Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Mar. 29th, 2006 11:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Czech Republic passes national domestic-partnership legislation;
The Volokh Conspiracy has a link to the adoption report that the fundamentalists have already been attacking on the basis of who wrote it, not what it said;
Christianity Today features conference on how Christianity is "under attack" in the Culture War the fundamentalists started;
God, I hope this isn't true, but I suspect it is; McCain is mending fences with the fundamentalist right, reportedly talking about coming out for the Federal anti-marriage amendment;
Tom DeLay rolls out the "War on Christians" rhetoric, lining up Republicans on the side of Jesus; also, "The War on Christians" conference organiser claims DeLay lost his job as House Majority Leader specifically because he's a Christian; Gary Bauer specifically attacks the idea of liberty and pluralism: "And why are they confused? Because American Christians are attacked by "elites" who think America is "a country of unbridled liberty, different strokes for different folks."";
Focus on the Family covers the "War on Christians" conference;
Focus on the Family says, "Swing away" - it's time for a bunch of full-bore fundamentalist actions, particularly outright bans on abortion like in South Dakota;
Comprehensive abortion ban fails in Mississippi;
Focus on the Family rails against Michael Newdow; includes ACTION ITEM to write Congress and demand they recognise "the Christian heritage of the United States" and to support the "In God We Trust" motto;
FotF starts up a new line of attack, this time on vitamins and herbal supplements a "Hard Drug Link";
In "Bay State Bans Church from Adoption Biz," FotF accuses Massachusetts of religious persecution for requiring charities that act as agents of the state obey state anti-discrimination law; includes ACTION ITEM to support anti-marriage Federal amendment;
FotF crows about the major networks rejecting United Church of Christ ads again - meanwhile, they run Focus on the Family's ads; ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and the WB have all rejected the ad;
Rhode Island rejects "abstinence-only" education for a variety of reasons; Concerned Women for America blasts them for it;
CWA endorses Ed Bryant for Senate in Tennessee;
Focus on the Family support-quotes Life Dynamics calling research indicating that abortion has lead to a reduction in crime later in time "racially motivated";
American Family Association condemns Christian Educators Association for working with GSLEN on a compromise document for handling GBLT issues, says GLSEN is "a grave danger to our kids" and "all about advocating teenage homosexual sex," says gay people "threaten the very existence of our society";
Traditional Values Coalition urges African-American pastors to "defend their schools and legislature against the homosexual agenda";
TVC: San Francisco "declares war on Christianity";
Students expelled from a San Diego-area private Christian school suing over their expulsion;
Focus on the Family Canada reports on Canadian fundamentalist telling Jamaica: don't adopt a Charter of Rights and Freedoms like Canada's or you'll end up guaranteeing rights for queers and women who want the right to get an abortion;
Faith and Freedom Network repeats claim that marriage rights for gay and lesbian citizens destroyed marriage in Scandinavian countries; this is demonstrably false, but that doesn't stop it from being repeated; also includes other talking points against GBLT civil rights and marriage;
Faith and Freedom Network promotes Jeff Teichert for Washington State Court of Appeals judge - our judges are elected in Washington State - basically, he's a fundamentalist, used to be a full-time missionary (but does have a law degree), attacks judicial rulings that support GBLT families, others; [ETA: A couple of weeks later, Mr. Teichert found this entry and left a comment, which I have set public, and we've had a short discussion on matters political where he presents his views. The discussion thread is below, in the comments section.]
Another "Faith and Freedom Network" anti-marriage-rights talking point.
----- 1 -----
Havel for same-sex law
The Prague (Czech Republic) Monitor
Tuesday 28 March 2006
http://www.praguemonitor.com/ctk/?id=1679
Prague, March 25 (CTK) - Former president Vaclav Havel is very glad that last week, the Chamber of Deputies passed the law on registered partnership of the people with the same sex, Havel told CTK today.
"Though with a very tight margin, I am very glad that the legislation eventually made it through parliament," Havel told CTK.
The bill was vetoed by President Vaclav Klaus in February, but his veto was overridden by 101 out of the 200 members of the Chamber of Deputies. The legislation was chiefly opposed by the Christian Democrats and most deputies for the Civic Democratic Party (ODS).
"I was most intrigued in the debate by the absurd ideology advocated by the Christian Democrats and Klaus, who argue that family should have advantages since, unlike homosexual couples, it brings children to life. This is the concept of family as a sort of calf shed in which bulls can inseminate cows so that calves are born," Havel said.
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
New Report Supports Gay Adoptions
The Volokh Conspiracy
Dale Carpenter, March 29, 2006 at 11:36am
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_03_26-2006_04_01.shtml#1143650176
Some 16 or so states have been considering whether to ban adoptions by gay men and women. So far, only Florida categorically bans adoptions by homosexuals -- in a statute passed in 1977 during Anita Bryant's campaign against homosexuals. Meanwhile, some 119,000 kids await adoption in the U.S.
A report just released by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a prominent adoption policy group, makes the following findings:
**Against a backdrop of increasing public acceptance, social science research concludes that children reared by gay and lesbian parents fare comparably to those of children raised by heterosexuals on a range of measures of social and psychological adjustment.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Conference to Cover Cultural War on Christians
This is the first conference to cover every aspect of the cultural war on Christians -- including attacks by Hollywood, the news media, gay activist and leftist groups like the ACLU and Anti-Defamation League.
Posted: Wednesday, March 15 , 2006, 14:55 (UK)
Long URL elided
The War On Christians And The Values Voter in 2006 Conference will be held March 27-28 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C.
This is the first conference to cover every aspect of the cultural war on Christians -- including attacks by Hollywood, the news media, gay activist and leftist groups like the ACLU and Anti-Defamation League.
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
So Much for Straight Talk
BLOG | Posted 03/28/2006 @ 10:55am
Ari Berman
The Nation
So much for "straight talk." If you needed any more proof that the maverick John McCain will run as the ultimate insider come 2008, scroll down.
McCain, February 28, 2000, Virginia Beach, Virginia:
[...]
Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.
[...]
More from the Lynchburg, Virginia News & Advance:
Falwell said McCain's appearance at LU's graduation is another sign that McCain is wooing evangelical Christians.
"He is in the process of healing the breech with evangelical groups," Falwell said.
Falwell said McCain has expressed a willingness to support a Federal Marriage Amendment, an issue dear to conservative Christians.
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Redemption Among the Faithful
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; Page A02
Long URL elided
There are those who would say Tom DeLay lost his job as House majority leader because he was indicted by a Texas grand jury on charges of money laundering and conspiracy, or because of his extensive ties to lawbreaking lobbyist Jack Abramoff. But they would be wrong.
In fact, the Texas Republican fell from power because he is a Christian.
That, at least, is the view of Rick Scarborough, convener of a conference this week called "The War on Christians."
[...]
Long URL elided (to second page of article)
"This is a man that I believe God has appointed," Scarborough said, a view that might surprise the voters of the 22nd District of Texas. Scarborough, in his introduction, said DeLay had been "virtually destroyed in the press," and he urged the crowd to campaign for DeLay -- though he said nonprofit tax rules prevented him from actually "endorsing" DeLay.
The congressman started with a profession of faith, then went on a tour of the religious views of great presidents. He seemed to be on the verge of discussing his own troubles when he recalled Lincoln's view that men should "confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow."
But this was not the time for a DeLay confessional. Instead, he gave his view on the War on Christians. "Sides are being chosen, and the future of man hangs in the balance!" he warned. "The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will. . . . It is for us then to do as our heroes have always done and put our faith in the perfect redeeming love of Jesus Christ."
DeLay basked in the rapturous ovation that followed. "Keep your eyes on Jesus," Scarborough called after the fallen leader as he departed the stage.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
CHRISTIANS SHARE PERSECUTION STORIES
Conference features U.S. believers who have faced hostility for their faith.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
March 29, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039992.cfm
SUMMARY: D.C. conference features U.S. believers who have
faced hostility and oppression for their faith.
American Christians who have come under attack for their
faith shared their stories this week at a War on
Christians and Values Voters conference in Washington,
D.C.
Organizers noted that attacks on public displays of the
Ten Commandments, the celebration of Christmas and
attempts to marginalize core Christian beliefs are making
many of the faithful in America nervous about the future.
Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America, said the
stakes are high in the culture's battle against believers.
"If America is not healed, it will not be because liberal
ideas prevailed," he said. "It will be because the church
of America did not humble themselves and pray."
[...]
FOR MORE INFORMATION: In "Persecution: How Liberals Are
Waging War on Christianity," author David Limbaugh exposes
the subtle but pervasive discrimination against biblical
Christianity in our culture. Using real, sometimes
shocking, examples from Hollywood, public schools and
other venues, he shows how terms like "tolerance" and the
mythical "separation of church and state" have been used
to portray Christianity as repressive, ignorant and
offensive. This is a call to action for those who want to
exercise their right to influence popular culture and find
true religious freedom.
Long URL elided
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
COMMENTARY: SWING AWAY
It's time for pro-lifers to consider the home run.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
March 29, 2006
by Stuart Shepard, managing editor
http://www.family.org/cforum/commentary/a0039997.cfm
I kick my right foot twice to get the cleats to dig into
the batter's box. As the pitcher shakes off the catcher's
signals, I glance at the third-base coach. In the flurry
of decoys, I see him run two fingers down his left forearm
and tap his wrist twice.
Swing away.
The outfield scoreboard shows us down 5-4. A runner on
second. Two outs. Bottom of the ninth.
The flags in center field are blowing out. I tap the
outside of the plate, then raise my bat, fighting the urge
to grip it too tightly. The pitcher settles. The wind up.
The pitch.
As I start to swing, I realize it's not just the curve I'm
expecting, it's a hanging curve -- chest high. In the
split second before spinning orb meets flashing Louisville
Slugger, I realize the next likely home for this little
baseball will be clanging around in the left-field seats.
This is the moment where South Dakota is today, after all
but totally banning abortion.
This is the moment where eight other states hang today, as
they consider similar action.
[...]
As my brilliant coworker Carrie Gordon Earll recently
expressed, we don't need to apologize and we don't need to
be embarrassed for stating clearly what we are about.
Abortion hurts women and kills their children and we want
it to stop.
Now.
Period.
We want to win this thing. Not for team pride, not for a
fancy ring, but because life is a sacrosanct gift from
God.
[...]
But just as in baseball, there are unassailable officials
who will ultimately make the call whether it was a fair
ball. At this moment, five of them will likely rule
against us and four will rule in favor.
As fans in the stands and players on the field, we all
need to pray hard while the ball is still in the air that
we can get one more umpire-justice placed on the U.S.
Supreme Court to tilt the balance the other way. One in
the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts, who so
appropriately declared during his Senate hearings
"Justices are like umpires; umpires don't make the rules,
they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is
critical -- they make sure everybody plays by the rules."
As I write this, eight state legislatures still have some
form of abortion ban in play.
[...]
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky and Louisiana.
Swing away.
Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee.
Swing away.
America.
It's time to swing away.
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Mississippi Abortion Ban Won't Happen This Year
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
March 29, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
A bill to ban most abortions in Mississippi failed in the
Legislature late Monday when House and Senate negotiators
failed to agree on a version of the measure that pleased
both sides.
House members advocated a straightforward and near-total
ban on abortion, allowing exceptions only when the life of
the mother was in jeopardy. Senators wanted to add other
provisions to the bill, including a requirement that
doctors perform an ultrasound before an abortion and
another that would have protected the state's
informed-consent law should the ban ever be challenged in
court.
Sandy Ellard Middleton of the National Right to Life
Committee was disappointed by the outcome, telling The
Associated Press that the House had the better idea.
"All of this debate was so full of emotions, politics and
theatrics," she said. "This was good common-sense
legislation."
Had it passed, the ban would not have taken effect unless
and until the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade,
its 1973 decision that legalized abortion on demand.
----- 9 -----
LAWMAKERS FIGHT NATIONAL-MOTTO CHALLENGE
The man who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge is at it again.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
March 28, 2006
by Pete Winn, associate editor
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039984.cfm
SUMMARY: The man who tried to remove "under God" from the
Pledge of Allegiance is now going after "In God We Trust."
But pro-family senators and congressmen are pushing back.
Forty-seven members of Congress fired back today against
anti-religionist Michael Newdow's latest court case to try
to remove mention of God from the public square.
The lawmakers filed a friend-of-the-court brief in federal
district court in Sacramento, Calif., in support of the
U.S. government's request to dismiss Newdow's legal
challenge of the national motto, "In God We Trust."
"We believe the court should dismiss this lawsuit, which
has no basis in fact and presents another flawed attempt
to use the legal system for remove a legitimate reference
to the religious heritage of our country," said Jay
Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and
Justice (ACLJ) and the congressmen's attorney.
[...]
FOR MORE INFORMATION/TAKE ACTION: To find out who signed
on to the friend-of-the-court brief, visit the American
Center for Law and Justice Web site.
http://www.aclj.org/trialnotebook/read.aspx?id=336
Also, please lift up this case in prayer. It is important
that both the courts and our lawmakers remember the
Christian heritage of the United States. You also might
consider contacting your senators and congressman and
urging them to support the national motto. For contact
information, visit the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/ /
(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the
Family is for informational purposes only and does not
necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites'
content.)
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Herbal Supplement/Hard Drug Link Found
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
March 28, 2006
SUMMARY: Study finds that teens who take vitamins or
natural performance enhancers are more likely to use
cocaine or steroids.
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039979.cfm
A new Rochester University study has found that teens who
have used natural herbal supplements are several times
more likely to have used hard drugs.
The Youth Risk Behavior Survey, which was limited to teens
living in New York, revealed that those who have used
herbal products are six times more likely to have tried
cocaine and 15 times more likely to have used anabolic
steroids.
Herbal products can vary from dietary supplements, like
vitamins, to natural performance enhancers, like creatine.
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Bay State Bans Church from Adoption Biz
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
March 28, 2006
by Maggie Gallagher
SUMMARY: Massachusetts forces even agencies with moral
objections to place children in homes with same-sex
couples -- or lose their licenses.
http://www.family.org/cforum/commentary/a0039978.cfm
In Massachusetts this month, something extraordinary
happened. The government told the Catholic Charities, a
Christian adoption agency, it may not help children find
homes, unless it agrees to do gay adoptions.
This is not about government money. To run an adoption
agency in Massachusetts you need a license from the state.
To get a license you have to agree to place children with
same-sex couples. The bottom line, as the dean of Boston
College Law School put it in a March 14 column: "State
Puts Church Out of Adoption Biz."
This is not (or not just) about gay adoption. It’s about
the religious liberty of all Christians, and people of
other faiths. Can you be a good citizen, worthy to help
poor abandoned children find homes, and be faithful to
traditional Christian sexual teaching? No. Not in
Massachusetts. Not any longer. Christians in Massachusetts
are being told by their government they are "pariahs."
Not even the suffering of some of our most marginal and
vulnerable children moves the hearts of government leaders
there. Gov. Mitt Romney asked the Legislature for a state
religious exemption so Catholic Charities could continue
to help babies. But no other political figure in
Massachusetts will stand up for religious liberty or the
needs of children.
It’s not just Massachusetts. At least 20 states have
similar anti-discrimination laws on orientation. What
makes Massachusetts unique, though, is that in these other
states, Christian organizations can run adoption agencies
that specialize in placing children in married homes.
But, of course, in Massachusetts, since the courts
legalized gay marriage, that now means same-sex couple
homes.
[...]
TAKE ACTION: The Religious Coalition for Marriage offers a
partially pre-written letter you can send to your U.S.
senators urging them to support the Marriage Protection
Amendment. You can find it at the link below.
http://www.rcm.org/index.php
Should you wish to compose your own letter from scratch,
visit the CitizenLink Action Center and type your ZIP code
into the space provided.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/
(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the
Family is for informational purposes only and does not
necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites'
content.)
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Liberal Denomination's Latest Ad Rejected
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
March 28, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
A new ad from the ultraliberal United Church of Christ
(UCC) suggesting that more conservative churches forcibly
and physically eject blacks, Arabs, the elderly and
homosexuals from their pews has been rejected by all major
TV networks.
The ad, titled "Ejector Seat," begins with a shot of a
black mother trying to calm a crying baby while sitting in
a church pew. She fidgets anxiously, enduring disapproving
looks from fellow worshippers, until someone in the wings
pushes an "ejector" button to rid the church of her -- and
her noisy baby.
Similar mistreatment is heaped upon a homosexual couple
and a person with a walker.
ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and the WB have all refused to air the
ad, according to a UCC news release, while several cable
networks will broadcast it beginning Monday.
UCC earned similar notoriety in December 2004 with an ad
depicting a bouncer preventing homosexuals and minorities
from entering a church.
----- 13 -----
Abstinence Education Banned
Concerned Women for America
3/28/2006
By Janice Shaw Crouse
Rhode Island educator ignores that teen sex can be a life or death matter.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10410/BLI/education/index.htm
In Rhode Island, Education Commissioner Peter McWalters issued a directive forbidding schools in the state to use Abstinence programs or materials. The official ban declares that Abstinence programs violate student rights, contain sexist stereotypes and marginalize homosexual teens.
In a supportive statement, the president of Advocates for Youth, James Wagoner, claims that abstinence programs are “bad science” as well as “bad policy.” Further, Wagoner declared that abstinence programs operate without “oversight” and that they are a “blatant violation of medical ethics and basic human rights.” Unbelievably, Wagoner accused the abstinence initiatives of censoring and taking a position: “stay pure or we don’t care about you.” Calling federal funding for abstinence programs a “national scandal,” Wagoner asked Congress for an immediate moratorium on spending for the programs.
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
Bryant hopes coalitions top money, recognition
By John Rodgers, jrodgers@nashvillecitypaper.com
The City Paper (Nashville, Tennessee)
March 29, 2006
Long URL elided
While his two opponents have an edge in either fund raising or name recognition, U.S. Senate hopeful Ed Bryant hopes social and economic conservatives will help him win August’s Republican primary.
Social conservative groups like the Tennessee Right to Life and Concerned Women for America, and fiscally conservative GOP leaders like U.S. Senators Trent Lott (R-MS) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) have endorsed Bryant’s candidacy, which became official Tuesday when he filed to run.
“That’s the Republican Party,” Bryant said while campaigning in Nashville Tuesday. “You are either a social conservative, an economic conservative, or you’re both.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
Abortion-Crime Link Suggested Again
by Josh Montez
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
March 29, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0039986.cfm
In 1999, Yale law professor John Donohue authored a report saying abortion reduces crime because potential criminals are killed before getting a chance to lead a lawless life. Steve Sailer with the American Conservative contends there are flaws in the research.
[...]
Sailer says the research clearly shows that crime increased among the generation born after Roe v. Wade, blowing Donohue’s theory out of the water. Wendy Wright with Concerned Women for America thinks Donohue has an agenda.
[...]
But there’s another concern with the research, Mark Crutcher with Life Dynamics says it is racially motivated.
[More at URL]
----- 16 -----
Pro-Family Lawyer Criticizes Christian Educators' Collaboration With GLSEN
By Jim Brown
American Family Association/Agape Press
March 28, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/afa/282006d.asp
(AgapePress) - A Christian attorney is denouncing a new agreement reached between a homosexual advocacy group and the Christian Educators Association on how to deal with the issue of sexual orientation in public schools.
The Christian Educators Association International (CEAI) and the pro-homosexual Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) have collaborated on a document called "Public Schools and Sexual Orientation: A First Amendment Framework for Finding Common Ground." The document urges school officials to "take seriously complaints of name calling, harassment, and discrimination," and to avoid discriminating against student clubs because of their political or religious message. (See earlier article)
Steve Crampton, chief counsel with the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy (AFA Law Center), finds the collaboration between the Christian group and the homosexual advocacy group disturbing. He says while he supports civil debate on issues relating to homosexuality, he has serious concerns about Christian educators coming to the table with a group like GLSEN.
"I think GLSEN is a grave danger to our kids," Crampton explains, "and so, to the extent you reach out the hand of friendship, or in this case, 'common ground,' you are doing a disservice to the community, and especially to the innocent kids in that community."
The pro-family attorney says Christians have no business legitimizing a group that is "all about advocating teenage homosexual sex." AFA Law Center litigators "have been involved in matters that have grown out of GLSEN conferences, in which graphic descriptions and instructions in homosexual sexual practices have taken place under GLSEN's purview, indeed sometimes with taxpayer dollars at stake," he contends.
[...]
The AFA Center for Law & Policy has been battling GLSEN's agenda for years, an agenda that promotes what Crampton describes as "a sinful and destructive lifestyle that threatens the very existence of our society." He questions whether a Christian organization like CEAI should be seeking "common ground" with such an organization.
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
TVC Chairman Holds Marriage Summit At Prominent African-American Church
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2663
March 30, 2006 – Rev. Louis P. Sheldon held a Marriage Summit at Kingdom Builders Christian Center in Norcross, Georgia, last weekend to urge African-American pastors and lay leaders to defend their schools and legislature against the homosexual agenda.
Kingdom Builders Pastor Jamie T. Pleasant, Ph.D., is taking a leadership role with TVC in helping monitor school districts and the legislature to make certain that homosexual activists do not highjack the Civil Rights Movement.
According to Rev. Sheldon, “There is a growing concern among African-Americans that homosexuals are trying to claim protected minority status and are highjacking the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement. They realize that their struggle for equality can be lost to history if homosexuals continue to compare their agenda to that of African-Americans.”
[...]
TAKE ACTION: If your state does not yet have a marriage amendment that includes bans on civil unions or domestic partnerships, urge your state legislators to pass one. Use TVC’s materials on marriage to educate your legislators and pastors on this important issue. Access TVC’s Special Reports section on our web site for these reports: Special Reports.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
San Francisco Declares War On Christianity
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2661
March 30, 2006 – The city of San Francisco leadership and radical leftwing organizations have declared open war against Christianity in recent weeks.
The Board of Supervisors voted on March 22 to approve a non-binding resolution that condemns the Catholic Church for its opposition to homosexual adoption. The resolution said that the church’s anti-homosexual adoption policy was “hateful and discriminatory rhetoric (that) is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors.”
The resolution also noted: “It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city’s existing and established customs and traditions, such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need.”
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
Judge allows expelled lesbians to sue Christian school
SIGNONSANDIEGO NEWS SERVICES
11:02 a.m. March 28, 2006
Long URL elided
RIVERSIDE – A judge allowed a lawsuit filed by the guardians of two suspected lesbians to proceed against a Christian school that expelled them, but the resolution of the case is likely months away.
[...]
Kirk Hanson, one of the San Diego lawyers for the parents and the teenage girls who sued the Wildomar private high school, said Tuesday morning that he will begin trying to obtain documents from the other side in the coming weeks, under the legal discovery process, and will begin deposing witnesses.
Hanson was in court in Riverside Monday to counter a defense contention that the federal Constitution's freedom of religion guarantee trumps the state's civil rights act, which the plaintiffs have invoked.
[...]
The defense had hoped to stop the case dead in its tracks by arguing that the federal freedom of religious association guarantee takes precedence over California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which bars a business from discriminating – among other things – on the basis of sexual orientation, Hanson said.
The school contends it had to bar the girls because of their sexual behavior, which is “un-Christian” and thus antithetical to CLHS's code of conduct, and disruptive to the education of the other students.
[More at URL]
----- 20 -----
Canadian lawyer warns Jamaicans on rights charter
Focus on the Family Canada
Today's Family news
March 29, 2006
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/misc/032906.html
A Canadian Christian lawyer is cautioning Jamaicans not to follow Canada’s example and craft a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that could dramatically alter their country’s legal and social landscape, The Jamaica Gleaner reported.
“Twenty-five years ago [when the Charter came into effect], none in Canada anticipated the kind of changes the Charter would bring,” said Janet Epp Buckingham, director of law and public policy with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
[...]
What the Charter did, she explained, was to allow judges to strike down existing laws by declaring them to be unconstitutional, or “reading into” laws changes that had never been debated in Parliament.
Buckingham cited numerous examples of how the courts had used the Charter to liberalize abortion, homosexuality and pornography, among other issues.
[More at URL]
----- 21 -----
Talking Points: The Case For Marriage IV
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Faith and Freedom Network
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2006/03/talking-points-case-for-marriage-iv.html
A few other countries recognize same-sex marriage: Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium, and their societies have not crumbled as opponents say.
The Scandinavian countries provide evidence on the impact of same-sex marriage on the general society. In those countries, there is less marriage, more out-of-wedlock births, and extremely low birthrates. In making marriage inclusive to homosexuals, heterosexuals no longer view marriage as necessary, or meaningful, even to raise children.
[Editor's note: My rebuttal to this "talking point" is that lesbian and gay marriage made no difference whatsoever to the trendlines on any of these issues. It was true before, it was true after, showing - quite the opposite of what they say here - that it had no effect at all. It was, as they say, orthogonal. I would further say STOP BLAMING LESBIAN AND GAY PEOPLE FOR STRAIGHT PEOPLES' PROBLEMS.]
[More at URL]
----- 22 -----
Jeff Teichert Announces Candidacy for WA Court of Appeals
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Faith and Freedom Network
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2006/03/jeff-teichert-announces-candidacy-for.html
We recently received a letter from Jeff Teichert announcing his candidacy for the Washington Court of Appeals. I thought it was so good on the substantive issues that I am posting his letter here.
----------------------
[LETTER FROM JEFF TEICHERT]
I am a candidate for the Washington Court of Appeals. An appellate judge must have the ability to consistently apply general principles to specific facts and to reason and write coherently. I have spent most of my career writing briefs, which hones and develops these essential skills.
[More at URL]
----- 23 -----
Talking Points: The Case For Marriage V
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Faith and Freedom Network
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2006/03/talking-points-case-for-marriage-v.html
Don't children just need two loving parents?
That was a key argument for advocates of no-fault divorce laws thirty-years ago. Studies show that the love of parents cannot always mitigate the harmful effects of divorce. Kids need both their mom and dad because men and women are not interchangeable.
We recognize that a two-parent home may not always be possible. Certainly, a caring society should support and aid single-parent families, but a wise society should never intentionally create families without a mother or father.
[Editor's note: My rebuttal to this "talking point" would be that the government isn't creating families, people are; these families already exist. The government, by ignoring them and denying their rights, is harming those families and their children.]
[More at URL]
The Volokh Conspiracy has a link to the adoption report that the fundamentalists have already been attacking on the basis of who wrote it, not what it said;
Christianity Today features conference on how Christianity is "under attack" in the Culture War the fundamentalists started;
God, I hope this isn't true, but I suspect it is; McCain is mending fences with the fundamentalist right, reportedly talking about coming out for the Federal anti-marriage amendment;
Tom DeLay rolls out the "War on Christians" rhetoric, lining up Republicans on the side of Jesus; also, "The War on Christians" conference organiser claims DeLay lost his job as House Majority Leader specifically because he's a Christian; Gary Bauer specifically attacks the idea of liberty and pluralism: "And why are they confused? Because American Christians are attacked by "elites" who think America is "a country of unbridled liberty, different strokes for different folks."";
Focus on the Family covers the "War on Christians" conference;
Focus on the Family says, "Swing away" - it's time for a bunch of full-bore fundamentalist actions, particularly outright bans on abortion like in South Dakota;
Comprehensive abortion ban fails in Mississippi;
Focus on the Family rails against Michael Newdow; includes ACTION ITEM to write Congress and demand they recognise "the Christian heritage of the United States" and to support the "In God We Trust" motto;
FotF starts up a new line of attack, this time on vitamins and herbal supplements a "Hard Drug Link";
In "Bay State Bans Church from Adoption Biz," FotF accuses Massachusetts of religious persecution for requiring charities that act as agents of the state obey state anti-discrimination law; includes ACTION ITEM to support anti-marriage Federal amendment;
FotF crows about the major networks rejecting United Church of Christ ads again - meanwhile, they run Focus on the Family's ads; ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and the WB have all rejected the ad;
Rhode Island rejects "abstinence-only" education for a variety of reasons; Concerned Women for America blasts them for it;
CWA endorses Ed Bryant for Senate in Tennessee;
Focus on the Family support-quotes Life Dynamics calling research indicating that abortion has lead to a reduction in crime later in time "racially motivated";
American Family Association condemns Christian Educators Association for working with GSLEN on a compromise document for handling GBLT issues, says GLSEN is "a grave danger to our kids" and "all about advocating teenage homosexual sex," says gay people "threaten the very existence of our society";
Traditional Values Coalition urges African-American pastors to "defend their schools and legislature against the homosexual agenda";
TVC: San Francisco "declares war on Christianity";
Students expelled from a San Diego-area private Christian school suing over their expulsion;
Focus on the Family Canada reports on Canadian fundamentalist telling Jamaica: don't adopt a Charter of Rights and Freedoms like Canada's or you'll end up guaranteeing rights for queers and women who want the right to get an abortion;
Faith and Freedom Network repeats claim that marriage rights for gay and lesbian citizens destroyed marriage in Scandinavian countries; this is demonstrably false, but that doesn't stop it from being repeated; also includes other talking points against GBLT civil rights and marriage;
Faith and Freedom Network promotes Jeff Teichert for Washington State Court of Appeals judge - our judges are elected in Washington State - basically, he's a fundamentalist, used to be a full-time missionary (but does have a law degree), attacks judicial rulings that support GBLT families, others; [ETA: A couple of weeks later, Mr. Teichert found this entry and left a comment, which I have set public, and we've had a short discussion on matters political where he presents his views. The discussion thread is below, in the comments section.]
Another "Faith and Freedom Network" anti-marriage-rights talking point.
----- 1 -----
Havel for same-sex law
The Prague (Czech Republic) Monitor
Tuesday 28 March 2006
http://www.praguemonitor.com/ctk/?id=1679
Prague, March 25 (CTK) - Former president Vaclav Havel is very glad that last week, the Chamber of Deputies passed the law on registered partnership of the people with the same sex, Havel told CTK today.
"Though with a very tight margin, I am very glad that the legislation eventually made it through parliament," Havel told CTK.
The bill was vetoed by President Vaclav Klaus in February, but his veto was overridden by 101 out of the 200 members of the Chamber of Deputies. The legislation was chiefly opposed by the Christian Democrats and most deputies for the Civic Democratic Party (ODS).
"I was most intrigued in the debate by the absurd ideology advocated by the Christian Democrats and Klaus, who argue that family should have advantages since, unlike homosexual couples, it brings children to life. This is the concept of family as a sort of calf shed in which bulls can inseminate cows so that calves are born," Havel said.
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
New Report Supports Gay Adoptions
The Volokh Conspiracy
Dale Carpenter, March 29, 2006 at 11:36am
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_03_26-2006_04_01.shtml#1143650176
Some 16 or so states have been considering whether to ban adoptions by gay men and women. So far, only Florida categorically bans adoptions by homosexuals -- in a statute passed in 1977 during Anita Bryant's campaign against homosexuals. Meanwhile, some 119,000 kids await adoption in the U.S.
A report just released by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a prominent adoption policy group, makes the following findings:
**Against a backdrop of increasing public acceptance, social science research concludes that children reared by gay and lesbian parents fare comparably to those of children raised by heterosexuals on a range of measures of social and psychological adjustment.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Conference to Cover Cultural War on Christians
This is the first conference to cover every aspect of the cultural war on Christians -- including attacks by Hollywood, the news media, gay activist and leftist groups like the ACLU and Anti-Defamation League.
Posted: Wednesday, March 15 , 2006, 14:55 (UK)
Long URL elided
The War On Christians And The Values Voter in 2006 Conference will be held March 27-28 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C.
This is the first conference to cover every aspect of the cultural war on Christians -- including attacks by Hollywood, the news media, gay activist and leftist groups like the ACLU and Anti-Defamation League.
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
So Much for Straight Talk
BLOG | Posted 03/28/2006 @ 10:55am
Ari Berman
The Nation
So much for "straight talk." If you needed any more proof that the maverick John McCain will run as the ultimate insider come 2008, scroll down.
McCain, February 28, 2000, Virginia Beach, Virginia:
[...]
Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.
[...]
More from the Lynchburg, Virginia News & Advance:
Falwell said McCain's appearance at LU's graduation is another sign that McCain is wooing evangelical Christians.
"He is in the process of healing the breech with evangelical groups," Falwell said.
Falwell said McCain has expressed a willingness to support a Federal Marriage Amendment, an issue dear to conservative Christians.
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Redemption Among the Faithful
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; Page A02
Long URL elided
There are those who would say Tom DeLay lost his job as House majority leader because he was indicted by a Texas grand jury on charges of money laundering and conspiracy, or because of his extensive ties to lawbreaking lobbyist Jack Abramoff. But they would be wrong.
In fact, the Texas Republican fell from power because he is a Christian.
That, at least, is the view of Rick Scarborough, convener of a conference this week called "The War on Christians."
[...]
Long URL elided (to second page of article)
"This is a man that I believe God has appointed," Scarborough said, a view that might surprise the voters of the 22nd District of Texas. Scarborough, in his introduction, said DeLay had been "virtually destroyed in the press," and he urged the crowd to campaign for DeLay -- though he said nonprofit tax rules prevented him from actually "endorsing" DeLay.
The congressman started with a profession of faith, then went on a tour of the religious views of great presidents. He seemed to be on the verge of discussing his own troubles when he recalled Lincoln's view that men should "confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow."
But this was not the time for a DeLay confessional. Instead, he gave his view on the War on Christians. "Sides are being chosen, and the future of man hangs in the balance!" he warned. "The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will. . . . It is for us then to do as our heroes have always done and put our faith in the perfect redeeming love of Jesus Christ."
DeLay basked in the rapturous ovation that followed. "Keep your eyes on Jesus," Scarborough called after the fallen leader as he departed the stage.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
CHRISTIANS SHARE PERSECUTION STORIES
Conference features U.S. believers who have faced hostility for their faith.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
March 29, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039992.cfm
SUMMARY: D.C. conference features U.S. believers who have
faced hostility and oppression for their faith.
American Christians who have come under attack for their
faith shared their stories this week at a War on
Christians and Values Voters conference in Washington,
D.C.
Organizers noted that attacks on public displays of the
Ten Commandments, the celebration of Christmas and
attempts to marginalize core Christian beliefs are making
many of the faithful in America nervous about the future.
Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America, said the
stakes are high in the culture's battle against believers.
"If America is not healed, it will not be because liberal
ideas prevailed," he said. "It will be because the church
of America did not humble themselves and pray."
[...]
FOR MORE INFORMATION: In "Persecution: How Liberals Are
Waging War on Christianity," author David Limbaugh exposes
the subtle but pervasive discrimination against biblical
Christianity in our culture. Using real, sometimes
shocking, examples from Hollywood, public schools and
other venues, he shows how terms like "tolerance" and the
mythical "separation of church and state" have been used
to portray Christianity as repressive, ignorant and
offensive. This is a call to action for those who want to
exercise their right to influence popular culture and find
true religious freedom.
Long URL elided
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
COMMENTARY: SWING AWAY
It's time for pro-lifers to consider the home run.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
March 29, 2006
by Stuart Shepard, managing editor
http://www.family.org/cforum/commentary/a0039997.cfm
I kick my right foot twice to get the cleats to dig into
the batter's box. As the pitcher shakes off the catcher's
signals, I glance at the third-base coach. In the flurry
of decoys, I see him run two fingers down his left forearm
and tap his wrist twice.
Swing away.
The outfield scoreboard shows us down 5-4. A runner on
second. Two outs. Bottom of the ninth.
The flags in center field are blowing out. I tap the
outside of the plate, then raise my bat, fighting the urge
to grip it too tightly. The pitcher settles. The wind up.
The pitch.
As I start to swing, I realize it's not just the curve I'm
expecting, it's a hanging curve -- chest high. In the
split second before spinning orb meets flashing Louisville
Slugger, I realize the next likely home for this little
baseball will be clanging around in the left-field seats.
This is the moment where South Dakota is today, after all
but totally banning abortion.
This is the moment where eight other states hang today, as
they consider similar action.
[...]
As my brilliant coworker Carrie Gordon Earll recently
expressed, we don't need to apologize and we don't need to
be embarrassed for stating clearly what we are about.
Abortion hurts women and kills their children and we want
it to stop.
Now.
Period.
We want to win this thing. Not for team pride, not for a
fancy ring, but because life is a sacrosanct gift from
God.
[...]
But just as in baseball, there are unassailable officials
who will ultimately make the call whether it was a fair
ball. At this moment, five of them will likely rule
against us and four will rule in favor.
As fans in the stands and players on the field, we all
need to pray hard while the ball is still in the air that
we can get one more umpire-justice placed on the U.S.
Supreme Court to tilt the balance the other way. One in
the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts, who so
appropriately declared during his Senate hearings
"Justices are like umpires; umpires don't make the rules,
they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is
critical -- they make sure everybody plays by the rules."
As I write this, eight state legislatures still have some
form of abortion ban in play.
[...]
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky and Louisiana.
Swing away.
Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee.
Swing away.
America.
It's time to swing away.
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Mississippi Abortion Ban Won't Happen This Year
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
March 29, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
A bill to ban most abortions in Mississippi failed in the
Legislature late Monday when House and Senate negotiators
failed to agree on a version of the measure that pleased
both sides.
House members advocated a straightforward and near-total
ban on abortion, allowing exceptions only when the life of
the mother was in jeopardy. Senators wanted to add other
provisions to the bill, including a requirement that
doctors perform an ultrasound before an abortion and
another that would have protected the state's
informed-consent law should the ban ever be challenged in
court.
Sandy Ellard Middleton of the National Right to Life
Committee was disappointed by the outcome, telling The
Associated Press that the House had the better idea.
"All of this debate was so full of emotions, politics and
theatrics," she said. "This was good common-sense
legislation."
Had it passed, the ban would not have taken effect unless
and until the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade,
its 1973 decision that legalized abortion on demand.
----- 9 -----
LAWMAKERS FIGHT NATIONAL-MOTTO CHALLENGE
The man who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge is at it again.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
March 28, 2006
by Pete Winn, associate editor
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039984.cfm
SUMMARY: The man who tried to remove "under God" from the
Pledge of Allegiance is now going after "In God We Trust."
But pro-family senators and congressmen are pushing back.
Forty-seven members of Congress fired back today against
anti-religionist Michael Newdow's latest court case to try
to remove mention of God from the public square.
The lawmakers filed a friend-of-the-court brief in federal
district court in Sacramento, Calif., in support of the
U.S. government's request to dismiss Newdow's legal
challenge of the national motto, "In God We Trust."
"We believe the court should dismiss this lawsuit, which
has no basis in fact and presents another flawed attempt
to use the legal system for remove a legitimate reference
to the religious heritage of our country," said Jay
Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and
Justice (ACLJ) and the congressmen's attorney.
[...]
FOR MORE INFORMATION/TAKE ACTION: To find out who signed
on to the friend-of-the-court brief, visit the American
Center for Law and Justice Web site.
http://www.aclj.org/trialnotebook/read.aspx?id=336
Also, please lift up this case in prayer. It is important
that both the courts and our lawmakers remember the
Christian heritage of the United States. You also might
consider contacting your senators and congressman and
urging them to support the national motto. For contact
information, visit the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/ /
(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the
Family is for informational purposes only and does not
necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites'
content.)
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Herbal Supplement/Hard Drug Link Found
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
March 28, 2006
SUMMARY: Study finds that teens who take vitamins or
natural performance enhancers are more likely to use
cocaine or steroids.
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039979.cfm
A new Rochester University study has found that teens who
have used natural herbal supplements are several times
more likely to have used hard drugs.
The Youth Risk Behavior Survey, which was limited to teens
living in New York, revealed that those who have used
herbal products are six times more likely to have tried
cocaine and 15 times more likely to have used anabolic
steroids.
Herbal products can vary from dietary supplements, like
vitamins, to natural performance enhancers, like creatine.
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Bay State Bans Church from Adoption Biz
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
March 28, 2006
by Maggie Gallagher
SUMMARY: Massachusetts forces even agencies with moral
objections to place children in homes with same-sex
couples -- or lose their licenses.
http://www.family.org/cforum/commentary/a0039978.cfm
In Massachusetts this month, something extraordinary
happened. The government told the Catholic Charities, a
Christian adoption agency, it may not help children find
homes, unless it agrees to do gay adoptions.
This is not about government money. To run an adoption
agency in Massachusetts you need a license from the state.
To get a license you have to agree to place children with
same-sex couples. The bottom line, as the dean of Boston
College Law School put it in a March 14 column: "State
Puts Church Out of Adoption Biz."
This is not (or not just) about gay adoption. It’s about
the religious liberty of all Christians, and people of
other faiths. Can you be a good citizen, worthy to help
poor abandoned children find homes, and be faithful to
traditional Christian sexual teaching? No. Not in
Massachusetts. Not any longer. Christians in Massachusetts
are being told by their government they are "pariahs."
Not even the suffering of some of our most marginal and
vulnerable children moves the hearts of government leaders
there. Gov. Mitt Romney asked the Legislature for a state
religious exemption so Catholic Charities could continue
to help babies. But no other political figure in
Massachusetts will stand up for religious liberty or the
needs of children.
It’s not just Massachusetts. At least 20 states have
similar anti-discrimination laws on orientation. What
makes Massachusetts unique, though, is that in these other
states, Christian organizations can run adoption agencies
that specialize in placing children in married homes.
But, of course, in Massachusetts, since the courts
legalized gay marriage, that now means same-sex couple
homes.
[...]
TAKE ACTION: The Religious Coalition for Marriage offers a
partially pre-written letter you can send to your U.S.
senators urging them to support the Marriage Protection
Amendment. You can find it at the link below.
http://www.rcm.org/index.php
Should you wish to compose your own letter from scratch,
visit the CitizenLink Action Center and type your ZIP code
into the space provided.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/
(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the
Family is for informational purposes only and does not
necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites'
content.)
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Liberal Denomination's Latest Ad Rejected
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
March 28, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
A new ad from the ultraliberal United Church of Christ
(UCC) suggesting that more conservative churches forcibly
and physically eject blacks, Arabs, the elderly and
homosexuals from their pews has been rejected by all major
TV networks.
The ad, titled "Ejector Seat," begins with a shot of a
black mother trying to calm a crying baby while sitting in
a church pew. She fidgets anxiously, enduring disapproving
looks from fellow worshippers, until someone in the wings
pushes an "ejector" button to rid the church of her -- and
her noisy baby.
Similar mistreatment is heaped upon a homosexual couple
and a person with a walker.
ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and the WB have all refused to air the
ad, according to a UCC news release, while several cable
networks will broadcast it beginning Monday.
UCC earned similar notoriety in December 2004 with an ad
depicting a bouncer preventing homosexuals and minorities
from entering a church.
----- 13 -----
Abstinence Education Banned
Concerned Women for America
3/28/2006
By Janice Shaw Crouse
Rhode Island educator ignores that teen sex can be a life or death matter.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10410/BLI/education/index.htm
In Rhode Island, Education Commissioner Peter McWalters issued a directive forbidding schools in the state to use Abstinence programs or materials. The official ban declares that Abstinence programs violate student rights, contain sexist stereotypes and marginalize homosexual teens.
In a supportive statement, the president of Advocates for Youth, James Wagoner, claims that abstinence programs are “bad science” as well as “bad policy.” Further, Wagoner declared that abstinence programs operate without “oversight” and that they are a “blatant violation of medical ethics and basic human rights.” Unbelievably, Wagoner accused the abstinence initiatives of censoring and taking a position: “stay pure or we don’t care about you.” Calling federal funding for abstinence programs a “national scandal,” Wagoner asked Congress for an immediate moratorium on spending for the programs.
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
Bryant hopes coalitions top money, recognition
By John Rodgers, jrodgers@nashvillecitypaper.com
The City Paper (Nashville, Tennessee)
March 29, 2006
Long URL elided
While his two opponents have an edge in either fund raising or name recognition, U.S. Senate hopeful Ed Bryant hopes social and economic conservatives will help him win August’s Republican primary.
Social conservative groups like the Tennessee Right to Life and Concerned Women for America, and fiscally conservative GOP leaders like U.S. Senators Trent Lott (R-MS) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) have endorsed Bryant’s candidacy, which became official Tuesday when he filed to run.
“That’s the Republican Party,” Bryant said while campaigning in Nashville Tuesday. “You are either a social conservative, an economic conservative, or you’re both.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
Abortion-Crime Link Suggested Again
by Josh Montez
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
March 29, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0039986.cfm
In 1999, Yale law professor John Donohue authored a report saying abortion reduces crime because potential criminals are killed before getting a chance to lead a lawless life. Steve Sailer with the American Conservative contends there are flaws in the research.
[...]
Sailer says the research clearly shows that crime increased among the generation born after Roe v. Wade, blowing Donohue’s theory out of the water. Wendy Wright with Concerned Women for America thinks Donohue has an agenda.
[...]
But there’s another concern with the research, Mark Crutcher with Life Dynamics says it is racially motivated.
[More at URL]
----- 16 -----
Pro-Family Lawyer Criticizes Christian Educators' Collaboration With GLSEN
By Jim Brown
American Family Association/Agape Press
March 28, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/afa/282006d.asp
(AgapePress) - A Christian attorney is denouncing a new agreement reached between a homosexual advocacy group and the Christian Educators Association on how to deal with the issue of sexual orientation in public schools.
The Christian Educators Association International (CEAI) and the pro-homosexual Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) have collaborated on a document called "Public Schools and Sexual Orientation: A First Amendment Framework for Finding Common Ground." The document urges school officials to "take seriously complaints of name calling, harassment, and discrimination," and to avoid discriminating against student clubs because of their political or religious message. (See earlier article)
Steve Crampton, chief counsel with the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy (AFA Law Center), finds the collaboration between the Christian group and the homosexual advocacy group disturbing. He says while he supports civil debate on issues relating to homosexuality, he has serious concerns about Christian educators coming to the table with a group like GLSEN.
"I think GLSEN is a grave danger to our kids," Crampton explains, "and so, to the extent you reach out the hand of friendship, or in this case, 'common ground,' you are doing a disservice to the community, and especially to the innocent kids in that community."
The pro-family attorney says Christians have no business legitimizing a group that is "all about advocating teenage homosexual sex." AFA Law Center litigators "have been involved in matters that have grown out of GLSEN conferences, in which graphic descriptions and instructions in homosexual sexual practices have taken place under GLSEN's purview, indeed sometimes with taxpayer dollars at stake," he contends.
[...]
The AFA Center for Law & Policy has been battling GLSEN's agenda for years, an agenda that promotes what Crampton describes as "a sinful and destructive lifestyle that threatens the very existence of our society." He questions whether a Christian organization like CEAI should be seeking "common ground" with such an organization.
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
TVC Chairman Holds Marriage Summit At Prominent African-American Church
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2663
March 30, 2006 – Rev. Louis P. Sheldon held a Marriage Summit at Kingdom Builders Christian Center in Norcross, Georgia, last weekend to urge African-American pastors and lay leaders to defend their schools and legislature against the homosexual agenda.
Kingdom Builders Pastor Jamie T. Pleasant, Ph.D., is taking a leadership role with TVC in helping monitor school districts and the legislature to make certain that homosexual activists do not highjack the Civil Rights Movement.
According to Rev. Sheldon, “There is a growing concern among African-Americans that homosexuals are trying to claim protected minority status and are highjacking the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement. They realize that their struggle for equality can be lost to history if homosexuals continue to compare their agenda to that of African-Americans.”
[...]
TAKE ACTION: If your state does not yet have a marriage amendment that includes bans on civil unions or domestic partnerships, urge your state legislators to pass one. Use TVC’s materials on marriage to educate your legislators and pastors on this important issue. Access TVC’s Special Reports section on our web site for these reports: Special Reports.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
San Francisco Declares War On Christianity
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2661
March 30, 2006 – The city of San Francisco leadership and radical leftwing organizations have declared open war against Christianity in recent weeks.
The Board of Supervisors voted on March 22 to approve a non-binding resolution that condemns the Catholic Church for its opposition to homosexual adoption. The resolution said that the church’s anti-homosexual adoption policy was “hateful and discriminatory rhetoric (that) is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors.”
The resolution also noted: “It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city’s existing and established customs and traditions, such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need.”
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
Judge allows expelled lesbians to sue Christian school
SIGNONSANDIEGO NEWS SERVICES
11:02 a.m. March 28, 2006
Long URL elided
RIVERSIDE – A judge allowed a lawsuit filed by the guardians of two suspected lesbians to proceed against a Christian school that expelled them, but the resolution of the case is likely months away.
[...]
Kirk Hanson, one of the San Diego lawyers for the parents and the teenage girls who sued the Wildomar private high school, said Tuesday morning that he will begin trying to obtain documents from the other side in the coming weeks, under the legal discovery process, and will begin deposing witnesses.
Hanson was in court in Riverside Monday to counter a defense contention that the federal Constitution's freedom of religion guarantee trumps the state's civil rights act, which the plaintiffs have invoked.
[...]
The defense had hoped to stop the case dead in its tracks by arguing that the federal freedom of religious association guarantee takes precedence over California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which bars a business from discriminating – among other things – on the basis of sexual orientation, Hanson said.
The school contends it had to bar the girls because of their sexual behavior, which is “un-Christian” and thus antithetical to CLHS's code of conduct, and disruptive to the education of the other students.
[More at URL]
----- 20 -----
Canadian lawyer warns Jamaicans on rights charter
Focus on the Family Canada
Today's Family news
March 29, 2006
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/misc/032906.html
A Canadian Christian lawyer is cautioning Jamaicans not to follow Canada’s example and craft a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that could dramatically alter their country’s legal and social landscape, The Jamaica Gleaner reported.
“Twenty-five years ago [when the Charter came into effect], none in Canada anticipated the kind of changes the Charter would bring,” said Janet Epp Buckingham, director of law and public policy with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
[...]
What the Charter did, she explained, was to allow judges to strike down existing laws by declaring them to be unconstitutional, or “reading into” laws changes that had never been debated in Parliament.
Buckingham cited numerous examples of how the courts had used the Charter to liberalize abortion, homosexuality and pornography, among other issues.
[More at URL]
----- 21 -----
Talking Points: The Case For Marriage IV
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Faith and Freedom Network
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2006/03/talking-points-case-for-marriage-iv.html
A few other countries recognize same-sex marriage: Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium, and their societies have not crumbled as opponents say.
The Scandinavian countries provide evidence on the impact of same-sex marriage on the general society. In those countries, there is less marriage, more out-of-wedlock births, and extremely low birthrates. In making marriage inclusive to homosexuals, heterosexuals no longer view marriage as necessary, or meaningful, even to raise children.
[Editor's note: My rebuttal to this "talking point" is that lesbian and gay marriage made no difference whatsoever to the trendlines on any of these issues. It was true before, it was true after, showing - quite the opposite of what they say here - that it had no effect at all. It was, as they say, orthogonal. I would further say STOP BLAMING LESBIAN AND GAY PEOPLE FOR STRAIGHT PEOPLES' PROBLEMS.]
[More at URL]
----- 22 -----
Jeff Teichert Announces Candidacy for WA Court of Appeals
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Faith and Freedom Network
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2006/03/jeff-teichert-announces-candidacy-for.html
We recently received a letter from Jeff Teichert announcing his candidacy for the Washington Court of Appeals. I thought it was so good on the substantive issues that I am posting his letter here.
----------------------
[LETTER FROM JEFF TEICHERT]
I am a candidate for the Washington Court of Appeals. An appellate judge must have the ability to consistently apply general principles to specific facts and to reason and write coherently. I have spent most of my career writing briefs, which hones and develops these essential skills.
[More at URL]
----- 23 -----
Talking Points: The Case For Marriage V
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Faith and Freedom Network
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2006/03/talking-points-case-for-marriage-v.html
Don't children just need two loving parents?
That was a key argument for advocates of no-fault divorce laws thirty-years ago. Studies show that the love of parents cannot always mitigate the harmful effects of divorce. Kids need both their mom and dad because men and women are not interchangeable.
We recognize that a two-parent home may not always be possible. Certainly, a caring society should support and aid single-parent families, but a wise society should never intentionally create families without a mother or father.
[Editor's note: My rebuttal to this "talking point" would be that the government isn't creating families, people are; these families already exist. The government, by ignoring them and denying their rights, is harming those families and their children.]
[More at URL]
no subject
Date: 2006-03-30 04:56 pm (UTC)McCain, like most of the Republicans running, would be a disaster in the culture war, extending the Bush administration's support of the religious right. He needs to be called on it until people--specifically liberals and moderates who have been fooled and still admire him--realize his reputation is a sham. He's a personable and funny guy with real media savvy, but he'd be a poor president.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-30 07:02 pm (UTC)A tropical paradise. There is a warm, scented breeze. The food is rich and spicy, and wonderful fruits are everywhere for you to pluck. Every day is a sunny day, never any work. You begin the day hot and bothered, and by nightfall your body is a critical mass of breeding urges. All night you can hear the waves making love to the sandy beaches.
And...
...every single person there is another homophobe of the same sex as you.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-31 02:31 am (UTC)Jeff Teichert for Court of Appeals
Date: 2006-04-18 06:25 pm (UTC)A recent posting on this website characterizes me as "basically . . . a fundamentalist," because I "used to be a full-time missionary" and states that I "attack[] judicial rulings that support GBLT families, others[.]" This is incorrect for two reasons.
First, it makes the all too common assumption that because I am a person of faith, and demonstrated that faith by serving as a missionary, that I must be a religious nut. The posting seems to make the assumption that deep religious belief demonstrated by service should disqualify a person from participating in politics. That idea would have precluded Rev. Martin Luther King, whom I admire, from leading the Civil Rights movement. It would have prevented Pope John Paul II, whom I also admire, from leading the movement to liberate eastern Europe during the Cold War. Deep religious belief is not a bad thing and should not disqualify someone from participating in our democracy. The idea that people were created in the image of God was the theological justification given by John Milton and other Puritan theologians for the idea that people are, by nature, free and equal, and not meant to be subject to Kings. That fundamental idea inspired both Dr. King and Pope John Paul II.
Second, I have publicly criticized one opinion (concurred in by my opponent) discussing gay and lesbian relationships. That case is Carvin v. Britain, 121 Wn. App. 460, 89 P.3d 271 (2004). My criticism of that case is not its outcome, but its judicial method. The case created de facto parental rights for the former lesbian partner of a parent who subsequently left the relationship and married the child's father. The Court admitted that "under the plain language of the Uniform Parentage Act as amended in 2002," the former partner "has no cause of action." But the Court went on to create one out of whole cloth stating (with no evidence whatever) that "We think . . . that the Legislature intended to leave such matters to the common law, which is the province of the courts." To put it plainly, the judges openly admitted that they were legislating from the bench to solve a problem rather than following the law as written.
The Carvin case is a classic example of the courts taking the opportunity to legislate regarding social issues. Political movements are fond of criticizing the results in particular court cases based on whether or not they agree with the result from a policy perspective. But the courts should not be in the business of deciding whether a particular policy is wise--only whether it is legal.
The state recently enacted a gay and lesbian civil rights law. Unless someone can persuade me that it is unconstitutional, it will be my duty to enforce it according to its intent, whether I personally agree or disagree with it--and I would do so without hesitation. So the issue in my criticizing the Carvin case has little to do with "gay rights." It has everything to do with interpreting the law according to its intended meaning and not legislating from the bench to further a particular social policy agenda. The essence of our Constitution is that it recognizes the sovereignty of the people. If the judges make the law, our democracy is in danger, even if you happen to like the outcomes of some of their decisions.
Please consider this response carefully before making further unfounded claims about my candidacy or views.
Sincere Regards,
JEFFREY B. TEICHERT
Candidate for the Washington Court of Appeals
Re: Jeff Teichert for Court of Appeals
Date: 2006-04-18 07:55 pm (UTC)Thank you for taking the time to write. You're the first person I've ever posted about in a CWU to respond in any way. I will have an extended response to this note, but first, let me state that I do not consider my claims to be "unfounded," and, as I linked directly to the letter you sent to Faith and Freedom Network, an avowedly evangelical religious and clearly fundamentalist political organisation, I feel that my readers are capable of taking that letter and offering their own interpretations. No one has told me that they consider the assertions unfounded, either, but regardless: this is why I always provide original source material and links to the complete context, if available. In this case, it clearly was, and I have verified that the text of your letter to FFN is still online.
(I am going to go ahead and include it in a separate response here, for ease of reference. See next comment.)
I'll reply again this evening, with more details. I just wanted to get it out that I had, in fact, telephoned you and verified that you are the actual author of the comment.
Letter, full text, as posted to FFN's blog. (part 1)
Date: 2006-04-18 11:41 pm (UTC)I am a candidate for the Washington Court of Appeals. An appellate judge must have the ability to consistently apply general principles to specific facts and to reason and write coherently. I have spent most of my career writing briefs, which hones and develops these essential skills.
During my twelve-year career in the legal profession, I have filed briefs in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeal for the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, the Washington Court of Appeals, and a variety of other state and federal courts and administrative agencies. As a law clerk for the Chief Justice of American Samoa, I assisted in preparing approximately 100 published judicial opinions over a two-year period. My career has provided excellent preparation for service on the Court of Appeals.
After six years in the profession, I took a year away from active law practice to attend The George Washington University Law School to pursue a Master of Laws (LLM) degree with an emphasis in British and early American constitutional history and environmental law. During that year, I spent a great deal of time studying theological influences on the development of rights theory. That year away from active law practice provided me with an invaluable opportunity to take stock of everything I believed and everything that I had learned. Too often, lawyers are so busy mastering the details of a particular specialty and serving the specific needs of their clients, that they don’t have the time to think about the big picture—which is how their important work affects our foundational values of liberty, equality and justice. I devoted a year of my productive life to that effort because I believe in freedom. I will be a better and more thoughtful Judge for it.
The foregoing paragraphs demonstrate my qualifications to serve on the Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, voters cannot be solely concerned with the qualifications of a judicial candidate. In America today, a candidate’s judicial philosophy matters immensely. In recent, well-publicized cases, judges have held that God should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance; that a City could take private property and give it to a developer simply to increase tax revenue; and that a child rapist should serve only sixty days in jail.
But judicial activism is not limited to a few well-publicized examples. Our own Washington Courts are increasingly buying into the idea that the law is a flexible instrument for Judges to use as they see fit in solving society’s problems. That idea is insulting to the sovereignty of a free people. I became a lawyer because I deeply believed in the Constitution and wanted to play a role in protecting it. I want to be a Judge to ensure that our Constitution continues to mean something. It has charted our course in centuries past—and we must be vigilant to ensure that it continues to guide us for generations to come.
For those of us who value our families, our faith, and our freedom, this election is a very serious matter. Recent decisions by the courts have thrown down the gauntlet to those of us who love this country and the principles upon which it was founded. Among the most important of these principles is a “government of laws and not of men.”[1] This idea is simply that the law, and not the arbitrary and unpredictable will of a person, should govern.
This foundational principle was fundamentally shaken when my opponent and two of her colleagues on the Court of Appeals ignored the plain language of the Uniform Parentage Act to create “de facto” parental rights for the former lesbian partner of a mother,[2] even though they admitted that the former partner had no claim to parental rights under the Act.
Letter, full text, as posted to FFN's blog. (part 2)
Date: 2006-04-18 11:42 pm (UTC)In another case,[3] my opponent reversed a double murder conviction, stating that the accused did not get a fair trial because prosecution witnesses testified that they had been threatened by unidentified persons and were fearful about testifying, and because a spectator at trial pretended to shoot a witness with his finger. (Fortunately, the decision was reversed by the Supreme Court by a vote of 8-1.[4])
In another recent case, my opponent showed her contempt for property rights by refusing compensation for the state’s destruction of thirty-two acres of trees to combat possible infestation by one female beetle. The Court said that compensation was not required because, “This action was an injury to their property, but it did not reduce it to an irreclaimable desert.”[5] According to my opponent, apparently no property can be “damaged” within the meaning of our state Constitution unless it is totally and permanently destroyed. She confirmed that position in another case where she held that a physical invasion of sewage from government lagoons was not sufficient damage to require compensation unless the flooding was permanent.[6]
Judges should not be in the business of being for or against things. But I am unapologetically for the Constitution—a Constitution that is being undermined by the political agendas of too many of our judges. As a Judge it will not be my duty to make moral judgments for this country or this state. But it will be my duty to assure that the Constitution remains the enduring foundation of our brilliant democracy, and does not drift on the waves of intellectual fad or judicial arrogance.
With the support of law enforcement, community leaders, and concerned citizens like you we WILL WIN this battle on September 19th. These issues are too crucial and the future is too important to allow for anything other than total victory.
In my private life, I have served as a full-time missionary in Australia, a father and husband in my home, President of the Young Men’s organization at my church and a Scout Leader. As a lawyer, I have worked tirelessly to defend the rights of private property owners and small business people. God, family and country are the three great loyalties upon which I have tried to build my life. These are the same values upon which our founders built the dream of America.
Please join with me on this patriotic journey and raise your voice with mine in defense of these values and institutions. Stand with me in defense of our country’s Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and our state Constitution. Let us be eternally vigilant in defense of these fundamental charters that they may shine forever as the brightest jewels in liberty’s crown. These values and these documents have charted our course in centuries past. God grant that they will remain our guiding stars for generations to come.
[1] Massachusetts Const., art. 30 sec. 1 (1780); see also James Harrington, The Commonwealth of Oceana 8 (J.G.A. Pocock ed., Cambridge 2001)(1656).
[2] Carvin v. Britain, 121 Wn. App. 460, 89 P.3d 271 (2004).
[3] State v. Bourgeois, 82 Wn. App. 314, 917 P.2d 1101 (1996).
[4] State v. Bourgeois, 133 Wn.2d 389, 945 P.2d 1120 (1997).
[5] In the Matter of Property Located at: 14255 53rd Ave S. Tukwila, King County, WA, 120 Wn. App. 737, 86 P.3d 222 (2004).
[6] Bodin v. Stanwood, 79 Wn. App. 313, 901 P.2d 1065 (1995).
Re: Jeff Teichert for Court of Appeals
Date: 2006-04-19 12:38 am (UTC)However, you appear to be running as a fundamentalist for political purposes, and I do consider that reason for serious concern. You highlight your time spent as a "full-time missionary" in Australia. You invoke religion at several points in your letter as both qualification and implied reason to support you. You further write about how you "spent a great deal of time studying theological influences on the development of rights theory," invoking by implication the "Christian Nation" concept they so adore. Most importantly to me personally, where you list the kind of cases you deplore, you list fundamentalist causes first out of the gate, one of which targets me. And I assure you that the fundamentalist criticism of any of these sorts of cases has very little to do with actual legal justification and a whole lot to do with keeping GBLT people from having family rights. And, of course, you're repeatedly invoking the usual "judicial tyranny" hobbyhorses - tho' I do note you don't actually use that term itself, preferring the less common but still popular "judicial arrogance."
All of these are the kinds of rhetorical signatures I am used to seeing from the fundamentalist right. In my experience, people combining these signatures in this way overwhelmingly turn out to act, in policy and when executing law, according to those beliefs. Overwhelmingly.
Indeed, your first counterclaim - that I think you should be disqualified from office because of your religion, something I did not say - is a common method of gaining sympathy within the movement. Claiming religious persecution to dismay and confuse opponents - and put them on the defensive - is a tactic that I have documented extensively in my Cultural Warfare Updates. Your employment of it only deepens my concern about your intended agenda.
It is counter-indicative that you spend a lot of time talking about property rights. You're clearly passionate about that; maybe even moreso than the other issues you bring up. I would like to hope so; I deplore (and you can find this elsewhere on my blog) the Kelo v. New London case, and cases like it. But you list this after the other issues, and, given who you have been courting, I am led to believe that the order matters.
Finally, let's look at your support framework. You've been endorsed (offered help on your campaign by) the "Constitutional Law PAC," which is, as far as I can tell, largely a construction of the Christian right, which is absolutely and explicitly intent on legislating their religious views in law. CLPAC has, by example, sought and received support from the Christian Coalition of Washington State. (Source: The Seattle P-I.) You personally sought and received at least rhetorical support from the Faith and Freedom Network, a fundamentalist-right political organisation, as above. You also have received the de facto endorsement of the Skagit County GOP (Source: The Skagit County GOP Chair's Corner), which once would not have implied anything bad, but these days is an unfortunate indicator of support for a religious agenda.
(No, I'm not a Democrat. As a former King County Republican Delegate - Forbes in '96, McCain in 2000 - I'm afraid to say that the party has become largely a religious party.)
My estimations of your candidacy and likely agenda in office may be errant. Indeed, I rather hope they are. I would very much like to see a return to sanity in the GOP. However, I think I have demonstrated that whether or not they prove to be accurate, they are not, in any way, unfounded.
Re: Jeff Teichert for Court of Appeals
Date: 2006-04-20 02:23 am (UTC)Re: Jeff Teichert for Court of Appeals
Date: 2006-04-19 02:08 am (UTC)Judges are there to judge. Legislators are there to legislate. People need to LEARN that.
Re: Jeff Teichert for Court of Appeals
Date: 2006-04-19 06:30 pm (UTC)I am not "running as a fundamentalist for political purposes." I freely admit that I have reached out to people of faith of all political persuasions. That was natural because I am a person of faith and relate to the frustration that many have felt when meaningful debate over controversial social issues has been foreclosed by judicial rulings that aren't really based on the Constitution. My reference to my missionary service tells you that I am a person of faith, which other people of faith might relate to. It was a bit of personal information to tell people who I am. Do not read more into it than that. My message to the Faith and Freedom Network was not in "code" nor intended to convey a hidden agenda.
My statement about studying the theological influences on the development of rights theory was not intended to invoke the idea of a theocratic Christian nation. But it would be revisionist history to suggest that theology did not play a significant part in the founding and the development of ideas about rights in England in the centuries preceding the founding. I am writing my master's thesis on that subject because it interests me. It was not merely a well-placed reference intended to score a few political points with a constituency. While I cannot claim that all of my thoughts and writing on the subject are original, I have done my own thinking on the subject and do not simply buy in to a series of political platitudes. (While I am on the subject, I think that Justice Scalia's decision in Oregon Employment Division v. Smith misunderstands our traditions regarding religious freedom and is not sufficiently protective of our rights in general.)
Your posting suggests that the order in which I listed the sample cases has some significance. It does not. No "rhetorical signature" was intended by listing the Carvin case first. My earlier posting explains my objection to the Carvin case, and does not differ in substance from my discussion of the case in my letter to the Faith and Freedom Network. The Court frankly admitted that it was legislating from the bench and I deplore that.
The frustration felt by many people who disagree with you on the policy issue was that the opportunity to decide the issue was taken away from the voters and their elected representatives by a panel of judges that was not truly representative of a brod cross-section of our state. Those people didn't get to have their say because the Court effectively told them that their opinion was irrelevant. In Carvin, the Court didn't even try to tie its decision to the Constitution. They just invented legal principles by inexplicably finding principles in the common law that were never there before--and would have been superceded by statute even if they had been there. This time, your viewpoint won the victory in court. But next time you might not win. Eventually, you'll get an activist decision that you absolutely hate (Kelo?) and wonder where it came from. It comes from the fact that people tolerate activist judges who they happen to agree with on policy issues. You can't embrace judicial activism when you like the outcome and then deplore and criticize it when you dislike the outcome.
It is incorrect that you "did not say" that I should be disqualified from office because of my religious convictions. You labled me a "fundamentalist" and used the term perjoratively to convince your audience that I should be dismissed as a creation of the religious right. At face value it indicated an intolerance for people with strong religious convictions.
Re: Jeff Teichert for Court of Appeals
Date: 2006-04-20 01:12 am (UTC)No, it's not. Disqualified from office means you shouldn't be allowed to hold the office. That you can't hold the office and should not be allowed to hold the office. I said nothing of the sort.
You labled me a "fundamentalist" and used the term perjoratively to convince your audience that I should be dismissed as a creation of the religious right.
From the evidence available to me, as I pointed out in detail, above that's what you looked like to me at the time. I've explained my reasoning and I think, given the data then at hand, I think it was valid.
I now think you're more of a property-rights activist, tho' I am still very worried that you actively court people who would actively prefer to return me to the status of stranger-before-the-law, as was often held before Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. (Behind Roe, it is, in my extensive experience monitoring fundamentalist political action, the most commonly-objected-to decision on the Federal level, and is routinely held up as a prime example of "judicial tyranny" and "judicial arrogance." Kelo is third, maybe fourth.)
At face value it indicated an intolerance for people with strong religious convictions.
I do have quite a bit of intolerance towards those who have no tolerance for me. However, that's independent of religion. Too often these days, "strong religious convictions" is also used as a code phrase indicating, "strong anti-GBLT views." Seriously, I'm not pulling this out of my ass. I'm not an athiest; I have several people on my friends list with strong Christian religious convictions; I voted for such a person in the Kenmore city council elections, because that person, when I talked with her, convinced me she wasn't going to extend those moral beliefs into law.
The frustration felt by many people who disagree with you on the policy issue was that the opportunity to decide the issue was taken away from the voters and their elected representatives by a panel of judges that was not truly representative of a brod cross-section of our state.
One can certainly get into a broader issue of questions of the common law you yourself mention, and the prima facie existence of a family in fact, if not in law. I mean, it's not like we haven't had rulings like this for heterosexual unmarried unbiologically-related families. Those haven't created a huge stir. Yet on the other hand, this case does. The key difference is that this case involved two lesbians, and the reason that's a key difference, when push really comes to shove, is because some of us believe we are equal citizens, and some people don't.
(Similarly, there's room for an entire separate debate on whether rights - such as equal treatment under the law - can ever be voted on at all, in the sense of being "voted into existence," or whether such a vote is simply to recognise those rights (under natural law) or violate those rights by imposing laws which restrict them - but that starts getting pretty heavily theoretical. I'll simply note that Loving v. Virginia didn't have majority popular support for decades after it came down, and Brown v. Board of Education would never have survived a popular vote.)
Re: Jeff Teichert for Court of Appeals
Date: 2006-04-19 06:31 pm (UTC)I agree with you that Kelo was incorrectly decided and misunderstands the purposes of eminent domain authority. I also agree with the dissenting opinion of Justices Johnson and Sanders in the Seattle Monorail Authority case, 121 P.3d 1166 (2005), where our state Supreme Court unfortunately made a decision similar to Kelo, and allowed the monorail authority to condemn more property that it needed and sell the surplus to the highest bidder at a handsome profit. They did so by giving deference to the Seattle Monorail Authority's assertion that the intended use of the property was "public" even though the plain language of our state Constitution expressly tells the court not to give deference to any legislative assertion that the use is public. So I don't think that the term "judicial arrogance" is a hobbyhorse. I think that the judges in that case wanted the government to have broad eminent domain authority, so they gave it to them even thought the Constitution said otherwise.
You suggest that the reader "look at [my] support framework" and suggest that the Constitutional Law PAC is a creation of the Christian right. That is simply wrong. The Chair of that PAC is Senator Slade Gorton who is thought by many to be a relatively moderate Republican, and is not closely identified with the Christian right. I know that the Seattle PI characterized it as "right-wing" but that was inaccurate. As I understand it, the Constitutional Law PAC's primary principles are a more balanced approach to criminal justice, protecting property rights, and interpreting the Constitution and law according to its intent. Those are mainstream conservative ideas and ideas that I believe in. (By the way, I don't think that the Constitutional Law PAC has yet formally endorsed anyone and I do not speak for them.)
While I am happy to have people know that I am a person of faith, your statements that would characterize me as a puppet for the ideology of the Christian right is inaccurate and fundamentally unfair. I have reached out to people of faith who feel disenfranchised by activist judicial decisions, and it is appropriate for me to do so. But they are not the only constituency from which I have asked for support. If you look at my endorsement list (www.jeffforjudge.com), it includes two sheriffs (one of them a Democrat), a police chief, a State Supreme Court Justice, a former United States Senator and Attorney General, three state legislators and members of the County Council and others. My support structure is very broad. And if you are serious about not wanting judges to legislate from the bench, my support framework should include YOU--even though you may have liked the outcome of some of my opponent's activist decisions from a policy perspective.
Again, this posting will probably be my last. It's been fun.
JEFF TEICHERT
Candidate for the Washington Court of Appeals
Re: Jeff Teichert for Court of Appeals
Date: 2006-04-20 02:19 am (UTC)I agree. However;
I agree with you that Kelo was incorrectly decided and misunderstands the purposes of eminent domain authority.
But it's not without precedent. That's the thing. C.f. the history of railroad construction in the western United States during the 19th century. (This isn't an excuse; a lot of Constitutional protections were ignored during the 19th century.)
(I would support a Federal constitutional amendment to overrule the effects of Kelo, fwiw. I said so at the time.)
I think that the judges in that case wanted the government to have broad eminent domain authority, so they gave it to them even thought the Constitution said otherwise.
Heh. C.f. "emergency legislation." I don't think a baseball stadium is an "emergency." But can we call that "legislative arrogance," since it was a legislative action?
You suggest that the reader "look at [my] support framework"
Actually, that was me, looking at your support framework. I was outlining my thought process on the matter; the case I was trying to prove was that I had coherent reasons for the conclusion I reached, and that therefore, said conclusion wasn't baseless. I saw things that led me to a conclusion.
and suggest that the Constitutional Law PAC is a creation of the Christian right. That is simply wrong.
The problem is that the only group I've seen them go to that has been talked about that I found when I looked was the Christian Coalition, and it was in a context where I'd found that after you went looking for support from FFN. Slade is certainly not a fundamentalist, so now the key question for me is whether this PAC will fund people to serve those masters. I am very much worried that it will, because of whom it has asked for support.
You listed three things as really core rights above: Life, liberty, and property. I agree that these are the core rights. But the fundamentalist political movement - as exemplified by groups such as Focus on the Family/Focus on the Family Action, Concerned Women for America, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and the Faith and Freedom Network, and others - are strongly interested in taking the second, and in some cases the first, away from me. Hopefully, given this, you can see the weight of my concern!
I know that the Seattle PI characterized it as "right-wing" but that was inaccurate.
Okay.
While I am happy to have people know that I am a person of faith, your statements that would characterize me as a puppet for the ideology of the Christian right is inaccurate and fundamentally unfair.
I hope it is inaccurate. I think given the data I had available to me, it was not unfair. And since you've shown up, I've certainly tried to give you all the room you've wanted to present your case.
My support structure is very broad. And if you are serious about not wanting judges to legislate from the bench, my support framework should include YOU--even though you may have liked the outcome of some of my opponent's activist decisions from a policy perspective.
See above. I have multiple horses in this race, or, depending upon how you look at it, none. In a typical race, I am voting for the lesser of two evils (or the least of three), and I will generally vote for the side not allying itself with and seeking the support of the fundamentalist movement. All you have to do is search my 100% original source material cultural warfare updates - skip my summaries at the top, go straight to their words - and imagine them applying to you. I care for my property, but honestly, for the time being, I fear more for my status as a citizen.
Re: Jeff Teichert for Court of Appeals
Date: 2006-04-22 10:09 pm (UTC)If he really wants to make his point understood, he should step up and speak to the point at hand. Tell us, the GLBT community, whether he feels we should be second-class citizens, or even if he feels we should all be jailed, stoned, or done away with, as all of the groups we are talking about here do.