, 'well, we're sitting down with Ford and telling them what's what, we're going to read the riot act to them.' They did so last week. And the very next day, Ford announced, well, we've decided to change our policy yet again, we're going to go ahead and advertise in all these magazines, and the heck with it. So I think what we're gonna see is AFA announce another boycott of Ford. And this time I wonder if it's going to last more than a week. I would think so."
"They've jumped aboard - you kind of wonder what was said in this meeting, you got people representing less than 2% of the population of the United States, and you've got American Family Association, which along with CWA and other Christian groups represents millions and millions of people, and yet Ford turned right around on a dime after one meeting with the gay activists, and so you know, it'd be nice to know what occurred in that room - why they have so much clout - I don't know how many homosexual consumers are out there buying Ford products, but Ford must think there're an awful lot of them."
"The shareholders have to be concerned - the big three are in trouble, they're weighted down with agreements that are lasting far longer than they had anticipated - the stocks have plunged, Ford's stock is down to an all-time low, so is GM - and they can ill afford to cultivate an image as the supporter of radical causes... this doesn't seem like smart business, in addition to being wrong!"
"This is a tough corner for [the AFA] - after all, a lot of Christians own Ford dealerships and work in Ford dealerships and work for Ford Motor Company for that matter, and so they have to be heartsick when their parent company goes this far out front supporting a radical political agenda with which they disagree, so I'm hoping people within the company, and especially the Ford dealers themselves speak up and say 'Stop this, before it takes us right over a cliff.'"]
----- 14 -----
Getting the U.S. Out of Abortion
By Joseph A. D'Agostino
Population Research Institute
December 16, 2005
http://www.pop.org/main.cfm?id=203&r1=2.00&r2=1.00&r3=0&r4=0&level=2&eid=881
In another gift just in time for Christmas, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has imposed sanctions on two groups in Peru that used American tax money to promote the legalization of the morning-after pill (MAP) in that country. Each will have to return part of its grant as a punishment for violating USAID policy. In response to information and a complaint from PRI's Latin American Director Carlos Polo, USAID decided to penalize the groups. Peru's constitution protects life from conception on, and a Peruvian court has declared that MAP, as an abortion-inducing drug, cannot be sold there.
USAID grantees have been promoting abortion, including MAP, in many countries for a long time now. The federal government's Mexico City policy prohibits the use of federal money for the promotion of any changes in abortion laws overseas, but this provision of law is often circumvented. In any case, USAID follows FDA policy, which classifies MAP as "emergency contraception" rather than as an abortifacient, even though many of MAP's medical promoters acknowledge that it sometimes causes an abortion rather than prevents conception.
However, USAID Assistant Administrator for Global Health Kent Hill wrote in a December 13 letter to Polo that it is USAID policy to remain neutral on what he calls "emergency contraceptive pills" (ECPs) in Peru because "this issue has proven particularly controversial" in that country. As Carlos Polo says, "The point is not what the U.S. government thinks about ECPs but Peruvians' laws and thinking." The two grantees from which USAID is seeking a so-far-unspecified amount of money are the Peruvian ombudsman's office, called Defensoria del Pueblo, and a major Peruvian feminist group, Mañuela Ramos, which has received tens of millions of dollars in USAID funding.
The precedent set here is a big one. "We are the first organization to tell USAID about these activities with documented evidence and a strategy," Polo said. "During the last 20 years, I saw many complaints about USAID but no results. To the contrary, USAID officials saw pro-life groups as enemies denouncing USAID without much evidence.*
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
New NBC Drama Show Mocks Christianity
American Family Association
(As December 21, 2005)
http://www.afa.net/petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=175
Email NBC Chairman Bob Wright over NBC's latest show, "The Book of Daniel."
NBC is touting the network's mid-season replacement series "The Book of Daniel" with language that implies it is a serious drama about Christian people and Christian faith. The main character is Daniel Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest whose wife depends heavily on her mid-day martinis.
Webster regularly sees and talks with a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus. The Webster family is rounded out by a 23-year-old homosexual Republican son, a 16-year-old daughter who is a drug dealer, and a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop's daughter.
At the office, his lesbian secretary is sleeping with his sister-in-law.
Network hype – and the mainstream media – call it "edgy," "challenging" and "courageous." The hour-long limited drama series will debut January 6 with back-to-back episodes and will air on Friday nights. The writer for the series is a practicing homosexual.
The homosexual son will be network prime-time's only regular male homosexual character in a drama series.
Please use the link below to send a letter to NBC Chairman Bob Wright.
Next, please forward this to your family and friends today!
Those at NBC responsible for this program consider it a good, religiously oriented show typical of Christian families.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 08:53 pm (UTC)or email...
Date: 2005-12-22 09:11 pm (UTC)I saw a quote by you recently in an article in regards to same-sex marriage in Washington State:
"They're wanting to make a show of it," he said.
"Personally I think it's going to hurt them a little bit,
because I hope to gear up to amend the constitution in
this state to prevent that."
If this was not a statement you made, please disregard this email and have a very merry Christmas season.
If this was your statement, I would like to share with you as a fellow citizen of Washington that I think that discrimination on any basis - discriminating against two people of the same sex marrying because it is against Christian theology _is_ religious discrimination - should never be constitiutionalized by any government. I absolutely respect your right to not believe that same-sex marriage is morally correct and to be personally opposed to it. But these personal, moral, theological opinions do not belong in the state, or federal, constitution. I cherish living in a state in which people truly seem to love their neighbor and would hate to see that eroded by legally enforcing the views of one set of citizens on all others.
I also strongly believe that the place of the clergy is not in politics, but in caring for their congregation. As I know you are very aware, there are ministrations to the poor, hungry, ill, and elderly that are more pressingly important for your time than codifying Christian beliefs into government law. The time, money, and effort you spend in pursing politics could be feeding hungry children and making the days of people who are old and sick less lonely. All the laws in the country cannot be worth more than that.
Have a wonderful Christmas and happy new year in 2006.
Thank you,
Jessica Gibbons
Re: or email...
Date: 2005-12-22 09:55 pm (UTC)Re: or email...
Date: 2005-12-22 10:42 pm (UTC)They can take their filthy, prejucicial laws and bury them wherever they buried their sense of compassion, decency, and human feeling.
Re: or email...
Date: 2005-12-22 11:49 pm (UTC)