Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Apr. 7th, 2006 01:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdNote that I've been providing some rebuttals to the anti-GBLT "talking points" that Faith and Freedom has been putting out - see the actual article bits below. Fun articles today include Focus on the Family's condemnation of a California bill that would require state public school texts and lesson plans not be anti-gay, and an absolutely stunning number of action items.
Focus on the Family story on the Boy Scouts and Federal facilities;
FotF upset that Minnesota did not pass an anti-marriage amendment out of the Senate;
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) announces support for marriage rights for gay and lesbian people;
Arizona legislature passes "fetal pain" measure, requiring doctors to tell women that "preborn babies can feel pain";
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM against a California legislature bill requiring that public school textbooks and teaching plans not include anti-GBLT lessons; FotF's quote is that public school teachings not "adversely affect persons because of their gender -- either real or perceived -- or sexual orientation"; Focus on the Family opposes the bill because they want public school teachers to be able to bring in anti-gay messages as part of their teaching plans, saying that "California teachers would be barred from offering opposing view[s]";
Fundamentalist groups Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defense Fund suing Wisconsin for not including the Association of Faith-Based Organisations in the statewide employee charitable campaign; the reason Wisconsin doesn't include them is because they engage in overt religious discrimination and state law requires that organisations participating comply with state anti-discrimination law; CLS, ADF, and Focus on the Family want religious organisations exempted from said law;
The Thomas More Law Center and the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights sue San Francisco for the that city council's condemnation of The Vatican's anti-gay stance;
Focus on the Family promotes the AFA action against Target, which has come under fire for carrying the DVD release of the Academy Award winning film Brokeback Mountain;
Rhode Island rejects "abstinence-only" education; FotF and "Heritage of Rhode Island," a group I've never heard of before, are both cranky about it;
FotF article complimenting itself for its international anti-gay activities, specifically the push of "ex-gay" theology in Spain;
Homeland Security sets up "faith-based" office; I'm glad someone has faith in them, since I certainly don't;
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM promotes anti-marriage amendment in Colorado;
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM to call in and demand a Federal anti-marriage amendment;
American Family Association ACTION ITEM to contact the New York Stock Exchange condemning Ford Motor Corporation for its pro-gblt-equality stances;
American Family Association scare piece on California's SB 1437; they say it "could" require unisex bathrooms and ban the words "husband" and "wife";
AFA demands censure of Pennsylvania state official for opposing their anti-gay efforts in the state;
Fundamentalist stockholder group tries to remove GBLT workplace protections from Ford Motor; the measure is expected to fail, but AFA is using that expected failure to bash Ford Motor; also, they take credit (via implication) for Ford's financial problems;
"Embryo adoption" people mad that they got left out of a CBS News report on extra embryos left over from fertility treatment;
Traditional Values Coalition promotes the creationist Discovery Institute's brochure on the 2005 Kansas Science Standards;
Family Research Council press release criticising John McCain for not being anti-gay enough in his Liberty University speech;
FRC ACTION ITEM - the anti-marriage amendment in Arizona is having trouble gathering signatures, they're calling for help;
FRC ACTION ITEM - the Maryland legislature has passed a stem-cell research bill; Family Research Council wants it vetoed; they're having their membership ask the governor to veto it;
FRC ACTION ITEM - for a California initiative on parental notification;
Concerned Women for America condemn as letting "loose the wolves among the sheep" the document I linked to earlier setting up a civil groundwork for discussion of GBLT issues in schools;
Faith and Freedom Network anti-marriage-rights talking point set six;
Faith and Freedom Network anti-marriage-rights talking point set seven.
----- 1 -----
BOY SCOUTS BACK IN COURT
The ACLU is seeking to block the military's involvement with the Scouts.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
April 6, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040103.cfm
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments
today concerning whether the Boy Scouts of America could
continue to use Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia for its
quadrennial Jamborees. Last summer, more than 40,000
Scouts attended the Jamboree.
A lower court had ruled against the Scouts, but the
Department of Defense appealed the decision. The case was
brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The district judge decided that since the Scout oath
includes a "duty to God," it is a religious organization
and therefore not allowed to use military facilities.
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Minnesota Marriage Bill Dies in Committee
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 6, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
The Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee rejected a
proposed constitutional amendment Tuesday that would have
protected marriage from redefinition.
According to the Pioneer Press, the proposed amendment
would have limited marriage to the union of one man and
one woman. Supporters of the amendment testified before
the committee that a constitutional amendment is the only
way to protect marriage from judicial interference.
"The right order of our society is in grave danger," said
the Rev. Joseph Johnson, assistant chancellor of the
Archdiocese of Minneapolis.
Republican Sen. Michele Bachmann, the bill's chief
sponsor, said both sides predicted the amendment would
fail, but added that the fight isn't over.
"We haven't heard the end of this issue," she said.
Despite the committee's rejection, Bachmann intends to
find a way to get the legislation to the Senate floor and
then to the November ballot.
The state House of Representatives has passed similar
legislation twice before.
----- 3 -----
Senator Announces Support For Gay Marriage
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 6, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., announced Tuesday he
supports the right of same-sex couples to marry, The
Associated Press reported. He is the fourth U.S. senator
to publicly proclaim support of gay marriage.
"Gay and lesbian people in our country are fighting a
mean-spirited movement to harm then and to discriminate
against them," he said. "I stand with them against that
movement and I'm proud to stand with them."
Julaine Appling, executive director of the Family Research
Institute of Wisconsin, was disappointed by Feingold's
lack of support for traditional marriage.
"Marriage is not just about two loving and committed
people," she said. "Marriage is a social institution that
provides a social good and a public good."
----- 4 -----
Arizona Wants Women to Know the Pain of Abortion
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 6, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
Arizona lawmakers approved legislation that would require
abortion-minded women to be informed that preborn babies
can feel pain, LifeNews.com reported.
Pro-abortion advocates opposed the measure, arguing that
such a law would intimidate women. Pro-life supporters
said women have a right to know all the facts before
choosing to kill a preborn baby.
The bill provides an exception for situations in which an
abortion is performed to save the life of the mother and
allows a woman to choose anesthesia for her baby if she
chooses to abort.
A physician who failed to comply with the requirements
would be guilty of unprofessional conduct and risk losing
his or her medical license.
The bill now heads to Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano who
has vetoed several pro-life measures in the past.
----- 5 -----
BILL WOULD FORCE SCHOOLS TO SUPPORT HOMOSEXUALITY
California teachers would be barred from offering opposing view.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
April 5, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040090.cfm
Gender-neutral bathrooms in public schools? Girls running
for prom king? Those are just a few of the possibilities
which could result if the California Legislature passes SB
1437 which would force schools to adopt an exclusively
pro-homosexual message.
Ron Prentice, who heads the California Family Council, a
pro-family group based in Riverside, said California
lawmakers are being pressured to adopt the bill, which
would transform public schools into politically correct
bastions.
"What this specifically does is reflect negatively upon
historic faith perspectives in public education," he said.
Prentice said SB 1437 would prevent textbooks,
instructional materials or teaching content that would
"adversely affect persons because of their gender --
either real or perceived -- or sexual orientation."
[...]
Pro-family activists hope this bill never gets near Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, but there is real possibility it
might. It has already passed the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
"The governor is one of our last stops," Prentice said.
"We're certainly hoping that, if this gets to his desk, it
would be vetoed. We would encourage people to call the
governor's office to make that statement."
Prentice said he also encourages conservative Christians
in the state to speak out about this bill with co-workers,
church members and friends.
TAKE ACTION: If you are a California resident, please
contact Gov. Schwarzenegger and ask him to veto SB 1437,
should it be passed by the Legislature.
In addition, please contact your state senators and
Assembly member and ask them to oppose the bill.
For help in contacting your state lawmakers, please see
the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/state/main/?state=CA&view=myofficials
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Faith-Based Organizations File Suit to Qualify for Donations
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 5, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
Wisconsin officials are facing a lawsuit after denying the
Association of Faith-Based Organizations (AFBO) the right
to be included in the state's Employees Charitable
Campaign -- which allows state workers to donate through
payroll deduction to charities of their choice.
According to the state, such organizations do not qualify
because they do not comply with the state's
"non-discrimination statement." In other words, they do
not give up the right to hire and be led by persons who
share the organization's religious faith.
Steven Aden, chief litigation counsel for the Christian
Legal Society which is involved in the suit, said the
state should not be in the business of forcing faith-based
charities to abandon their constitutional rights to define
themselves around shared religious beliefs.
"That is exactly what Wisconsin is trying to do by
prohibiting combined-campaign charities from selecting
employees and volunteers based on their commitment to the
organizations' beliefs," he said. "Secular non-profit
organizations that hire, select members and accept
volunteers who comply and agree with their mission are
allowed to participate in the program, but AFBO's members
are being required to abandon their requirements.
Officials concerned about discrimination shouldn't
practice it themselves."
The Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defense Fund
attorneys will seek an injunction through the U.S.
District Court in Madison to prohibit Wisconsin from
excluding AFBO's member organizations.
----- 7 -----
San Francisco Sued over Anti-Catholic Resolution
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 5, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
A lawsuit was filed in federal court Tuesday in response
to a resolution passed by the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors last month that labeled Catholic doctrine
concerning homosexuality "absolutely unacceptable" and
urged the Archbishop of the city to defy church
directives.
The resolution, passed March 21, called the Vatican a
foreign country meddling in affairs of the City by the
Bay. It described the church's moral teaching as
"insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "insulting
and callous," "defamatory," as well as insensitive and
ignorant. [Ed. Note: The Vatican _is_ a foreign country, and
is recognised as such by the US Government. We exchange
ambassadors and everything. Our current ambassador to
the Holy See is Francis Rooney, appointed in 2005. His
predecessor was James Nicholson.]
The Thomas More Law Center, which filed the suit on behalf
of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and
two Catholic citizens, said the resolution is a "startling
attack by government officials on the Catholic Church,
Catholic moral teaching and beliefs, and those who adhere
to the tenets of Catholic faith."
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the
Thomas More Law Center, said San Francisco officials
really crossed the line.
"The demagoguery and virulent words of this resolution are
reminiscent of the anti-Catholic bigotry of the Ku Klux
Klan and the Know Nothings, which marred our nation's
early history," he said. "San Francisco may as well have
put up signs at the City limits: 'Faithful Catholics Not
Welcomed.' "
----- 8 -----
Wal-Mart Targeted for Selling 'Brokeback Mountain'
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 5, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
Wal-Mart made the decision to stock its shelves with
copies of the DVD "Brokeback Mountain," despite protests
from a pro-family group, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The gay-themed film hit stores Tuesday.
The American Family Association (AFA) urged people to
contact Wal-Mart, beginning last week, and ask the retail
giant to not stock the controversial movie.
A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said by selling the film, the
company was not advocating for a specific lifestyle, but
responding to consumer demand.
But Randy Sharp, director of special projects for AFA,
said, by selling the movie, the retailer is helping to
normalize homosexuality in society.
"How many copies are they going to have to sell to recruit
the losses of customers who they've offended and will no
longer shop at Wal-Mart?" he said. "It wasn't even a
blockbuster movie."
----- 9 -----
Rhode Island Kids Won't Hear Abstinence Message
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 5, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
The Rhode Island Department of Education said 'No' to an
abstinence-only sex education program because it was "not
consistent with Rhode Island health education standards,"
The Advocate reported.
Heritage of Rhode Island (HRI) developed a program called,
"Right Time, Right Place," designed to teach kids the
benefit of abstinence until marriage. A three-year federal
grant provided the funding for the program, which,
according to Feminist Daily News, reached more than 600
students in two school districts last year.
The Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union filed a
complaint against HRI claiming the program contained
religious material and did not meet the state's sex
education standards.
The Rhode Island Department of Education reviewed the
complaint and the material, ultimately concluding the
curriculum did not meet standards which require
instruction on condom use and the prevention of sexually
transmitted disease.
Chris Plante, executive director of HRI, was disappointed
with the decision. Plante said the abstinence-only
instruction was not meant to replace current sex-education
programs in the state, only to compliment them.
----- 10 -----
LOVE WON OUT A HIT OVERSEAS
Focus conference on homosexuality drawing large, appreciative crowds in Spain.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
April 4, 2006
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040076.cfm
Focus on the Family's Love Won Out conference -- which
brings the message that there is hope for those who
struggle with same-sex attraction -- has seen a phenomenal
response in Barcelona, Madrid and Vigo, Spain, during its
first visit to the European nation.
Mike Haley, director of the gender issues department at
Focus on the Family and the conference host, said the
international need for the conference -- and its message
-- is overwhelming.
"Most of their churches have never dealt with this issue,"
he said. "They're very hungry. They're starving for the
truth."
Haley said in a country where only 1 percent of the
population is evangelical Christian, there is no support
for those who question same-sex attraction or have a
family member who is homosexual.
[...]
FOR MORE INFORMATION: To learn more about Focus on the
Family's Love Won Out Conference, visit the Web site.
http://lovewonout.com/
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Homeland Security Gets Faith-Based Office
SUMMARY: Disaster-relief charities applaud the move.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
April 4, 2006
from staff reports
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040071.cfm
The Bush administration, concerned that faith-based groups
have been overlooked as resources in times of natural
disaster, is creating a new office in the Department of
Homeland Security to strengthen preparedness efforts.
Homeland Security now joins the Department of Justice,
Department of Education and the Commerce Department in the
faith-based involvement effort.
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
MARRIAGE-PROTECTION EFFORT UNDER WAY IN COLORADO
You can sign a petition to place a constitutional amendment on the '06 ballot.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
by Mona Passignano, state issues analyst
April 4, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/statenews/a0040073.cfm
Focus on the Family has joined a petition drive to put a
marriage-protection amendment on the November ballot. A
broad coalition of organizations has come together to
support this initiative through the group Coloradans for
Marriage.
The coalition is in the process of gathering signatures
needed to put the amendment before voters. The only way to
protect marriage from redefinition by rogue judges such as
those who legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is
to enshrine marriage in the state constitution. This means
that marriage would be defined in the Colorado
Constitution as the union of one man and one woman.
Every time residents of a state have been given the
opportunity to protect marriage in their state
constitutions, they have done so overwhelmingly.
Coloradans deserve the same opportunity voters in 19
states have had.
To get a petition, please go to
www.coloradansformarriage.com and click on the link "Sign
up to circulate petitions now." It is very important that
you follow the instructions when circulating the petition.
Colorado law is very picky when it comes to signature
gathering, so please be sure to comply with state law.
When you request petitions, they will come numbered and
stapled together. You cannot remove the staples or
separate the pages of the petition -- doing so will
invalidate any signatures you have collected.
Get your family, friends, church members and coworkers to
sign a petition, but be sure not put your own signature on
any petition that you are circulating. Colorado law
forbids a petition gatherer to sign petition forms they
have gathered themselves. For your signature, you’ll need
to sign a petition that someone else is circulating.
Be sure to carefully read and follow the instructions for
petition-gatherers. This is the only way to collect the
necessary valid signatures to place the protection of
traditional marriage on the ballot in November. After
collecting signatures, signing and having notarized the
final page of the petition, mail it back to the address at
the bottom of the petition.
All signed petitions must be turned in to the secretary of
state’s office by Aug. 7, 2006. So please request a copy
of the petition today.
TAKE ACTION: To get a petition mailed to you, please go to
the Coloradans for Marriage Web site and click on the link
to sign up to circulate petitions.
http://www.coloradansformarriage.com
----- 14 -----
Gay Couple Appeals to 9th Circuit to Allow Marriage
(a Focus on the Family Action news brief)
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 3, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
Two homosexual men in California have filed an appeal in
federal court claiming the U.S. Constitution's
equal-rights-protection guarantee gives them the right to
marry, The Associated Press reported.
Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer will go before the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday.
Gay-advocacy groups, such as Lambda Legal, are not
supporting the case because they fear a ruling against gay
marriage would set a federal precedent. Gay-marriage
supporters prefer to wage the battle against traditional
marriage at the state level.
Richard Gilbert, attorney for the homosexual couple, said
he disagrees with that tactic.
"You fight for your rights when your rights are being
denied," he said. "When the building is on fire, you don't
stand by and let the building burn down and say, 'We'll
fight the fire another day.' "
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family
Action, said whether same-sex marriage advocates choose to
fight at the state or federal level, either approach
highlights the need for a federal marriage-protection
amendment to preserve traditional marriage.
"The state-by-state approach has stirred up grassroots
conservatives in the affected states, and the results have
been 19 states adding state marriage amendments to their
constitutions," he said. "The swing-for-the-fence approach
--using the federal courts -- has galvanized conservatives
in a concerted push for an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution defining marriage once and for all."
TAKE ACTION: Now more than ever it is important to
encourage your senators and representatives to support the
federal Marriage Protection Amendment. Contact them using
CitizenLink's Marriage Protection Amendment Action Center.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0031537.cfm
(The preceding story was paid for by Focus on the Family
Action.)
----- 15 -----
Ford Praised For Supporting Homosexual Marriage
American Family Association
Online as of April 6, 2006
http://www.afa.net/Petitions/IssueDetail.asp?id=194
Send an email to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and major investment firms, letting them know about the Ford boycott.
Pride at Work, AFL-CIO's homosexual organization, has praised Ford Motor Company for the company's support of homosexual marriage.
In a March 13 press release, Pride at Work praised Ford for supporting "marriage equality," a term for homosexual marriage used by homosexuals.
The press release praising Ford's support for homosexual marriage followed Ford's sponsorship of CBS's "Without a Trace" program on March 9. In that program Ford publicly proved to the homosexual activists their support for the homosexual agenda by sponsoring a passionate kissing scene between two lesbians.
[Ed. Note: contact information is boardofdirectors at nyse dot com, or Board of Directors, New York Stock Exchange, 11 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005]
[More at URL]
----- 16 -----
Pro-Family Leader Calls California's Pro-Homosexual Textbook Bill 'Outrageous'
By Jenni Parker
American Family Association/Agape Press
April 6, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/afa/62006b.asp
(AgapePress) - A pro-homosexual bill that pro-family forces are describing as one of the most outrageous pieces of legislation to come through the California legislature this year has been approved by the state's Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senate Bill 1437 would require California schools' textbooks to highlight the positive contributions of homosexual and transgender individuals to society and would prevent school textbooks, teaching materials, school-sponsored activities, and instruction from reflecting adversely upon persons based on their sexual orientation or actual or perceived gender.
If SB 1437 passes, the bill could potentially require gender-neutral bathrooms in the state's schools. It could also result in a mandate to remove all references to "husband" and "wife" or "mom and dad" as the norm from all school textbooks.
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
Pennsylvania Official Charged With Using Position to Push Homosexual Agenda
American Family Association/Agape Press
By Allie Martin
April 6, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/afa/62006d.asp
(AgapePress) - The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA) is accusing the Human Relations Commission in that state of overstepping its stated purpose and goals to promote pro-homosexual causes.
The pro-family group charges that Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission Chairman Stephen Glassman has been using his position to promote homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. Glassman, who is homosexual, is accused of encouraging municipalities to go beyond the law to extend special rights to individuals based solely on sexual orientation.
Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA, says Glassman should not be allowed to go outside the boundaries of the Commission's stated agenda, as she feels he has done lately. "He's been very active in opposing our marriage protection amendment," she notes, for example.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
Ford Shareholders to Vote on 'Sexual Orientation' in Company Policy
Initiator of Ford Boycott Expects Automaker to Side With Homosexuals
American Family Association/Agape Press
By Allie Martin and Jody Brown
April 5, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/afa/52006a.asp
(AgapePress) - The founder of a prominent pro-family group that has called for a year-long boycott of the Ford Motor Company believes the huge automaker will side with homosexuals during its annual board meeting next month. At that meeting, Ford shareholders' decision will be announced on whether to amend the company's equal employment policy to exclude "sexual orientation."
The vote comes after shareholder Robert Hurley, a doctor from Illinois, submitted a proposal recommending that Ford change its equal employment policy to remove any reference to sexual orientation, activities, or interest. Ford asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to keep the measure off its proxy statement during the May 11 board meeting in Delaware, arguing it would damage the company's ability to recruit because some universities require companies to include sexual orientation in their policies. Associated Press also reports Ford had stated that publicity over changing the policy could hurt auto sales to supporters of homosexual rights.
But the federal agency refused Ford's request, saying that a rule that allows companies to reject proposals that deal with "ordinary business operations" does not apply to this case. Ford has said the proposal -- along with comments from the company -- will be included in the proxy statements going out later this week. Results will be announced at the May meeting.
[...]
The BoycottFord.com campaign was announced in early March after Ford backed out of an agreement to stop funding homosexual groups which promote homosexual marriage. In effect, says Wildmon, that response amounted to Ford saying "'No, we're not going to do that -- we're going to side with the homosexual groups."
Ford reported on Monday that sales fell five percent in March. The automaker attributed the decline primarily to a waning interest in its sport utility vehicles (SUVs). In the last week Ford shares have dropped from $8.29 (on March 30) to a low of $7.47 (Wednesday morning, April 5) -- a decline of approximately ten percent.
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
CBS Accused of Giving Embryo Adoption Short Shrift
By Mary Rettig
American Family Association/Agape Press
April 6, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/afa/62006c.asp
(AgapePress) - The director of the National Embryo Donation Center (NEDC) says a CBS News program pushed a political agenda on its recent piece on leftover embryos. He says the network did a disservice to the public when it aired "A Surplus of Embryos."
The segment aired during a February installment of 60 Minutes, the long-time popular Sunday evening program on the CBS network. The NEDC's Dr. Jeff Keenan says a couple who was using the Center to get pregnant was interviewed by CBS staff, and that the original premise of the segment was good.
According to Keenan, the staff that interviewed him and the couple -- Christy and Shannon Bomar -- informed them the piece was to be about what to do with leftover embryos. He says that turned out not to be the case.
[More at URL]
----- 20 -----
Center For Science & Culture Explains Kansas Science Standards
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2669
April 6, 2006 – The Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture has issued a report on the Kansas Science Standards published in 2005. The institute’s report features a Q&A section that explains what Kansas educators did to deal with issues of evolution and intelligent design.
[Embedded link: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/new_brochure_clearly_explains.html ]
[More at URL]
----- 21 -----
McCain Comments On Marriage Anything But 'Straight Talk'
Family Research Council
April 4, 2006 - Tuesday
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 4, 2006
CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Bethanie Swendsen, (202) 393-2100
"Is the Senator backtracking from statements made two years ago on a marriage protection amendment?" asks FRC President Tony Perkins
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR06D01
Washington, D.C. - On Sunday's "Meet the Press," Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was questioned about his upcoming appearance May 13th at the Liberty University graduation and his position on the Marriage Protection Amendment.
On Sunday, Senator McCain made his support of the Marriage Amendment conditional. He told Tim Russert, "In my state of Arizona, we have a ballot initiative on this issue, which I am supporting... if through the court process, they say that that's not constitutional, then I would support a constitutional amendment."
Two years ago Senator McCain opposed the Marriage Amendment saying it "usurps" a state's authority to legislate on this issue. However, he explained that if "state remedies to judicial activism fail," then he might support the Amendment.
In fact, state remedies have failed: last summer a federal judge struck down Nebraska's marriage amendment.
Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins, who will be sharing a stage with Senator McCain at the Liberty University graduation, is calling on the Senator to support the Marriage Protection Amendment:
"Although Senator McCain holds claim to the 'Straight Talk Express,' we are confused about his commitment to protect marriage. Two years ago, the Senator opposed a marriage amendment because he felt that state marriage amendments would survive federal court challenges. However, since then we've seen Nebraska's marriage amendment struck down and other state amendments tied up in court.
"Is the Senator backtracking from statements made two years ago on a marriage protection amendment? Now, he says he would support a marriage protection amendment but only if his own state's amendment is struck down.
"I hope Senator McCain will take this opportunity to clarify to values voters his intentions to protect traditional marriage. Judicial activism makes it very clear that marriage is at risk in the federal courts and Congress must pass, and the people of this country must ratify, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman."
-30-
----- 22 -----
Arizona Marriage Amendment in jeopardy
Family Research Council
April 5, 2006 - Wednesday
Arizona (more on this state)
Forward to a Friend!
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL06D03
Unless more signatures are generated quickly, the Protect Marriage Amendment in Arizona could fail to make the ballot. Your help is needed to significantly increase efforts to get the necessary signatures. Polls show that the marriage amendment should win in November, and despite efforts by volunteers, the goals for signatures are not being met.
Arizona must not be the first state in which a marriage amendment is defeated! By July 6, the Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition must turn in 183,917 valid signatures of registered voters in order to qualify the amendment for the November, 2006 ballot. To guarantee certified names, 250-300,000 signatures need to be gathered.
Here's how you can help:
--If you have PMA petitions with any number of signatures, please turn them in now. Mail them or drop them off at the offices of the Center for Arizona Policy located at 11000 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 120, Scottsdale, 85260. Call 480-922-3101 for directions.
--If you have blank PMA petitions, commit to getting those petitions filled over the next 2 to 3 weeks.
--Ask your church or other group to conduct a petition drive within the next 2 to 3 weeks. If your church already has gathered signatures, ask whether you can try one more time to get signatures. If you need help, contact the Center for Arizona Policy and they can send teams to your church to gather signatures. They can also send you an information packet on how to conduct a petition drive.
--If you can join a team of volunteers to attend events and gather signatures, please e-mail Matthew du Mee at: matthew@azpolicy.org.
--Commit to gather at least 50 signatures. To have PMA petitions sent to you, e-mail: info@azpolicy.org or call: 480-922-3101.
[More at URL]
----- 23 -----
Embryonic Stem Cell bill to come before Maryland Governor Ehrlich
Family Research Council
April 3, 2006 - Monday
Maryland (more on this state)
Forward to a Friend!
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL06D01
Embryonic stem cell and human cloning research funding is the aim of Senate Bill 144. Please contact Governor Ehrlich now to urge him to veto SB 144. This patchwork legislation is unlikely to fund the most promising research (adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research) which FRC promotes, but it will fund embryonic stem cell research which requires the destruction of living human embryos. And it will allow the production of cloned human embryos.
SB 144 would exploit women, especially poor women, because prohibitions against soliciting women to donate their eggs or embryos strictly for research purposes were amended out of the bill. The bill will spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on speculative, unethical embryonic stem cell research and human embryo cloning.
Governor Robert Ehrlich
Phone: 410-974-3901
E-mail: governor@gov.state.md.us
----- 24 -----
The Parents Right to Know Initiative in California needs your support
Family Research Council
April 3, 2006 - Monday
California (more on this state)
Forward to a Friend!
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL06D02
In California, a girl under age 18 can't get a flu shot, a cavity filled, or an aspirin dispensed by the school nurse without a parent knowing. But a doctor can perform a surgical or chemical abortion on a young girl without informing a parent.
The Parents' Right to Know Initiative will require that a physician notify in writing a parent or guardian at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor girl.
California needs the Parents' Right to Know Initiative because:
* Parents know their children's needs best. Parents have invested time and attention in raising their daughter; they care about her future. Parents can help a minor daughter understand all her options rather than be pressured into a secret abortion.
* A young girl who is pregnant needs the advice and support of a parent, not a stranger who profits from abortions.
* On a daily basis, older men exploit young girls and use secret abortions to cover up their crimes.
* More than thirty states currently have parental involvement laws like the Parents' Right to Know Initiative in effect.
States that have laws like the Parents' Right to Know Initiative have experienced real reductions in pregnancies and abortions among minor girls.
To help gather signatures or to volunteer for the Parents' Right to Know campaign or to get more information and campaign materials go to the Parents Right to Know website, email Janet@ParentsRight2Know.org, call toll-free 866-828-8355 or mail to: Parents' Right to Know, 2555 Rio de Oro Way, Sacramento, CA 95826
----- 25 -----
‘Neutral’ School Agreement Is a Victory for Homosexual Activists
Concerned Women for America
4/6/2006
By Linda Harvey
A pact that appears to guarantee impartiality lets loose the wolves among the sheep.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10489/CFI/family/index.htm
This article, by the president of Mission America, ran on WorldNetDaily.com on April 1, 2006. Mrs. Harvey recently authored the paper Fairy Tales Don’t Come True for CWA’s Culture & Family Institute. For other CWA resources, see below.
A recent agreement between several national groups on how to handle "sexual orientation" in schools is unacceptable, misleading and may actually cause more problems than it purports to solve.
The document, "Public Schools and Sexual Orientation" was released by the First Amendment Center in conjunction with the Christian Educators Association International and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
I have researched and reported on homosexuality in the schools for more than a decade through the organization I head, Mission America of Columbus, Ohio. I read this announcement with shock and dismay. My first reaction was, “GLSEN? How could a group of genuine Christian believers sit down at any table with that organization?”
And reviewing the document itself has only heightened my concern. Throughout the document, homosexuality is treated as an alternate viewpoint which Christians are now supposed to treat with respect and civility. We are to “agree to disagree” when it comes to students, and to view this as just an “alternate viewpoint.” This presents a problem for a committed Christian, when we know from both God's standards and from public-health statistics that homosexuality has grave, life-changing consequences and should never be advocated to youth.
[More at URL]
----- 26 -----
Talking Points: The Case for Marriage VI
Faith and Freedom Network
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2006/04/talking-points-case-for-marriage-vi.html
Prohibiting same-sex marriage is the same as prohibiting interracial marriage as some states used to do.
* Laws banning interracial marriage were designed to keep the races apart, not about changing the definition of marriage. Race has nothing to do with marriage, but gender does. [Ed. Note: That's not what the supporters of miscegenation laws said; they used exactly the same arguments against interracial marriage as are used against GBLT marriage rights today - you can go through them line by line, matching them up.]
* We prohibit discrimination based on race because it is inherent, involuntary, and unchangeable. Homosexuality does not fit these criteria. No academic institution or any U.S. court has established that homosexuality is given at birth and is a permanent, unchangeable feature of an individual. [Ed. Note: Outside of fundamentalism, you can find very, very few scientists who have actually studied this who think there is any real chance that sexual orientation is changeable after puberty. Fundamentalist groups themselves compare the "ex-gay" lifestyle to a lifetime of abstinence - see previous CWUs. Also, "ex-gay" groups have tremendously high failure rates, and these are the most stridently and religiously motivated people imaginable. Despite this, the co-founders of Exodus International fell in love and gave up on the whole idea.]
* For the reasons mentioned above, marriage is not a civil rights issue and a majority of people of color find this comparison offensive. In fact, a Gallup Poll and Washington Post poll in the summer of 2003 – after the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts – showed a 23 percentage point drop (from 58 to 35 percent) in support by African Americans for any form of legalizing same-sex relationships. [Ed. Note: Support for marriage rights is now above 50% in Massachusetts, according to early 2006 polling.]
* Forty-three states have passed laws to reaffirm their commitment to marriage between one man and one woman. This has happened in just the last 10 years! In 1998, the Washington State Legislature voted by a super-majority to preserve authentic marriage by passing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). [Ed. Note: I don't have much here. Surprise, the US has a history of being stridently anti-gay. It was only in 2003 that laws making us illegal in 24 states were overturned by the Supreme Court.]
[More at URL]
----- 27 -----
Talking Points: The Case for Marriage VII
Faith and Freedom Network
Thursday, April 06, 2006
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2006/04/talking-points-case-for-marriage-vii.html
Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.
No, and a majority of African Americans find this comparison offensive. Being of a particular race is not like having a homosexual desire. [Ed. Note: Well, yes, it is, definitionally. It's a civil matter of rights. That makes it a civil rights issue.]
The more same-sex marriage advocates claim to have a legitimate civil rights battle, the less African Americans and people of color support same-sex marriage. [Ed. Note: They provide no data to back this up, and I have no idea how it's related, anyway. Are they suggesting that only people of colour can define what is and isn't a civil rights issue? As a fundamentalist religious organisation, they seem quite prepared to define civil rights issues in other cases.]
Marriage is an institution that transcends culture, and predates our Constitution. Our Nation’s Bill of Rights applies only to the individual, not couples. [Ed. Note: Marriage has had an almost uncountable number of forms, most centred around the control of women as property. Romantic marriage is, as has been pointed out very often, is, in evolutionary terms, barely any older than the concept of marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The second sentence is absolutely bizarre; equal treatment under the law somehow doesn't apply if more than one person is involved? Is freedom of speech to be similarly constrained? Are you only free from illegal search and seizure if you are single, i.e., unmarried? What the hell?]
[More at URL]
Focus on the Family story on the Boy Scouts and Federal facilities;
FotF upset that Minnesota did not pass an anti-marriage amendment out of the Senate;
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) announces support for marriage rights for gay and lesbian people;
Arizona legislature passes "fetal pain" measure, requiring doctors to tell women that "preborn babies can feel pain";
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM against a California legislature bill requiring that public school textbooks and teaching plans not include anti-GBLT lessons; FotF's quote is that public school teachings not "adversely affect persons because of their gender -- either real or perceived -- or sexual orientation"; Focus on the Family opposes the bill because they want public school teachers to be able to bring in anti-gay messages as part of their teaching plans, saying that "California teachers would be barred from offering opposing view[s]";
Fundamentalist groups Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defense Fund suing Wisconsin for not including the Association of Faith-Based Organisations in the statewide employee charitable campaign; the reason Wisconsin doesn't include them is because they engage in overt religious discrimination and state law requires that organisations participating comply with state anti-discrimination law; CLS, ADF, and Focus on the Family want religious organisations exempted from said law;
The Thomas More Law Center and the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights sue San Francisco for the that city council's condemnation of The Vatican's anti-gay stance;
Focus on the Family promotes the AFA action against Target, which has come under fire for carrying the DVD release of the Academy Award winning film Brokeback Mountain;
Rhode Island rejects "abstinence-only" education; FotF and "Heritage of Rhode Island," a group I've never heard of before, are both cranky about it;
FotF article complimenting itself for its international anti-gay activities, specifically the push of "ex-gay" theology in Spain;
Homeland Security sets up "faith-based" office; I'm glad someone has faith in them, since I certainly don't;
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM promotes anti-marriage amendment in Colorado;
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM to call in and demand a Federal anti-marriage amendment;
American Family Association ACTION ITEM to contact the New York Stock Exchange condemning Ford Motor Corporation for its pro-gblt-equality stances;
American Family Association scare piece on California's SB 1437; they say it "could" require unisex bathrooms and ban the words "husband" and "wife";
AFA demands censure of Pennsylvania state official for opposing their anti-gay efforts in the state;
Fundamentalist stockholder group tries to remove GBLT workplace protections from Ford Motor; the measure is expected to fail, but AFA is using that expected failure to bash Ford Motor; also, they take credit (via implication) for Ford's financial problems;
"Embryo adoption" people mad that they got left out of a CBS News report on extra embryos left over from fertility treatment;
Traditional Values Coalition promotes the creationist Discovery Institute's brochure on the 2005 Kansas Science Standards;
Family Research Council press release criticising John McCain for not being anti-gay enough in his Liberty University speech;
FRC ACTION ITEM - the anti-marriage amendment in Arizona is having trouble gathering signatures, they're calling for help;
FRC ACTION ITEM - the Maryland legislature has passed a stem-cell research bill; Family Research Council wants it vetoed; they're having their membership ask the governor to veto it;
FRC ACTION ITEM - for a California initiative on parental notification;
Concerned Women for America condemn as letting "loose the wolves among the sheep" the document I linked to earlier setting up a civil groundwork for discussion of GBLT issues in schools;
Faith and Freedom Network anti-marriage-rights talking point set six;
Faith and Freedom Network anti-marriage-rights talking point set seven.
----- 1 -----
BOY SCOUTS BACK IN COURT
The ACLU is seeking to block the military's involvement with the Scouts.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
April 6, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040103.cfm
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments
today concerning whether the Boy Scouts of America could
continue to use Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia for its
quadrennial Jamborees. Last summer, more than 40,000
Scouts attended the Jamboree.
A lower court had ruled against the Scouts, but the
Department of Defense appealed the decision. The case was
brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The district judge decided that since the Scout oath
includes a "duty to God," it is a religious organization
and therefore not allowed to use military facilities.
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Minnesota Marriage Bill Dies in Committee
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 6, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
The Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee rejected a
proposed constitutional amendment Tuesday that would have
protected marriage from redefinition.
According to the Pioneer Press, the proposed amendment
would have limited marriage to the union of one man and
one woman. Supporters of the amendment testified before
the committee that a constitutional amendment is the only
way to protect marriage from judicial interference.
"The right order of our society is in grave danger," said
the Rev. Joseph Johnson, assistant chancellor of the
Archdiocese of Minneapolis.
Republican Sen. Michele Bachmann, the bill's chief
sponsor, said both sides predicted the amendment would
fail, but added that the fight isn't over.
"We haven't heard the end of this issue," she said.
Despite the committee's rejection, Bachmann intends to
find a way to get the legislation to the Senate floor and
then to the November ballot.
The state House of Representatives has passed similar
legislation twice before.
----- 3 -----
Senator Announces Support For Gay Marriage
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 6, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., announced Tuesday he
supports the right of same-sex couples to marry, The
Associated Press reported. He is the fourth U.S. senator
to publicly proclaim support of gay marriage.
"Gay and lesbian people in our country are fighting a
mean-spirited movement to harm then and to discriminate
against them," he said. "I stand with them against that
movement and I'm proud to stand with them."
Julaine Appling, executive director of the Family Research
Institute of Wisconsin, was disappointed by Feingold's
lack of support for traditional marriage.
"Marriage is not just about two loving and committed
people," she said. "Marriage is a social institution that
provides a social good and a public good."
----- 4 -----
Arizona Wants Women to Know the Pain of Abortion
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 6, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
Arizona lawmakers approved legislation that would require
abortion-minded women to be informed that preborn babies
can feel pain, LifeNews.com reported.
Pro-abortion advocates opposed the measure, arguing that
such a law would intimidate women. Pro-life supporters
said women have a right to know all the facts before
choosing to kill a preborn baby.
The bill provides an exception for situations in which an
abortion is performed to save the life of the mother and
allows a woman to choose anesthesia for her baby if she
chooses to abort.
A physician who failed to comply with the requirements
would be guilty of unprofessional conduct and risk losing
his or her medical license.
The bill now heads to Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano who
has vetoed several pro-life measures in the past.
----- 5 -----
BILL WOULD FORCE SCHOOLS TO SUPPORT HOMOSEXUALITY
California teachers would be barred from offering opposing view.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
April 5, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040090.cfm
Gender-neutral bathrooms in public schools? Girls running
for prom king? Those are just a few of the possibilities
which could result if the California Legislature passes SB
1437 which would force schools to adopt an exclusively
pro-homosexual message.
Ron Prentice, who heads the California Family Council, a
pro-family group based in Riverside, said California
lawmakers are being pressured to adopt the bill, which
would transform public schools into politically correct
bastions.
"What this specifically does is reflect negatively upon
historic faith perspectives in public education," he said.
Prentice said SB 1437 would prevent textbooks,
instructional materials or teaching content that would
"adversely affect persons because of their gender --
either real or perceived -- or sexual orientation."
[...]
Pro-family activists hope this bill never gets near Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, but there is real possibility it
might. It has already passed the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
"The governor is one of our last stops," Prentice said.
"We're certainly hoping that, if this gets to his desk, it
would be vetoed. We would encourage people to call the
governor's office to make that statement."
Prentice said he also encourages conservative Christians
in the state to speak out about this bill with co-workers,
church members and friends.
TAKE ACTION: If you are a California resident, please
contact Gov. Schwarzenegger and ask him to veto SB 1437,
should it be passed by the Legislature.
In addition, please contact your state senators and
Assembly member and ask them to oppose the bill.
For help in contacting your state lawmakers, please see
the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/state/main/?state=CA&view=myofficials
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Faith-Based Organizations File Suit to Qualify for Donations
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 5, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
Wisconsin officials are facing a lawsuit after denying the
Association of Faith-Based Organizations (AFBO) the right
to be included in the state's Employees Charitable
Campaign -- which allows state workers to donate through
payroll deduction to charities of their choice.
According to the state, such organizations do not qualify
because they do not comply with the state's
"non-discrimination statement." In other words, they do
not give up the right to hire and be led by persons who
share the organization's religious faith.
Steven Aden, chief litigation counsel for the Christian
Legal Society which is involved in the suit, said the
state should not be in the business of forcing faith-based
charities to abandon their constitutional rights to define
themselves around shared religious beliefs.
"That is exactly what Wisconsin is trying to do by
prohibiting combined-campaign charities from selecting
employees and volunteers based on their commitment to the
organizations' beliefs," he said. "Secular non-profit
organizations that hire, select members and accept
volunteers who comply and agree with their mission are
allowed to participate in the program, but AFBO's members
are being required to abandon their requirements.
Officials concerned about discrimination shouldn't
practice it themselves."
The Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defense Fund
attorneys will seek an injunction through the U.S.
District Court in Madison to prohibit Wisconsin from
excluding AFBO's member organizations.
----- 7 -----
San Francisco Sued over Anti-Catholic Resolution
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 5, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
A lawsuit was filed in federal court Tuesday in response
to a resolution passed by the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors last month that labeled Catholic doctrine
concerning homosexuality "absolutely unacceptable" and
urged the Archbishop of the city to defy church
directives.
The resolution, passed March 21, called the Vatican a
foreign country meddling in affairs of the City by the
Bay. It described the church's moral teaching as
"insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "insulting
and callous," "defamatory," as well as insensitive and
ignorant. [Ed. Note: The Vatican _is_ a foreign country, and
is recognised as such by the US Government. We exchange
ambassadors and everything. Our current ambassador to
the Holy See is Francis Rooney, appointed in 2005. His
predecessor was James Nicholson.]
The Thomas More Law Center, which filed the suit on behalf
of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and
two Catholic citizens, said the resolution is a "startling
attack by government officials on the Catholic Church,
Catholic moral teaching and beliefs, and those who adhere
to the tenets of Catholic faith."
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the
Thomas More Law Center, said San Francisco officials
really crossed the line.
"The demagoguery and virulent words of this resolution are
reminiscent of the anti-Catholic bigotry of the Ku Klux
Klan and the Know Nothings, which marred our nation's
early history," he said. "San Francisco may as well have
put up signs at the City limits: 'Faithful Catholics Not
Welcomed.' "
----- 8 -----
Wal-Mart Targeted for Selling 'Brokeback Mountain'
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 5, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
Wal-Mart made the decision to stock its shelves with
copies of the DVD "Brokeback Mountain," despite protests
from a pro-family group, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The gay-themed film hit stores Tuesday.
The American Family Association (AFA) urged people to
contact Wal-Mart, beginning last week, and ask the retail
giant to not stock the controversial movie.
A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said by selling the film, the
company was not advocating for a specific lifestyle, but
responding to consumer demand.
But Randy Sharp, director of special projects for AFA,
said, by selling the movie, the retailer is helping to
normalize homosexuality in society.
"How many copies are they going to have to sell to recruit
the losses of customers who they've offended and will no
longer shop at Wal-Mart?" he said. "It wasn't even a
blockbuster movie."
----- 9 -----
Rhode Island Kids Won't Hear Abstinence Message
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 5, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
The Rhode Island Department of Education said 'No' to an
abstinence-only sex education program because it was "not
consistent with Rhode Island health education standards,"
The Advocate reported.
Heritage of Rhode Island (HRI) developed a program called,
"Right Time, Right Place," designed to teach kids the
benefit of abstinence until marriage. A three-year federal
grant provided the funding for the program, which,
according to Feminist Daily News, reached more than 600
students in two school districts last year.
The Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union filed a
complaint against HRI claiming the program contained
religious material and did not meet the state's sex
education standards.
The Rhode Island Department of Education reviewed the
complaint and the material, ultimately concluding the
curriculum did not meet standards which require
instruction on condom use and the prevention of sexually
transmitted disease.
Chris Plante, executive director of HRI, was disappointed
with the decision. Plante said the abstinence-only
instruction was not meant to replace current sex-education
programs in the state, only to compliment them.
----- 10 -----
LOVE WON OUT A HIT OVERSEAS
Focus conference on homosexuality drawing large, appreciative crowds in Spain.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
April 4, 2006
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040076.cfm
Focus on the Family's Love Won Out conference -- which
brings the message that there is hope for those who
struggle with same-sex attraction -- has seen a phenomenal
response in Barcelona, Madrid and Vigo, Spain, during its
first visit to the European nation.
Mike Haley, director of the gender issues department at
Focus on the Family and the conference host, said the
international need for the conference -- and its message
-- is overwhelming.
"Most of their churches have never dealt with this issue,"
he said. "They're very hungry. They're starving for the
truth."
Haley said in a country where only 1 percent of the
population is evangelical Christian, there is no support
for those who question same-sex attraction or have a
family member who is homosexual.
[...]
FOR MORE INFORMATION: To learn more about Focus on the
Family's Love Won Out Conference, visit the Web site.
http://lovewonout.com/
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Homeland Security Gets Faith-Based Office
SUMMARY: Disaster-relief charities applaud the move.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
April 4, 2006
from staff reports
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040071.cfm
The Bush administration, concerned that faith-based groups
have been overlooked as resources in times of natural
disaster, is creating a new office in the Department of
Homeland Security to strengthen preparedness efforts.
Homeland Security now joins the Department of Justice,
Department of Education and the Commerce Department in the
faith-based involvement effort.
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
MARRIAGE-PROTECTION EFFORT UNDER WAY IN COLORADO
You can sign a petition to place a constitutional amendment on the '06 ballot.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
by Mona Passignano, state issues analyst
April 4, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/statenews/a0040073.cfm
Focus on the Family has joined a petition drive to put a
marriage-protection amendment on the November ballot. A
broad coalition of organizations has come together to
support this initiative through the group Coloradans for
Marriage.
The coalition is in the process of gathering signatures
needed to put the amendment before voters. The only way to
protect marriage from redefinition by rogue judges such as
those who legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is
to enshrine marriage in the state constitution. This means
that marriage would be defined in the Colorado
Constitution as the union of one man and one woman.
Every time residents of a state have been given the
opportunity to protect marriage in their state
constitutions, they have done so overwhelmingly.
Coloradans deserve the same opportunity voters in 19
states have had.
To get a petition, please go to
www.coloradansformarriage.com and click on the link "Sign
up to circulate petitions now." It is very important that
you follow the instructions when circulating the petition.
Colorado law is very picky when it comes to signature
gathering, so please be sure to comply with state law.
When you request petitions, they will come numbered and
stapled together. You cannot remove the staples or
separate the pages of the petition -- doing so will
invalidate any signatures you have collected.
Get your family, friends, church members and coworkers to
sign a petition, but be sure not put your own signature on
any petition that you are circulating. Colorado law
forbids a petition gatherer to sign petition forms they
have gathered themselves. For your signature, you’ll need
to sign a petition that someone else is circulating.
Be sure to carefully read and follow the instructions for
petition-gatherers. This is the only way to collect the
necessary valid signatures to place the protection of
traditional marriage on the ballot in November. After
collecting signatures, signing and having notarized the
final page of the petition, mail it back to the address at
the bottom of the petition.
All signed petitions must be turned in to the secretary of
state’s office by Aug. 7, 2006. So please request a copy
of the petition today.
TAKE ACTION: To get a petition mailed to you, please go to
the Coloradans for Marriage Web site and click on the link
to sign up to circulate petitions.
http://www.coloradansformarriage.com
----- 14 -----
Gay Couple Appeals to 9th Circuit to Allow Marriage
(a Focus on the Family Action news brief)
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 3, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
Two homosexual men in California have filed an appeal in
federal court claiming the U.S. Constitution's
equal-rights-protection guarantee gives them the right to
marry, The Associated Press reported.
Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer will go before the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday.
Gay-advocacy groups, such as Lambda Legal, are not
supporting the case because they fear a ruling against gay
marriage would set a federal precedent. Gay-marriage
supporters prefer to wage the battle against traditional
marriage at the state level.
Richard Gilbert, attorney for the homosexual couple, said
he disagrees with that tactic.
"You fight for your rights when your rights are being
denied," he said. "When the building is on fire, you don't
stand by and let the building burn down and say, 'We'll
fight the fire another day.' "
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family
Action, said whether same-sex marriage advocates choose to
fight at the state or federal level, either approach
highlights the need for a federal marriage-protection
amendment to preserve traditional marriage.
"The state-by-state approach has stirred up grassroots
conservatives in the affected states, and the results have
been 19 states adding state marriage amendments to their
constitutions," he said. "The swing-for-the-fence approach
--using the federal courts -- has galvanized conservatives
in a concerted push for an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution defining marriage once and for all."
TAKE ACTION: Now more than ever it is important to
encourage your senators and representatives to support the
federal Marriage Protection Amendment. Contact them using
CitizenLink's Marriage Protection Amendment Action Center.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0031537.cfm
(The preceding story was paid for by Focus on the Family
Action.)
----- 15 -----
Ford Praised For Supporting Homosexual Marriage
American Family Association
Online as of April 6, 2006
http://www.afa.net/Petitions/IssueDetail.asp?id=194
Send an email to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and major investment firms, letting them know about the Ford boycott.
Pride at Work, AFL-CIO's homosexual organization, has praised Ford Motor Company for the company's support of homosexual marriage.
In a March 13 press release, Pride at Work praised Ford for supporting "marriage equality," a term for homosexual marriage used by homosexuals.
The press release praising Ford's support for homosexual marriage followed Ford's sponsorship of CBS's "Without a Trace" program on March 9. In that program Ford publicly proved to the homosexual activists their support for the homosexual agenda by sponsoring a passionate kissing scene between two lesbians.
[Ed. Note: contact information is boardofdirectors at nyse dot com, or Board of Directors, New York Stock Exchange, 11 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005]
[More at URL]
----- 16 -----
Pro-Family Leader Calls California's Pro-Homosexual Textbook Bill 'Outrageous'
By Jenni Parker
American Family Association/Agape Press
April 6, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/afa/62006b.asp
(AgapePress) - A pro-homosexual bill that pro-family forces are describing as one of the most outrageous pieces of legislation to come through the California legislature this year has been approved by the state's Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senate Bill 1437 would require California schools' textbooks to highlight the positive contributions of homosexual and transgender individuals to society and would prevent school textbooks, teaching materials, school-sponsored activities, and instruction from reflecting adversely upon persons based on their sexual orientation or actual or perceived gender.
If SB 1437 passes, the bill could potentially require gender-neutral bathrooms in the state's schools. It could also result in a mandate to remove all references to "husband" and "wife" or "mom and dad" as the norm from all school textbooks.
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
Pennsylvania Official Charged With Using Position to Push Homosexual Agenda
American Family Association/Agape Press
By Allie Martin
April 6, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/afa/62006d.asp
(AgapePress) - The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA) is accusing the Human Relations Commission in that state of overstepping its stated purpose and goals to promote pro-homosexual causes.
The pro-family group charges that Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission Chairman Stephen Glassman has been using his position to promote homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. Glassman, who is homosexual, is accused of encouraging municipalities to go beyond the law to extend special rights to individuals based solely on sexual orientation.
Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA, says Glassman should not be allowed to go outside the boundaries of the Commission's stated agenda, as she feels he has done lately. "He's been very active in opposing our marriage protection amendment," she notes, for example.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
Ford Shareholders to Vote on 'Sexual Orientation' in Company Policy
Initiator of Ford Boycott Expects Automaker to Side With Homosexuals
American Family Association/Agape Press
By Allie Martin and Jody Brown
April 5, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/afa/52006a.asp
(AgapePress) - The founder of a prominent pro-family group that has called for a year-long boycott of the Ford Motor Company believes the huge automaker will side with homosexuals during its annual board meeting next month. At that meeting, Ford shareholders' decision will be announced on whether to amend the company's equal employment policy to exclude "sexual orientation."
The vote comes after shareholder Robert Hurley, a doctor from Illinois, submitted a proposal recommending that Ford change its equal employment policy to remove any reference to sexual orientation, activities, or interest. Ford asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to keep the measure off its proxy statement during the May 11 board meeting in Delaware, arguing it would damage the company's ability to recruit because some universities require companies to include sexual orientation in their policies. Associated Press also reports Ford had stated that publicity over changing the policy could hurt auto sales to supporters of homosexual rights.
But the federal agency refused Ford's request, saying that a rule that allows companies to reject proposals that deal with "ordinary business operations" does not apply to this case. Ford has said the proposal -- along with comments from the company -- will be included in the proxy statements going out later this week. Results will be announced at the May meeting.
[...]
The BoycottFord.com campaign was announced in early March after Ford backed out of an agreement to stop funding homosexual groups which promote homosexual marriage. In effect, says Wildmon, that response amounted to Ford saying "'No, we're not going to do that -- we're going to side with the homosexual groups."
Ford reported on Monday that sales fell five percent in March. The automaker attributed the decline primarily to a waning interest in its sport utility vehicles (SUVs). In the last week Ford shares have dropped from $8.29 (on March 30) to a low of $7.47 (Wednesday morning, April 5) -- a decline of approximately ten percent.
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
CBS Accused of Giving Embryo Adoption Short Shrift
By Mary Rettig
American Family Association/Agape Press
April 6, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/afa/62006c.asp
(AgapePress) - The director of the National Embryo Donation Center (NEDC) says a CBS News program pushed a political agenda on its recent piece on leftover embryos. He says the network did a disservice to the public when it aired "A Surplus of Embryos."
The segment aired during a February installment of 60 Minutes, the long-time popular Sunday evening program on the CBS network. The NEDC's Dr. Jeff Keenan says a couple who was using the Center to get pregnant was interviewed by CBS staff, and that the original premise of the segment was good.
According to Keenan, the staff that interviewed him and the couple -- Christy and Shannon Bomar -- informed them the piece was to be about what to do with leftover embryos. He says that turned out not to be the case.
[More at URL]
----- 20 -----
Center For Science & Culture Explains Kansas Science Standards
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2669
April 6, 2006 – The Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture has issued a report on the Kansas Science Standards published in 2005. The institute’s report features a Q&A section that explains what Kansas educators did to deal with issues of evolution and intelligent design.
[Embedded link: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/new_brochure_clearly_explains.html ]
[More at URL]
----- 21 -----
McCain Comments On Marriage Anything But 'Straight Talk'
Family Research Council
April 4, 2006 - Tuesday
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 4, 2006
CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Bethanie Swendsen, (202) 393-2100
"Is the Senator backtracking from statements made two years ago on a marriage protection amendment?" asks FRC President Tony Perkins
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR06D01
Washington, D.C. - On Sunday's "Meet the Press," Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was questioned about his upcoming appearance May 13th at the Liberty University graduation and his position on the Marriage Protection Amendment.
On Sunday, Senator McCain made his support of the Marriage Amendment conditional. He told Tim Russert, "In my state of Arizona, we have a ballot initiative on this issue, which I am supporting... if through the court process, they say that that's not constitutional, then I would support a constitutional amendment."
Two years ago Senator McCain opposed the Marriage Amendment saying it "usurps" a state's authority to legislate on this issue. However, he explained that if "state remedies to judicial activism fail," then he might support the Amendment.
In fact, state remedies have failed: last summer a federal judge struck down Nebraska's marriage amendment.
Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins, who will be sharing a stage with Senator McCain at the Liberty University graduation, is calling on the Senator to support the Marriage Protection Amendment:
"Although Senator McCain holds claim to the 'Straight Talk Express,' we are confused about his commitment to protect marriage. Two years ago, the Senator opposed a marriage amendment because he felt that state marriage amendments would survive federal court challenges. However, since then we've seen Nebraska's marriage amendment struck down and other state amendments tied up in court.
"Is the Senator backtracking from statements made two years ago on a marriage protection amendment? Now, he says he would support a marriage protection amendment but only if his own state's amendment is struck down.
"I hope Senator McCain will take this opportunity to clarify to values voters his intentions to protect traditional marriage. Judicial activism makes it very clear that marriage is at risk in the federal courts and Congress must pass, and the people of this country must ratify, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman."
-30-
----- 22 -----
Arizona Marriage Amendment in jeopardy
Family Research Council
April 5, 2006 - Wednesday
Arizona (more on this state)
Forward to a Friend!
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL06D03
Unless more signatures are generated quickly, the Protect Marriage Amendment in Arizona could fail to make the ballot. Your help is needed to significantly increase efforts to get the necessary signatures. Polls show that the marriage amendment should win in November, and despite efforts by volunteers, the goals for signatures are not being met.
Arizona must not be the first state in which a marriage amendment is defeated! By July 6, the Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition must turn in 183,917 valid signatures of registered voters in order to qualify the amendment for the November, 2006 ballot. To guarantee certified names, 250-300,000 signatures need to be gathered.
Here's how you can help:
--If you have PMA petitions with any number of signatures, please turn them in now. Mail them or drop them off at the offices of the Center for Arizona Policy located at 11000 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 120, Scottsdale, 85260. Call 480-922-3101 for directions.
--If you have blank PMA petitions, commit to getting those petitions filled over the next 2 to 3 weeks.
--Ask your church or other group to conduct a petition drive within the next 2 to 3 weeks. If your church already has gathered signatures, ask whether you can try one more time to get signatures. If you need help, contact the Center for Arizona Policy and they can send teams to your church to gather signatures. They can also send you an information packet on how to conduct a petition drive.
--If you can join a team of volunteers to attend events and gather signatures, please e-mail Matthew du Mee at: matthew@azpolicy.org.
--Commit to gather at least 50 signatures. To have PMA petitions sent to you, e-mail: info@azpolicy.org or call: 480-922-3101.
[More at URL]
----- 23 -----
Embryonic Stem Cell bill to come before Maryland Governor Ehrlich
Family Research Council
April 3, 2006 - Monday
Maryland (more on this state)
Forward to a Friend!
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL06D01
Embryonic stem cell and human cloning research funding is the aim of Senate Bill 144. Please contact Governor Ehrlich now to urge him to veto SB 144. This patchwork legislation is unlikely to fund the most promising research (adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research) which FRC promotes, but it will fund embryonic stem cell research which requires the destruction of living human embryos. And it will allow the production of cloned human embryos.
SB 144 would exploit women, especially poor women, because prohibitions against soliciting women to donate their eggs or embryos strictly for research purposes were amended out of the bill. The bill will spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on speculative, unethical embryonic stem cell research and human embryo cloning.
Governor Robert Ehrlich
Phone: 410-974-3901
E-mail: governor@gov.state.md.us
----- 24 -----
The Parents Right to Know Initiative in California needs your support
Family Research Council
April 3, 2006 - Monday
California (more on this state)
Forward to a Friend!
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL06D02
In California, a girl under age 18 can't get a flu shot, a cavity filled, or an aspirin dispensed by the school nurse without a parent knowing. But a doctor can perform a surgical or chemical abortion on a young girl without informing a parent.
The Parents' Right to Know Initiative will require that a physician notify in writing a parent or guardian at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor girl.
California needs the Parents' Right to Know Initiative because:
* Parents know their children's needs best. Parents have invested time and attention in raising their daughter; they care about her future. Parents can help a minor daughter understand all her options rather than be pressured into a secret abortion.
* A young girl who is pregnant needs the advice and support of a parent, not a stranger who profits from abortions.
* On a daily basis, older men exploit young girls and use secret abortions to cover up their crimes.
* More than thirty states currently have parental involvement laws like the Parents' Right to Know Initiative in effect.
States that have laws like the Parents' Right to Know Initiative have experienced real reductions in pregnancies and abortions among minor girls.
To help gather signatures or to volunteer for the Parents' Right to Know campaign or to get more information and campaign materials go to the Parents Right to Know website, email Janet@ParentsRight2Know.org, call toll-free 866-828-8355 or mail to: Parents' Right to Know, 2555 Rio de Oro Way, Sacramento, CA 95826
----- 25 -----
‘Neutral’ School Agreement Is a Victory for Homosexual Activists
Concerned Women for America
4/6/2006
By Linda Harvey
A pact that appears to guarantee impartiality lets loose the wolves among the sheep.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10489/CFI/family/index.htm
This article, by the president of Mission America, ran on WorldNetDaily.com on April 1, 2006. Mrs. Harvey recently authored the paper Fairy Tales Don’t Come True for CWA’s Culture & Family Institute. For other CWA resources, see below.
A recent agreement between several national groups on how to handle "sexual orientation" in schools is unacceptable, misleading and may actually cause more problems than it purports to solve.
The document, "Public Schools and Sexual Orientation" was released by the First Amendment Center in conjunction with the Christian Educators Association International and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
I have researched and reported on homosexuality in the schools for more than a decade through the organization I head, Mission America of Columbus, Ohio. I read this announcement with shock and dismay. My first reaction was, “GLSEN? How could a group of genuine Christian believers sit down at any table with that organization?”
And reviewing the document itself has only heightened my concern. Throughout the document, homosexuality is treated as an alternate viewpoint which Christians are now supposed to treat with respect and civility. We are to “agree to disagree” when it comes to students, and to view this as just an “alternate viewpoint.” This presents a problem for a committed Christian, when we know from both God's standards and from public-health statistics that homosexuality has grave, life-changing consequences and should never be advocated to youth.
[More at URL]
----- 26 -----
Talking Points: The Case for Marriage VI
Faith and Freedom Network
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2006/04/talking-points-case-for-marriage-vi.html
Prohibiting same-sex marriage is the same as prohibiting interracial marriage as some states used to do.
* Laws banning interracial marriage were designed to keep the races apart, not about changing the definition of marriage. Race has nothing to do with marriage, but gender does. [Ed. Note: That's not what the supporters of miscegenation laws said; they used exactly the same arguments against interracial marriage as are used against GBLT marriage rights today - you can go through them line by line, matching them up.]
* We prohibit discrimination based on race because it is inherent, involuntary, and unchangeable. Homosexuality does not fit these criteria. No academic institution or any U.S. court has established that homosexuality is given at birth and is a permanent, unchangeable feature of an individual. [Ed. Note: Outside of fundamentalism, you can find very, very few scientists who have actually studied this who think there is any real chance that sexual orientation is changeable after puberty. Fundamentalist groups themselves compare the "ex-gay" lifestyle to a lifetime of abstinence - see previous CWUs. Also, "ex-gay" groups have tremendously high failure rates, and these are the most stridently and religiously motivated people imaginable. Despite this, the co-founders of Exodus International fell in love and gave up on the whole idea.]
* For the reasons mentioned above, marriage is not a civil rights issue and a majority of people of color find this comparison offensive. In fact, a Gallup Poll and Washington Post poll in the summer of 2003 – after the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts – showed a 23 percentage point drop (from 58 to 35 percent) in support by African Americans for any form of legalizing same-sex relationships. [Ed. Note: Support for marriage rights is now above 50% in Massachusetts, according to early 2006 polling.]
* Forty-three states have passed laws to reaffirm their commitment to marriage between one man and one woman. This has happened in just the last 10 years! In 1998, the Washington State Legislature voted by a super-majority to preserve authentic marriage by passing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). [Ed. Note: I don't have much here. Surprise, the US has a history of being stridently anti-gay. It was only in 2003 that laws making us illegal in 24 states were overturned by the Supreme Court.]
[More at URL]
----- 27 -----
Talking Points: The Case for Marriage VII
Faith and Freedom Network
Thursday, April 06, 2006
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2006/04/talking-points-case-for-marriage-vii.html
Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.
No, and a majority of African Americans find this comparison offensive. Being of a particular race is not like having a homosexual desire. [Ed. Note: Well, yes, it is, definitionally. It's a civil matter of rights. That makes it a civil rights issue.]
The more same-sex marriage advocates claim to have a legitimate civil rights battle, the less African Americans and people of color support same-sex marriage. [Ed. Note: They provide no data to back this up, and I have no idea how it's related, anyway. Are they suggesting that only people of colour can define what is and isn't a civil rights issue? As a fundamentalist religious organisation, they seem quite prepared to define civil rights issues in other cases.]
Marriage is an institution that transcends culture, and predates our Constitution. Our Nation’s Bill of Rights applies only to the individual, not couples. [Ed. Note: Marriage has had an almost uncountable number of forms, most centred around the control of women as property. Romantic marriage is, as has been pointed out very often, is, in evolutionary terms, barely any older than the concept of marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The second sentence is absolutely bizarre; equal treatment under the law somehow doesn't apply if more than one person is involved? Is freedom of speech to be similarly constrained? Are you only free from illegal search and seizure if you are single, i.e., unmarried? What the hell?]
[More at URL]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Mebbe I'm just dumb but ...
Date: 2006-04-07 08:11 am (UTC)Oh ... and I know you used <lj-cut> but that's one righteous long list there. Ayup. Long.
*shrug*
Re: Mebbe I'm just dumb but ...
Date: 2006-04-07 08:26 am (UTC)It might do other things too, I don't know. That's just my reading of their coverage. But I've been reading their coverage for a while, I kind of have a pretty good handle on interpreting it.
Re: Mebbe I'm just dumb but ...
Date: 2006-04-07 09:23 am (UTC)Because, you know, that's what all GLBT people want. We don't want, for instance, not to be hunted down and killed for being who we are. We don't want to be treated like basic human beings, we want to be treated better than everyone else! Giving us equal rights to straight couples means that straight couples have lost something, or somesuch. :/
no subject
Date: 2006-04-07 12:41 pm (UTC)"Arizona must not be the first state in which a marriage amendment is defeated!". It wouldn't be the first. It'd be the second. An amendment in New Hampshire was pretty soundly voted down not too long ago. See here (http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/03222006/news/93789.htm").
In regards to ant-miscegination laws: "We prohibit discrimination based on race because it is inherent, involuntary, and unchangeable. Homosexuality does not fit these criteria". Except prohibiting inter-racial marriage prohibits someone from marrying their preferred choice of partner, just like prohibiting a gay person from marrying the person they choose to marry does. Prohibiting gay marriage is actually more restrictive than prohibiting inter-racial marriage because prohibiting inter-racial marriage doesn't eliminate a person's pool of potential spouses completely. I feel that people who talk about the immutable nature of race when talking about inter-racial marriage are missing the point, and it's always irked me.
"Haley said in a country where only 1 percent of the
population is evangelical Christian, there is no support
for those who question same-sex attraction or have a
family member who is homosexual." Does Catholicism simply not exist in the Evangelical worldview or what?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-07 03:19 pm (UTC)Oooh, good call. They even reported on it, and I even reposted that here. So they can't even say they didn't notice. I guess it's just another justified lie for the greater goal.
Prohibiting gay marriage is actually more restrictive than prohibiting inter-racial marriage because prohibiting inter-racial marriage doesn't eliminate a person's pool of potential spouses completely.
Which is, of course, the point. Seriously, there is no way for a GBLT person to live a "good life" in their theology; in fact, they generally go so far as to say there is no such thing as a queer person, only a heterosexual person engaged in sexual perversion, mental illness, or some other variant. They accept us in no form other than nonexistent.
I feel that people who talk about the immutable nature of race when talking about inter-racial marriage are missing the point, and it's always irked me.
I particularly find it irksome given that religion is a choice. In no uncertain terms. They can't even deny that, it's key to their theology; you choose to accept Jesus or to go to hell and suffer in eternity. Now, while I don't consider that a "free choice" any more than "open the bank fault or I'll shoot you in the motherfucking head" is really a "free choice," they do. So they are arguing against their own protections - except when they spin around and do the opposite, of course, and even go so far as to claim supra-protection status as being more important than other rights.