Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Apr. 22nd, 2006 12:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdFocus on the Family has been dinking with their mail-based news system, and it hasn't worked completely correctly once this week. This is why I've been posting complete stories a few times. They actually say that's okay as long as it's not for "political" purposes - which is pretty funny given that they're a 501(c)(3) and etc etc etc. Consider all Focus on the Family stories here to be informational, rather than political, please, and this will meet their guideline requests. Also, you'll be doing more to separate their political and charitable activities than they do! Anyway, that's what's up with that.
Student at Poway (CA) High School kept out of class after refusing to remove anti-gay T-shirt in school (Front: "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned" Back: "Homosexuality is Shameful"), but was not otherwise disciplined; he sued; ADF stepped in to support him; Focus on the Family condemns appeals court for ruling against him, defends T-shirt as "biblical"; I'm slightly divided here, in that if they actually meant their talk about free speech on campuses I'd be pretty sympathetic, but their history shows they don't, except for themselves, so;
FotF story on a bill allowing religious groups acting as agents of the state for adoptions to continue to discriminate against same-sex married couples introduced; they admit it has little chance of passage; the fundamentalists have pulled together some people to testify that having children in the care of gay and lesbian couples is abusive;
Story on appeal of previous anti-abortion legislation in South Dakota, before the complete ban; this one's up to the Court of Appeals; arguments don't seem to be going well for the anti-abortion-rights side;
***** Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM demanding passage of Rep. Fred Upton's Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, H.R. 310, a bill to radically increase "indecency" enforcement in the broadcast media, and raise fines to a half million per incident; it already passed the house, is stalled in the Senate. They dismiss suggestions that it's the parents' job to manage what their children watch, and demand government intervention;
Focus on the Family Canada ACTION ITEM in Alberta to allow clergy and marriage commissioners to refuse to marry same-sex couples; also amends the school act to say that "no student shall be required to attend and no teacher shall be required to teach that part of a course that has in its curriculum that marriage may be a union between persons of the same sex," including public schools; also requires pre-notification and opt-out of any discussion in schools of same-sex marriage, and provides blanket exemption for teachers and students from any ramifications for refusing to participate; I'd support it if it was clergy-and-religious-schools only, but of course it's not; (full text here: http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p=bills_bill&selectbill=208 );
Focus on the Family Canada ACTION ITEM to protest the Public Service Alliance of Canada's internal "zero tolerance" antidiscrimination policies towards GBLT citizens; they want those policies removed as violations of religious freedom;
Focus on the Family Canada story on "intelligent design" in Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council's decision to reject a study on ID making populist inroads against evolutionary theory on the basis that the grant application didn't take ID seriously as science;
Focus on the Family US: Judicial battles "could resume in May"; former nominee Judge Charles Pickering wants a Constitutional amendment to overturn Marlbury v Madison (1803) and assign judgment of Constitutionality of a law to the legislature which passed it, thus, to my mind, making the entire damn idea of a limiting Constitution meaningless, since all Congress would have to do is say, "Yeah, we think this is Constitutional," which they'd obviously be able to do since they had a majority vote to pass the thing;
Focus on the Family US condemns Planned Parenthood safer-sex ad as promoting teen sex;
FotF rejects Federalism, condemns the idea that states should be able to decide on same-sex marriage; compares same-sex marriage to rapists, pedophiles, stalkers, and so on; asserts the federal anti-marriage amendment does not discriminate against lesbian and gay couples and that GBLT people want to "rip apart an institution that has been around for thousands of years";
FotF story on a group of private religious schools trying to get a Federal bill mandating that accreditation boards cannot require nondiscrimination policies, in particular cannot require nondiscrimination polities protecting GBLT people, as part of the accreditation process; the House has already passed the bill, it's going to the Senate now; FotF says, "non-discrimination statutes and policies are a bad idea for all segments of society, not just for Christian or religious colleges";
FotF condemns Harvard stem-cell research plans as "Human Cloning," and killing human beings; note the "human cloning" language used for stem-cell research, this is what I've been talking about whenever you see a "human cloning" bill;
Federal judge overturns local clinic buffer-zone law, says, "perhaps more than at any other place and any other time, in cases such as this, speech guaranteed by the First Amendment must be protected"; okay, good, now let's get these so-called "free speech zone/protest zone" abominations before this judge and watch him change his mind instantly - or not, in which case yay! he'll be a hero! and I really mean that, but somehow I think he'd come up with new ideas;
***** Kansas doctor who performs abortions - Focus on the Family refers to him as "George R. Tiller, one of the most notorious late-term abortionists in the U.S." - had a patient die last year; he's been cleared by the state medical board, but fundamentalists have succeeded in getting enough signatures on a petition to force a grand jury investigation; apparently Kansas law allows this(!); Operation Rescue says, "It's high time that this man is held accountable for his actions that have caused untold misery and loss of life";
Focus on the Family (US) ACTION ITEM to support anti-marriage amendment; claims "diverse coalition" supporting the anti-marriage amendment, talks about how anti-marrige-rights unites the country against the queers;
Faith and Freedom Network reports news from Tim Eyman on progress gaining signatures for a referendum to overturn the state GBLT-civil-rights protection bill passed earlier this year; Gary Randall asks for help collecting more signatures;
Family Research Council ACTION ITEM on Illinois anti-marriage amendment petition drive; internal deadline extended to 30 April; calls on all churches to get petitions in now now now, and to get more signatures;
Family Research Council ACTION ITEM to sign petition supporting Federal anti-marriage amendment; they're really serious about this run at it;
Traditional Values Coalition ACTION ITEM against California bill banning anti-GBLT lesson plans in California public schools;
TVC: "ADF Wins Jury Trial Over Botched Abortion";
TVC cranky at bill introduction - the Freedom of Choice Act - that would overturn anti-abortion law at the Federal level, overriding state law; it has no shot, of course;
TVC, which thinks that transgendered people should be involuntarily institutionalised, rails against TG people in the media;
Canada Family Action Coalition accuses BC schools of being anti-heterosexual; suggests taking children out of public education;
Illinois Family Institute says they're on track to get enough signatures for their anti-marriage rights amendment; also plays the "diseased faggots" card, with the "posing a health risk to YOUR CHILDREN!!!!1!" card; this line in particular is interesting, as it implies God created AIDS: "Dr. John Diggs, author of "The "Health Risks of Gay Sex," says homosexual sodomy is so dangerous that it's almost as if it was created to spread disease." (Underlining in original; c.f. creationism); full version has lists of diseases supposedly almost only queers get;
American Family Association ACTION ITEM to condemn Ford Motor for its support of GBLT rights; AFA says their boycott is the reason Ford stock is down (as are sales), takes credit for Ford's financial troubles; I'm sure their boycott isn't help any, but Ford has been on the rocks for a while;
AFA/Agape Press quotes fundamentalist wonk Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in anti-pr0n article; the other name mentioned, Peter Stock, is a big Canadian anti-pr0n crusader, from the Canadian Institute for Education on the Family and also a member of the Canadian Family Action Coalition, a fundamentalist group I also monitor;
Baptist Press freaks out over an elementary-school book with gay characters - "King and King."
----- 1 -----
9th Circuit Hits Christians Again
by Gary Schneeberger, editor
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
April 21, 2006
Infamous anti-Pledge court rules against a high school student's right to wear a T-shirt proclaiming the biblical view of homosexuality.
[Received in email - no URL]
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- which found the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional for its reference to America being one nation "under God" -- has upheld a high school's decision to forbid a student from wearing a T-shirt expressing the biblical view of homosexuality.
In a 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court, Poway (Calif.) High School student Chase Harper lost his appeal that school officials violated his First Amendment rights by refusing to let him wear a shirt protesting the school's participation in a gay-activist-driven "Day of Silence" in 2004. The day after the event, which was sponsored by the school's pro-homosexual Gay-Straight Alliance, Harper wore a shirt that read "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned" on the front and "Homosexuality is Shameful" on the back.
After Harper refused to remove the shirt, Poway High's principal kept him out of class and ordered him to do homework in a conference room for the rest of the day. He was not suspended.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing the majority opinion for the 9th Circuit panel that considered the case, said it was clear Harper's T-shirt violated the rights of other students "in the most fundamental way."
"Speech that attacks high school students who are members of minority groups that have historically been oppressed, subjected to verbal and physical abuse, and made to feel inferior, serves to injure and intimidate them, as well as to damage their sense of security and interfere with their opportunity to learn," he wrote. "The demeaning of young gay and lesbian students in a school environment is detrimental not only to their psychological health and well-being, but also to their educational development."
Reinhardt went on to cite not federal laws supporting his assertion -- but a whole host of research that Focus on the Family Action judicial analyst Bruce Hausknecht called "questionable."
"Judge Reinhardt has a nasty habit of going way beyond what is necessary to decide an issue, in a grand scheme to further his left-wing social agenda," he said. "In this case, he goes beyond the pale by comparing Christian opposition to homosexuality with racism and, ironically, religious discrimination, suggesting that discrimination against blacks and Jews was once a popularly held view (which turned out to be wrong) as well.
"In a reprehensible play to emotions, he even cites some questionable and conclusory pro-homosexual studies to create sympathy for the plight of homosexual students, suggesting that they 'may' be dropping out or suffering emotionally because of discrimination and name-calling in schools. What this social science 'data' has to do with his legal analysis, he doesn't really say."
Harper is represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which said it plans to appeal the decision to the full 9th Circuit.
"Students do not give up their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Kevin Theriot explained. "This panel has upheld school censorship of student expression if it is the Christian view of homosexual behavior. They have essentially determined that student quotation of Scripture can be prohibited."
The third judge on the panel, Alex Kozinski, vigorously dissented.
"I have considerable difficulty with giving school authorities the power to decide that only one side of a controversial topic may be discussed in the school environment because the opposing point of view is too extreme or demeaning," he wrote. "The fundamental problem with the majorityís approach is that it has no anchor anywhere in the record or in the law. It is entirely a judicial creation, hatched to deal with the situation before us, but likely to cause innumerable problems in the future."
Hausknecht praised Kozinski for boldly challenging his colleague's passion for legalizing viewpoint discrimination in schools.
"In effect, Reinhardt has established a rule that any speech that opposes homosexuality automatically causes a disruption in school and can be prohibited," he said. "If that's not an attempt to shut up Christians, I don't know what is."
FOR MORE INFORMATION: To learn more about the left-wing leanings of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt, read the Citizen magazine special report "Judge Gone Wild."
http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/coverstory/a0039283.cfm
----- 2 -----
Massachusetts Waits on Gay-Adoption Enforcement
Bill under consideration would exempt religious groups.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
April 21, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
Catholic Charities of Massachusetts has been spared prosecution while the state waits for the outcome of a bill that would exempt religious agencies from having to place children in gay adoptive families.
A young woman raised in a gay household testified before a legislative committee about her experiences. Evelyn Reilly of the Massachusetts Family Institute recounted the testimony.
"She counted 14 that she knew, and they were all negatively impacted," Reilly said. "She was having nightmares and blacking out at age six."
But state Rep. George Peterson said that under nondiscrimination laws, religious adoption agencies would be forced to include gay couples.
"I would hope that we could do something so that those who have a strong belief can follow in those beliefs," he said.
Gov. Mitt Romney's Act to Protect Religious Freedom would do that, but Peterson told Family News in Focus its chance of passage is slim.
"I think it's got an uphill battle," he said. "I don't see an awful lot of push for it right now."
If the bill fails, religious agencies could be essentially forced out of the adoption business in Massachusetts. Carrie Gordon Earll, director of issue analysis at Focus on the Family Action, said that's what happens when gay advocates play the sympathy card.
"So when we hear, 'There's no harm done, we just want to protect everyone,' youíve got to be very careful, because you may on one hand think you're extending a right to someone, and you may actually be taking a right away from someone else."
----- 3 -----
Abortion Activists Challenge S.D. Informed-Consent Law
Focus on the Family
IN BRIEF
April 21, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
A federal appeals court heard arguments Thursday challenging South Dakota's law requiring abortionists to warn patients about abortion's dangers, although a ruling is not expected for weeks.
The case rises from a challenge to the 2005 law from Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota. The group claims the law requires doctors to give inaccurate information and infringes on their free-speech rights.
Planned Parenthood lawyer Tim Branson said the law is unconstitutional because it refers to an embryo as a human being, contradicting the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade that an embryo is not a person.
A lower court ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood, but South Dakota appealed. Its attorneys argued before the 8th Circuit that the law is "not a straightjacket" for abortionists. The state even introduced as evidence a sample letter abortionists could hand out to patients to disassociate themselves from the law.
But Judge Raymond Gruender didn't seem to buy that argument, saying that he didn't "see anything in the law that says a doctor can disassociate himself from the law."
----- 4 -----
We Have a Different Vision for Television
SUMMARY: It's time to up the fines for indecency on the airwaves.
by Daniel Weiss, senior analyst, media and sexuality
Focus on the Family
April 21, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
The annals of history will not likely note the 2000 presidential debates for their rhetorical flourish. Nevertheless, then-candidate George W. Bush was able to present a surprisingly clear political vision amidst the din of manipulative discourse. On issue after issue he said, simply, "My opponent and I have a different vision."
We find similar clarity concerning competing visions on the issue of broadcast indecency. On one side are pro-family groups, average citizens, and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin, who have been trying to revive and apply the nation's laws against broadcast indecency. On the other side are Sens. Bill Frist and Ted Stevens and the film, cable and broadcast entertainment industries, whose hubris was on display late last week in the form of a federal suit filed by ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, on behalf of themselves and 800 broadcast affiliates, for the right - the right! - to air the words "f*k" and "s*t" on network television.
Friends, the entertainment industry and I have a different vision.
Defending their lawsuit, the networks issued a statement that read:
"We strongly believe that the FCC rulings issued on March 15 that we are appealing today are unconstitutional and inconsistent with two decades of previous FCC decisions. In filing these court appeals we are seeking to overturn the FCC decisions that the broadcast of fleeting, isolated -- and in some cases unintentional -- words rendered these programs indecent. The FCC overstepped its authority in an attempt to regulate content protected by the First Amendment, acted arbitrarily and failed to provide broadcasters with a clear and consistent standard for determining what content the government intends to penalize. Furthermore, the FCC rulings underscore the inherent problem in growing government control over what viewers should and shouldn't see on television. Parents currently have the ability to control and block programming they deem inappropriate for family viewing from entering their homes through the use of the V-chip and cable and satellite blocking technologies."
This statement makes three primary and erroneous claims:
1) The entertainment industry should be able to do what it wants.
2) The government has no business regulating this industry.
3) Parents are solely and exclusively responsibility for protecting their children.
The first claim denies the fact that every broadcaster in the United States operates with a conditional-use license. The privilege to broadcast is predicated on serving the public interest. Broadcasters have never had unlimited freedom to air whatever material they wanted. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in FCC v. Pacifica that "Of all forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited First Amendment protection."
The second claim also ignores the Pacifica ruling, which upheld the right of the FCC to regulate broadcast material. Although the FCC chose to not enforce federal laws for 20 years, the laws have never changed during that time. Sadly, in the absence of law enforcement, broadcasters are, in effect, claiming squatters' rights. Because they have been polluting public airwaves for two decades, they argue, they now have a constitutional right not only to continue polluting, but to pump ever more toxic content into America's living rooms.
The only way that broadcasters can make the first two claims is to push the responsibility for their programming choices onto parents. If broadcasters can somehow convince the public, or at least federal lawmakers, that consumers are the only ones responsible for protecting children, then there is no need for government regulation or content review.
While I would agree that parents have the primary responsibility for their children, that does not negate the requirements broadcasters have to air only material that serves the public interest. Broadcasters, like every other business, must operate within applicable laws.
By filing suit, the broadcasters are making it clear that they do not like existing law. However, because they know the public will not support a legislative change, broadcasters are seeking to nullify current law in the courts.
So intent is the TV industry on cultural pollution, it is launching a $300 million campaign to teach parents how to not watch the filth the industry is suing to air.
Let me repeat that: The industry is spending $300 million to teach parents how block, program out, and generally not watch the filthy material they are suing in federal court for the right to air.
Is this incongruency registering with anyone?
Certainly not our nation's top lawmakers.
Friends, the Senate leadership and I have a different vision.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has been sitting on Congressman Fred Upton's Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act for more than a year. The bill would increase the maximum fine for indeceny to $500,000 per incident, along with other strong provisions. Although the House passed this bill by a vote of 389-38, Frist has refused to bring the bill to a vote in the Senate.
Calls to his office have yielded no results. One aide claimed that "no one watches broadcast TV, so (Upton's bill) wouldn't help anything." Perhaps this aide hasn't heard of the Super Bowl which registers nearly 100 million American viewers each year. Or, maybe the aide doesn't see the Nielsen TV ratings each week, which rarely, if ever, show a cable program cracking the top 20.
Another bitter disappointment has been Sen. Ted Stevens, chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Stevens, who likes to position himself as a friend of the people, invited Jack Valenti, former head of the Motion Picture Association of America, to find a solution to TV indecency. Valenti's solution: It's the parents' job. Forgive me if I sound cynical. It seems a bit like asking Enron to solve corporate corruption.
Stevens has bottlenecked at least four indecency-related bills in his committee during the current session and has publicly stated that none has enough support to pass. Really? Not even a similar bill by Sen. Sam Brownback which passed the Senate by a vote of 99-1 last session?
Stevens has made it clear that his solution for corporate irresponsibility is for parents to be more vigilant. This bizarre and inexplicable coddling has led the industry to file its brazen lawsuit seeking to dismantle decency laws. Sen. Stevens, this is not leadership.
Dear friends, my opponents and I have a different vision.
The time to choose is now. Either the airwaves belong to the people or to the entertainment industry. You've seen what the industry wants to do with them. Which side will you stand on?
We have an FCC chairman committed to enforcing indecency law, but he needs our help. The indecency fines are outdated and ineffective. The TV industry is thumbing its nose at the law. We can sit idly by or take action now.
Call Sens. Frist and Stevens and ask them to pass the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. Ask them to choose American families over cultural polluters. And, if they don't, replace them with someone who will.
The choice and the responsibility are yours.
TAKE ACTION: Ask your senators to support Rep. Fred Upton's Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, H.R. 310, which has already passed the House and would increase maximum fines to $500,000 per incident. You can contact your senators through our new Action Center.
http://vocusgr.vocus.com/GRSPACE2/dotnet/WebPublish/Controller.aspx?SiteName=FOTF&Definition=ViewIssue&IssueID=2258
----- 5 -----
BILL PRESERVES CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS
Today’s Family News
Focus on the Family Canada
April 21, 2006
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/religiousFreedom/stories/042106.html
Albertans who disagree with Parliament’s decision last year to pass Bill C-38, which redefined marriage, may soon be able to breathe easier. Members of the Alberta legislature could soon be debating a private bill that would protect Albertans from losing their jobs or facing lawsuits because of their beliefs about marriage.
“In a free society, the most important right is the right to disagree with and criticize government policy, and this bill enhances that right,” Conservative MLA Ted Morton, who is sponsoring Bill 208, told the Cochrane Times
The federal law includes limited protections for people of faith and religious institutions who cannot in good conscience endorse same-sex marriage. But as critics pointed out at the time, they are weak, since the areas of protection cited come under provincial jurisdiction.
( Full text of bill here: http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p=bills_bill&selectbill=208 )
[More at URL]
[NOT on the web page, in mail only:]
TAKE ACTION> Protect Freedom of Religion and Conscience
Contact your provincial or territorial government representative and urge them to make changes to provincial laws so that freedom of religion is protected in light of the passing of the Civil Marriage Act. If you live in Alberta, contact your MLA in support of the bill that proposes protection of these freedoms. If you live elsewhere, remind your provincial or territorial government that these protections are needed and that Alberta is setting an example that they can follow.
----- 6 -----
UNION’S PRO-GAY STANCE CHALLENGED
Today’s Family News
Focus on the Family Canada
April 21, 2006
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/religiousFreedom/stories/042106_02.html
The Public Service Alliance of Canada is refusing to let one of its members conscientiously object to its open support of same-sex marriage and families.
As the Ottawa Sun reported last week, Susan Comstock, a Roman Catholic employed by the Treasury Board of Canada, is asking that the portion of her union dues used to fund its campaign in support of Bill C-38 be diverted to a charity. She also wants the union to scrap its internal policy of “zero tolerance of homophobia and heterosexism” on grounds that it violates her religious freedom.
[More at URL]
Take Action> For contact information to express your concerns to PSAC, click here:
http://www.psac-afpc.org/about/contacts-e.shtml
----- 7 -----
EVOLUTIONIST DENIED FEDERAL FUNDING
Today’s Family News
Focus on the Family Canada
April 21, 2006
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/misc/042106.html
One of Canada’s foremost evolutionary scientists is accusing the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of not being resolute enough in its rejection of intelligent design as a counter-argument for the origins of life on Earth.
Director of McGill University’s Evolution Education Research Centre Brian Alters clashed with the SSHRC when it denied his request for a $40,000 grant to study how the growing popularity of intelligent design (ID) in the United States is hurting Canadians’ acceptance of evolution, according to the Ottawa Citizen.
ID advocates propose that the observable complexity of the natural world is all the work of an intelligent designer, and that science cannot determine who or what this designer is.
The SSHRC said that Alters’ application had been turned down because he had not supplied “adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent design theory, was correct.” Alters and the university both consider that statement a “factual error” and want the council to reconsider.
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Judicial Confirmation Battle Could Resume in May
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
April 20, 2006
A former blocked nominee speaks out.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0040193.cfm
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., plans to bring two controversial judicial nominees to the floor in May.
A Frist aide said Tuesday that votes will likely be scheduled next month on the long-blocked nominations of U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and White House aide Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Senate Democrats have stalled those nominations -- along with nearly a dozen others.
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said it's past time for the Senate to give the pair up-or-down votes.
[...]
Pickering said the process of delaying action on nominations for three and four years is not acceptable and the best qualified nominees are not going to be willing to go through it.
Finally, he wants a constitutional amendment that would bar any changes or alternations to the Constitution, except by the amendment process.
"Judges need to leave changing the Constitution to the people," he said, "Judges and the Supreme Court need to interpret the Constitution according to the common understanding of the relevant provision at the time the provision was adopted.
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
Planned Parenthood Ad Promotes Teen Sex
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
from staff reports
April 20, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040190.cfm
TV commercial maintains that "safe is sexy."
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America is running a crude commercial targeting teens -- part of its new "safe is sexy" campaign. The ads have been appearing on MTV and a Web site popular with teens called MySpace.com.
The commercial depicts a young woman practicing "safe sex" by using the right "tools" -- in one reference she's referring to condoms and in another she's making a crude reference to her male partner.
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Where's Tim Russert When You Need Him?
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
Citizenlink Features
April 20, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/commentary/a0040189.cfm
Imagine I'm Tim Russert. It's easy if you try.
Pretend this is NBC's Meet the Press, and you're my guest on the program -- a moderate Democratic senator.
Let's pretend the topic for discussion is same-sex "marriage" -- especially the upcoming June vote in Congress on the Marriage Protection Amendment.
As a veteran Washington, D.C., journalist and pundit who has covered Capitol Hill for decades -- remember now, we're just pretending -- I want to know how you are going to vote.
I ask outright, no holds barred (because I'm Tim Russert after all) -- "Senator, how are you going to vote in June?" Or maybe it would be, "Where do you stand on the issue of same-sex marriage?" Straight-shooting. No nonsense. Yup. That's what I want to know.
And you answer, equally forthrightly: "I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but the regulation of marriage has always been, and should remain, the jurisdiction of the states. We should not enshrine discrimination against any group in our Constitution."
So, now I ask the quintessential Russert question: "Senator, am I hearing you say you approve of discrimination, but only if it's done at the state level and not enshrined in the federal Constitution?"
[...]
Either marriage is a form of "discrimination" -- that is, was created by man and hence subject to the tinkering of men doing whatever they want to it -- or it is something which is bigger than man and transcends man's petty little categories. It cannot be both.
I'm not Tim Russert, but let me set the record straight on this issue. First off, marriage is neither man-made nor a human right. It is a God-given gift and privilege.
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
U.S. Lawmakers Aim to Protect Christian Colleges
Private schools would be exempt from laws concerning homosexual students.
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
Citizenlink Features
April 19, 2006
http://family.org/cforum/news/a0040177.cfm
One lawmaker has proposed legislation that would prevent college accreditation boards from requiring private Christian colleges to follow non-discrimination laws. Though most boards do not make such adherence a requirement, pressure from gay activists has many concerned for the future.
The measure, proposed by Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, has already passed the House and is now before the Senate.
Carri Jenkins, spokeswoman for Brigham Young University (BYU), one of many schools lobbying for the legislation, said the proposed law would protect private institutions.
"This is really a pre-emptive move on the part of these schools," she said.
[...]
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said non-discrimination statutes and policies are a bad idea for all segments of society, not just for Christian or religious colleges.
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
U.S. Scientists to Try Human Cloning
Focus on the Family
Citizenlink Features
April 20, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/briefs/a0040197.cfm
American researchers plan to clone human embryos in pursuit of embryonic stem cells, a feat that Korean scientists falsely claimed they accomplished last year.
According to Bloomberg, the announcement was made by scientists from Harvard University at a conference in Cambridge, Mass., earlier this month.
"We really don't have a lot of other avenues available'' for research, said Kevin Eggan, a cloning expert and molecular biologist at Harvard.
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus on the Family Action, said embryonic stem-cell research is always wrong.
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
Federal Judge Rules Against Florida Buffer Zone
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 20, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/briefs/a0040196.cfm
The 20-foot buffer zone imposed by West Palm beach against pro-life sidewalk counselors violates their free speech rights, according to a federal judge in Florida.
The Associated Press reported that U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks ruled April 11 that the ordinance was too restrictive.
"Freedom of speech is rarely an issue when everyone agrees," Middlebrooks wrote in his decision. "Perhaps more than at any other place and any other time, in cases such as this, speech guaranteed by the First Amendment must be protected."
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
Late-Term Abortionist Faces Grand-Jury Investigation
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 20, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/briefs/a0040198.cfm
George R. Tiller, one of the most notorious late-term abortionists in the U.S., will face a grand-jury investigation over the death of a girl following a botched abortion.
According to Life Site News, a petition drive garnered nearly three times the required number of signatures needed to proceed with an investigation. The signatures were certified Tuesday.
Nineteen-year-old Christin A. Gilbert died in January 2005 at Tiller's Women's Health Care Services. Gilbert, who had Down syndrome, was a victim of sexual abuse.
The Kansas Board of Healing Arts cleared Tiller of responsibility last November. But Kansas allows a petition drive to convene grand juries to investigate suspected criminal violations when counties fail to act.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
Conservatives Not Alone in Fighting for Marriage
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
Extra
April 18, 2006
The battle to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment is being waged by a diverse coalition.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/conservatives.htm
The proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage from radical redefinition by the courts will come to a vote in June in Congress -- and it's not just social conservatives who are working hard for its passage.
Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, said support for traditional marriage cuts across racial, ethnic and religious boundaries -- and so does the coalition of those who support the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA).
"The problem we face is that Washington needs to catch up with the rest of America," Daniels told CitizenLink. "Our momentum outside the Beltway is enormous. It is momentum that crosses party lines and racial lines; you see it in red states, you see it in blue states. It's driven by a deep consensus in this country that kids do best with a mom and a dad."
Though homosexual activists try to argue that the amendment is "discriminatory," defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is not at all a divisive issue outside the gay community, Daniels maintained.
[...]
TAKE ACTION
Please use the CitizenLink Action Center to e-mail or call your senators, urging them to support the MPA. We've not only made it easy for you to send a message via e-mail form, we've also given you talking points you can use in your conversation should you choose to call. Simply select which method of communication -- e-mail or phone -- you'd like to use when you visit the Action Center.
Additionally, a campaign is currently under way to get pastors to mobilize their congregations to send 1 million postcards to Congress in support of MPA.
Pastors who want to order postcard sheets can do so by calling (866) 655-4545 or you may download and print as many as you like on your home computer through our new CitizenLink Action Center.
----- 16 -----
56 days left for Referendum 65 Signatures!
Faith and Freedom Network
Freedom Update
Gary Randall
Dated April 13, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
The days are counting down on Referendum 65. May I personally urge you get your signatures and mail in the petition form as quickly as possible?
Also, there is still time, at this point, to request more forms if you need them. You can find the link below.
If people of faith are able to meet and exceed the required number of names to place the issue on the ballot in November, it will not only repeal our elected officials attempt to force special gay rights on Washington State, but will say something about our strength and resolve.
Please do your part. Consider forwarding this email to your friends and family committed to advancing Judeo-Christian values in America.
[...]
Tim Eyman reports, "We're making good progress, we're not there yet, we're just going to keep our heads down and keep working hard. We've got 56 days left to get signatures for Referendum 65. We need 112,440 by June 7th."
------ 17 -----
Protect Marriage Illinois deadline extended to April 30th as signatures continue to arrive
email this item
Family Research Council
April 19, 2006 - Wednesday
Illinois (more on this state)
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL06D12
The deadline to mail in the Protect Marriage Illinois petition has been extended to April 30th. At the request of a number of churches who still want to participate in the Protect Marriage Illinois (PMI) petition drive, the internal deadline for this project has now been extended to April 30th (please get your signatures in the mail by that date). More than 1,800 churches have already held petition drives, and dozens more will complete their petition drives over the next two weekends.
The grassroots response has been overwhelming. More than 45,000 volunteers have been or are circulating the petition, and this past Friday more than 11,000 signatures were gathered.
This is great news! However, more work needs to be done.
Please consider doing the following:
--If you have any petitions on hand, even a single signature on a sheet, get them notarized and mail them immediately to:
Protect Marriage Illinois
P.O. Box 419
Wheaton, Illinois 60189
--If you have not done so, print, sign, notarize and mail the official Protect Marriage Illinois petition found at: http://www.protectmarriageillinois.org/MarriageReferendumPetition.pdf. Keep circulating petitions at your church, school, neighborhood, etc. Then have your petitions notarized and in the mail by April 30th.
--Forward this e-mail to your friends and family and attach a link to: www.protectmarriageillinois.org, so that they can easily print out a petition, sign it, notarize it and mail it back to PMI.
--Ask your pastor to have your church distribute petitions during church services in these last two weeks. Every signature counts and many people have not signed for various reasons. Church petition drive resources can be found at: www.protectmarriageillinois.org/pastors.htm.
--Please keep the Protect Marriage Illinois effort in your prayers.
Thank you for your commitment to the protection of traditional marriage in Illinois.
----- 18 -----
Petition to U.S. Senators for Preserving Traditional One-Man/One-Woman Marriage in America
Family Research Council
Main page - online as of 22 April 2006
http://www.frc.org/
Join your fellow concerned citizens across the fruited plain and make your voice heard in defense of traditional marriage in our country! With activist judges striking down state constitutional amendments left and right, and overturning ballot initiatives to the same effect, it is time to take a stand and ensure your sons and daughters will grow up to live in a country which values and supports their marriages, instead of in one where marriage as we know it no longer exists.
Please partner with us to help reach our goal of 50,000 signed petitions to present to your lawmakers. Sign your petition today!
----- 19 -----
CALIFORNIA SENATE POISED TO VOTE ON BILL THAT WOULD IMPLEMENT BLATANT HOMOSEXUAL TEACHINGS IN ALL CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS & IN ALL SUBJECTS!!
April 20, 2006 -- SB 1437 by Kuehl (D): Pro-Homosexual Curriculum
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2691
The California State Senate could vote on Senate Bill 1437, authored by lesbian State Senator Sheila Kuehl, as early as Thursday, April 20 th.
If the State Senate passes SB 1437 California’s schools will be one step closer to being forced to implement pro-homosexual textbooks and lessons and our children would be one step closer to being forced to be taught about blatant homosexuality!
California’s young students are the target of liberal legislators who wish to have every classroom blatantly teach and advocate homosexuality. It has been their goal to infiltrate the classroom for decades! Senator Kuehl recently said to the press, “We’ve been working since 1955 to try to improve the climate for in schools for gay[s]…”
[...]
TVC Lobbyist Benjamin Lopez has been tracking the bill and is asking every concerned parent, grandparents and individual in California to contact key Democrat Senators who could decide the fate of the bill and ask that they vote NO on SB 1437. Lopez also request that Californians also contact their local State Senator as well.
Senator Region Capitol Phone # District Phone #
Denise Ducheny (D) Chula Vista 916 651-4040 619 409-7690
Dean Florez (D) Bakersfield 916 651-4016 661-395-2620
Mike Machado (D) Stockton 916 651-4005 209-948-7930
Jack Scott (D) Pasadena 916 651-4021 626 683-0282
Nell Soto (D) Ontario/Pomona 916 651-4032 909-984-7741
Ed Vincent (D) Inglewood 916 651-4025 310-412-0393
To find your State Senator directly click this link and then enter your zip code:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html
For State Senator’s Websites, to find local contact numbers, faxes and emails please go to: http://www.sen.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp
[More at URL]
----- 20 -----
ADF Wins Jury Trial Over Botched Abortion
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2690
April 20, 2006 – The Alliance Defense Fund has just won a jury trial in New Jersey in a case involving a woman who experienced a botched abortion.
A jury will decide if an abortion doctor properly informed a pregnant woman of all relevant information involving her unborn child before she decided to abort her baby. The woman, Rosa Acuna, agreed to a first-term abortion. Three weeks after aborting her child, she began feeling pain and was rushed to the hospital. A nurse told her that the doctor had “left part of the baby in you.” When confronted with the facts about her baby, she would not aborted her child.
[More at URL]
----- 21 -----
Pro-Aborts Seek Legalize Unlimited Abortion On Demand
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2687
April 20, 2006 -- Pro-abortion legislators in Congress are pushing for passage of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion on demand in 1973.
The legislation is being pushed by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and is sponsored by Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer (CA) and Democrat Representative Jerold Nadler (NY). Fortunately, this legislation may never reach a committee for a hearing because pro-life lawmakers control the agenda—at least for now. If pro-aborts regain control of the House or Senate, it is likely that such legislation could get passed. A pro-life President would veto such legislation, but a liberal in the White House would likely sign it.
[more at URL]
----- 22 -----
Transgender Activists Gain Momentum In Mainstream Media
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2681
April 20, 2006 – The gender confusion movement is gaining strength in cities, mainstream media, and in Hollywood, according to a recent article published by a Chicago Tribune reporter.
Transgender activists (who believe they are actually the opposite sex or no sex at all) are portraying themselves as victims of an intolerant culture—just as homosexuals portrayed themselves as victims two decades ago.
The Chicago Tribune article featured Shawn Coleman, a young woman whose real name is Patricia. Coleman rejects sexual labels and considers herself neither male nor female. She says she is not a lesbian or cross-dresser, but believes that “gender” is a continuum with many stops between male and female.
[More at URL]
----- 23 -----
Lists of anti-family and anti-marriage resources listed for BC teachers
Canada Family Action Coalition
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/education/lists-for-bc-teachers.htm
After having only read a few of the list descriptions one can see the anti-heterosexual nature of this stuff. Some of it seems to me to promote discrimination against heterosexual persons and sets children from heterosexual marriages in opposition to teachers and other students.
Check this website out and ask if the resources are actually even truthful.
Parents of children in BC public education system really ought to be concerned about this kind of promotion of homosexual sex and behaviors by the BC Teachers federation.
One way to protect your children is to take them out of public education.
[More at URL]
----- 24 -----
Homosexual School Promotions Threaten Students' Health; PMI Deadline Extended to April 30th
4/20/2006 8:33:00 AM
By Peter LaBarbera, Illinois Family Institute
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=32829
IMPORTANT NEWS!! The deadline to mail in the Protect Marriage Illinois petition has been extended to April 30th. Petitions are pouring in (we recently received 11,000 in one day!) and we are on target for reaching our goal. But we need your help in this critical final stage! See the bottom of this e-mail for more information.
A Note from the Executive Director:
[WARNING: UNCOMFORTABLE REALITIES OF 'GAY' BEHAVIOR PRESENTED BELOW]
This is a big week in Illinois for those promoting homosexuality to young people: yesterday, many Illinois students were engaged in a pro-"gay" propaganda exercise called the "Day of Silence," in which students (and some teachers!) go silent all day in school in solidarity with suffering homosexuals the world over.
And beginning today, students at Wheaton College will be engaged in "dialogue" with traveling activists from a radical homosexual group called Soulforce--a conversation forced by Soulforce's nationwide protest against Christian Colleges that "discriminate" against "gays and lesbians" (read: they believe the Bible that same-sex sexual behavior is sinful; more on Soulforce tomorrow).
[Picture and caption: Dr. John Diggs, author of "The "Health Risks of Gay Sex," says homosexual sodomy is so dangerous that it's almost as if it was created to spread disease. So why are liberal teachers promoting "gay" identities to students? Links to: http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf ]
[More at URL]
----- 25 -----
Ford To Sponsor Homosexual 'Marriage' at Motor City Pride Event
American Family Association
April 18, 2006
http://www.afa.net/petitions/motorcityprideevent.htm
Showing contempt for the concerns of traditional families, Ford has agreed to sponsor the "Family Area" at the Motor City Pride Event June 2-4 which will feature a homosexual marriage "commitment ceremony." The purpose of the ceremony is to "make a political statement."
According to the Motor City Pride website, "Metropolitan Community (homosexual) Church of Detroit and Triangle Foundation are looking for Same-Gender couples willing to make a political statement by celebrating their love in a commitment ceremony to be held in the City of Ferdale on June 4, 2006."
When one clicks on the "Family" section of the website, the caption reads: "The Family Area (which includes the 'marriage' ceremony) is Generously Sponsored by: Ford Motor Company Fund." Ford Motor Company Fund gets its funding from Ford Motor Company. Click here to see the Ford sponsorship. To see the Committment Ceremony page, click here.
Since the boycott began, Ford stock has fallen 7% and Associated Press stated that Ford sales were down 5% in March. Many financial consultants believe that Ford is headed for bankruptcy.
It appears that Ford is more willing to face bankruptcy than ending their support of homosexual groups and causes.
[More at URL]
----- 26 -----
Research Shows Early Porn Exposure Has Lasting Effects
By AFA Journal
April 21, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/afa/212006g.asp
(AgapePress) - Recent studies confirming the corruptive impact of pornography on people revealed a growing concern among both secularists and Christians regarding its effect on children, especially if they are exposed at an early age.
Author Peter Stock addressed the concern in a document titled "The Harmful Effects on Children of Exposure to Pornography," in which he noted that viewing pornography distorts the sexual development of children and adolescents. Not only does it give an inadequate perspective of human sexuality, it dehumanizes women.
"This possibly violent, very degrading image or depiction of sexuality becomes the normal depiction of sexuality in the child's mind," said Daniel Weiss of Focus on the Family Action.
[...]
According to researcher Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, these problems surface when external beauty fades after years of marriage. "The ability to see the human being on the inside and respond erotically requires that you not have set up and trained yourself in a set of completely artificial, impersonal expectations," he said.
[More at URL]
----- 27 -----
Massachusetts 2nd-grade teacher reads class 'gay marriage' book; administrator backs her
Apr 20, 2006
By Michael Foust
Baptist Press
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23077
LEXINGTON, Mass. (BP)--A Massachusetts second-grade teacher is being criticized for reading a book about "gay marriage" to her students, and conservatives say it is an example of what happens when a state redefines one of society's most important institutions.
The teacher at Joseph Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Mass., read to her class "King & King" -- a colorful 29-page children's book in which a prince searches for a wife, only in the end to choose another prince. The story ends with the two princes "marrying" and living "happily ever after." On the last page, the princes -- now kings -- even share a kiss.
[...]
"There is no doubt that the Lexington school officials have an agenda, and that agenda is to indoctrinate children into homosexuality and same-sex marriage," said Mineau, who is leading an effort to amend the state constitution and reverse the state's "gay marriage" law. "Needless to say, parents in Lexington are aroused over this issue, and they should be."
[More at URL]
Student at Poway (CA) High School kept out of class after refusing to remove anti-gay T-shirt in school (Front: "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned" Back: "Homosexuality is Shameful"), but was not otherwise disciplined; he sued; ADF stepped in to support him; Focus on the Family condemns appeals court for ruling against him, defends T-shirt as "biblical"; I'm slightly divided here, in that if they actually meant their talk about free speech on campuses I'd be pretty sympathetic, but their history shows they don't, except for themselves, so;
FotF story on a bill allowing religious groups acting as agents of the state for adoptions to continue to discriminate against same-sex married couples introduced; they admit it has little chance of passage; the fundamentalists have pulled together some people to testify that having children in the care of gay and lesbian couples is abusive;
Story on appeal of previous anti-abortion legislation in South Dakota, before the complete ban; this one's up to the Court of Appeals; arguments don't seem to be going well for the anti-abortion-rights side;
***** Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM demanding passage of Rep. Fred Upton's Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, H.R. 310, a bill to radically increase "indecency" enforcement in the broadcast media, and raise fines to a half million per incident; it already passed the house, is stalled in the Senate. They dismiss suggestions that it's the parents' job to manage what their children watch, and demand government intervention;
Focus on the Family Canada ACTION ITEM in Alberta to allow clergy and marriage commissioners to refuse to marry same-sex couples; also amends the school act to say that "no student shall be required to attend and no teacher shall be required to teach that part of a course that has in its curriculum that marriage may be a union between persons of the same sex," including public schools; also requires pre-notification and opt-out of any discussion in schools of same-sex marriage, and provides blanket exemption for teachers and students from any ramifications for refusing to participate; I'd support it if it was clergy-and-religious-schools only, but of course it's not; (full text here: http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p=bills_bill&selectbill=208 );
Focus on the Family Canada ACTION ITEM to protest the Public Service Alliance of Canada's internal "zero tolerance" antidiscrimination policies towards GBLT citizens; they want those policies removed as violations of religious freedom;
Focus on the Family Canada story on "intelligent design" in Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council's decision to reject a study on ID making populist inroads against evolutionary theory on the basis that the grant application didn't take ID seriously as science;
Focus on the Family US: Judicial battles "could resume in May"; former nominee Judge Charles Pickering wants a Constitutional amendment to overturn Marlbury v Madison (1803) and assign judgment of Constitutionality of a law to the legislature which passed it, thus, to my mind, making the entire damn idea of a limiting Constitution meaningless, since all Congress would have to do is say, "Yeah, we think this is Constitutional," which they'd obviously be able to do since they had a majority vote to pass the thing;
Focus on the Family US condemns Planned Parenthood safer-sex ad as promoting teen sex;
FotF rejects Federalism, condemns the idea that states should be able to decide on same-sex marriage; compares same-sex marriage to rapists, pedophiles, stalkers, and so on; asserts the federal anti-marriage amendment does not discriminate against lesbian and gay couples and that GBLT people want to "rip apart an institution that has been around for thousands of years";
FotF story on a group of private religious schools trying to get a Federal bill mandating that accreditation boards cannot require nondiscrimination policies, in particular cannot require nondiscrimination polities protecting GBLT people, as part of the accreditation process; the House has already passed the bill, it's going to the Senate now; FotF says, "non-discrimination statutes and policies are a bad idea for all segments of society, not just for Christian or religious colleges";
FotF condemns Harvard stem-cell research plans as "Human Cloning," and killing human beings; note the "human cloning" language used for stem-cell research, this is what I've been talking about whenever you see a "human cloning" bill;
Federal judge overturns local clinic buffer-zone law, says, "perhaps more than at any other place and any other time, in cases such as this, speech guaranteed by the First Amendment must be protected"; okay, good, now let's get these so-called "free speech zone/protest zone" abominations before this judge and watch him change his mind instantly - or not, in which case yay! he'll be a hero! and I really mean that, but somehow I think he'd come up with new ideas;
***** Kansas doctor who performs abortions - Focus on the Family refers to him as "George R. Tiller, one of the most notorious late-term abortionists in the U.S." - had a patient die last year; he's been cleared by the state medical board, but fundamentalists have succeeded in getting enough signatures on a petition to force a grand jury investigation; apparently Kansas law allows this(!); Operation Rescue says, "It's high time that this man is held accountable for his actions that have caused untold misery and loss of life";
Focus on the Family (US) ACTION ITEM to support anti-marriage amendment; claims "diverse coalition" supporting the anti-marriage amendment, talks about how anti-marrige-rights unites the country against the queers;
Faith and Freedom Network reports news from Tim Eyman on progress gaining signatures for a referendum to overturn the state GBLT-civil-rights protection bill passed earlier this year; Gary Randall asks for help collecting more signatures;
Family Research Council ACTION ITEM on Illinois anti-marriage amendment petition drive; internal deadline extended to 30 April; calls on all churches to get petitions in now now now, and to get more signatures;
Family Research Council ACTION ITEM to sign petition supporting Federal anti-marriage amendment; they're really serious about this run at it;
Traditional Values Coalition ACTION ITEM against California bill banning anti-GBLT lesson plans in California public schools;
TVC: "ADF Wins Jury Trial Over Botched Abortion";
TVC cranky at bill introduction - the Freedom of Choice Act - that would overturn anti-abortion law at the Federal level, overriding state law; it has no shot, of course;
TVC, which thinks that transgendered people should be involuntarily institutionalised, rails against TG people in the media;
Canada Family Action Coalition accuses BC schools of being anti-heterosexual; suggests taking children out of public education;
Illinois Family Institute says they're on track to get enough signatures for their anti-marriage rights amendment; also plays the "diseased faggots" card, with the "posing a health risk to YOUR CHILDREN!!!!1!" card; this line in particular is interesting, as it implies God created AIDS: "Dr. John Diggs, author of "The "Health Risks of Gay Sex," says homosexual sodomy is so dangerous that it's almost as if it was created to spread disease." (Underlining in original; c.f. creationism); full version has lists of diseases supposedly almost only queers get;
American Family Association ACTION ITEM to condemn Ford Motor for its support of GBLT rights; AFA says their boycott is the reason Ford stock is down (as are sales), takes credit for Ford's financial troubles; I'm sure their boycott isn't help any, but Ford has been on the rocks for a while;
AFA/Agape Press quotes fundamentalist wonk Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in anti-pr0n article; the other name mentioned, Peter Stock, is a big Canadian anti-pr0n crusader, from the Canadian Institute for Education on the Family and also a member of the Canadian Family Action Coalition, a fundamentalist group I also monitor;
Baptist Press freaks out over an elementary-school book with gay characters - "King and King."
----- 1 -----
9th Circuit Hits Christians Again
by Gary Schneeberger, editor
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
April 21, 2006
Infamous anti-Pledge court rules against a high school student's right to wear a T-shirt proclaiming the biblical view of homosexuality.
[Received in email - no URL]
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- which found the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional for its reference to America being one nation "under God" -- has upheld a high school's decision to forbid a student from wearing a T-shirt expressing the biblical view of homosexuality.
In a 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court, Poway (Calif.) High School student Chase Harper lost his appeal that school officials violated his First Amendment rights by refusing to let him wear a shirt protesting the school's participation in a gay-activist-driven "Day of Silence" in 2004. The day after the event, which was sponsored by the school's pro-homosexual Gay-Straight Alliance, Harper wore a shirt that read "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned" on the front and "Homosexuality is Shameful" on the back.
After Harper refused to remove the shirt, Poway High's principal kept him out of class and ordered him to do homework in a conference room for the rest of the day. He was not suspended.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing the majority opinion for the 9th Circuit panel that considered the case, said it was clear Harper's T-shirt violated the rights of other students "in the most fundamental way."
"Speech that attacks high school students who are members of minority groups that have historically been oppressed, subjected to verbal and physical abuse, and made to feel inferior, serves to injure and intimidate them, as well as to damage their sense of security and interfere with their opportunity to learn," he wrote. "The demeaning of young gay and lesbian students in a school environment is detrimental not only to their psychological health and well-being, but also to their educational development."
Reinhardt went on to cite not federal laws supporting his assertion -- but a whole host of research that Focus on the Family Action judicial analyst Bruce Hausknecht called "questionable."
"Judge Reinhardt has a nasty habit of going way beyond what is necessary to decide an issue, in a grand scheme to further his left-wing social agenda," he said. "In this case, he goes beyond the pale by comparing Christian opposition to homosexuality with racism and, ironically, religious discrimination, suggesting that discrimination against blacks and Jews was once a popularly held view (which turned out to be wrong) as well.
"In a reprehensible play to emotions, he even cites some questionable and conclusory pro-homosexual studies to create sympathy for the plight of homosexual students, suggesting that they 'may' be dropping out or suffering emotionally because of discrimination and name-calling in schools. What this social science 'data' has to do with his legal analysis, he doesn't really say."
Harper is represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which said it plans to appeal the decision to the full 9th Circuit.
"Students do not give up their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Kevin Theriot explained. "This panel has upheld school censorship of student expression if it is the Christian view of homosexual behavior. They have essentially determined that student quotation of Scripture can be prohibited."
The third judge on the panel, Alex Kozinski, vigorously dissented.
"I have considerable difficulty with giving school authorities the power to decide that only one side of a controversial topic may be discussed in the school environment because the opposing point of view is too extreme or demeaning," he wrote. "The fundamental problem with the majorityís approach is that it has no anchor anywhere in the record or in the law. It is entirely a judicial creation, hatched to deal with the situation before us, but likely to cause innumerable problems in the future."
Hausknecht praised Kozinski for boldly challenging his colleague's passion for legalizing viewpoint discrimination in schools.
"In effect, Reinhardt has established a rule that any speech that opposes homosexuality automatically causes a disruption in school and can be prohibited," he said. "If that's not an attempt to shut up Christians, I don't know what is."
FOR MORE INFORMATION: To learn more about the left-wing leanings of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt, read the Citizen magazine special report "Judge Gone Wild."
http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/coverstory/a0039283.cfm
----- 2 -----
Massachusetts Waits on Gay-Adoption Enforcement
Bill under consideration would exempt religious groups.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
April 21, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
Catholic Charities of Massachusetts has been spared prosecution while the state waits for the outcome of a bill that would exempt religious agencies from having to place children in gay adoptive families.
A young woman raised in a gay household testified before a legislative committee about her experiences. Evelyn Reilly of the Massachusetts Family Institute recounted the testimony.
"She counted 14 that she knew, and they were all negatively impacted," Reilly said. "She was having nightmares and blacking out at age six."
But state Rep. George Peterson said that under nondiscrimination laws, religious adoption agencies would be forced to include gay couples.
"I would hope that we could do something so that those who have a strong belief can follow in those beliefs," he said.
Gov. Mitt Romney's Act to Protect Religious Freedom would do that, but Peterson told Family News in Focus its chance of passage is slim.
"I think it's got an uphill battle," he said. "I don't see an awful lot of push for it right now."
If the bill fails, religious agencies could be essentially forced out of the adoption business in Massachusetts. Carrie Gordon Earll, director of issue analysis at Focus on the Family Action, said that's what happens when gay advocates play the sympathy card.
"So when we hear, 'There's no harm done, we just want to protect everyone,' youíve got to be very careful, because you may on one hand think you're extending a right to someone, and you may actually be taking a right away from someone else."
----- 3 -----
Abortion Activists Challenge S.D. Informed-Consent Law
Focus on the Family
IN BRIEF
April 21, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
A federal appeals court heard arguments Thursday challenging South Dakota's law requiring abortionists to warn patients about abortion's dangers, although a ruling is not expected for weeks.
The case rises from a challenge to the 2005 law from Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota. The group claims the law requires doctors to give inaccurate information and infringes on their free-speech rights.
Planned Parenthood lawyer Tim Branson said the law is unconstitutional because it refers to an embryo as a human being, contradicting the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade that an embryo is not a person.
A lower court ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood, but South Dakota appealed. Its attorneys argued before the 8th Circuit that the law is "not a straightjacket" for abortionists. The state even introduced as evidence a sample letter abortionists could hand out to patients to disassociate themselves from the law.
But Judge Raymond Gruender didn't seem to buy that argument, saying that he didn't "see anything in the law that says a doctor can disassociate himself from the law."
----- 4 -----
We Have a Different Vision for Television
SUMMARY: It's time to up the fines for indecency on the airwaves.
by Daniel Weiss, senior analyst, media and sexuality
Focus on the Family
April 21, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
The annals of history will not likely note the 2000 presidential debates for their rhetorical flourish. Nevertheless, then-candidate George W. Bush was able to present a surprisingly clear political vision amidst the din of manipulative discourse. On issue after issue he said, simply, "My opponent and I have a different vision."
We find similar clarity concerning competing visions on the issue of broadcast indecency. On one side are pro-family groups, average citizens, and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin, who have been trying to revive and apply the nation's laws against broadcast indecency. On the other side are Sens. Bill Frist and Ted Stevens and the film, cable and broadcast entertainment industries, whose hubris was on display late last week in the form of a federal suit filed by ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, on behalf of themselves and 800 broadcast affiliates, for the right - the right! - to air the words "f*k" and "s*t" on network television.
Friends, the entertainment industry and I have a different vision.
Defending their lawsuit, the networks issued a statement that read:
"We strongly believe that the FCC rulings issued on March 15 that we are appealing today are unconstitutional and inconsistent with two decades of previous FCC decisions. In filing these court appeals we are seeking to overturn the FCC decisions that the broadcast of fleeting, isolated -- and in some cases unintentional -- words rendered these programs indecent. The FCC overstepped its authority in an attempt to regulate content protected by the First Amendment, acted arbitrarily and failed to provide broadcasters with a clear and consistent standard for determining what content the government intends to penalize. Furthermore, the FCC rulings underscore the inherent problem in growing government control over what viewers should and shouldn't see on television. Parents currently have the ability to control and block programming they deem inappropriate for family viewing from entering their homes through the use of the V-chip and cable and satellite blocking technologies."
This statement makes three primary and erroneous claims:
1) The entertainment industry should be able to do what it wants.
2) The government has no business regulating this industry.
3) Parents are solely and exclusively responsibility for protecting their children.
The first claim denies the fact that every broadcaster in the United States operates with a conditional-use license. The privilege to broadcast is predicated on serving the public interest. Broadcasters have never had unlimited freedom to air whatever material they wanted. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in FCC v. Pacifica that "Of all forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited First Amendment protection."
The second claim also ignores the Pacifica ruling, which upheld the right of the FCC to regulate broadcast material. Although the FCC chose to not enforce federal laws for 20 years, the laws have never changed during that time. Sadly, in the absence of law enforcement, broadcasters are, in effect, claiming squatters' rights. Because they have been polluting public airwaves for two decades, they argue, they now have a constitutional right not only to continue polluting, but to pump ever more toxic content into America's living rooms.
The only way that broadcasters can make the first two claims is to push the responsibility for their programming choices onto parents. If broadcasters can somehow convince the public, or at least federal lawmakers, that consumers are the only ones responsible for protecting children, then there is no need for government regulation or content review.
While I would agree that parents have the primary responsibility for their children, that does not negate the requirements broadcasters have to air only material that serves the public interest. Broadcasters, like every other business, must operate within applicable laws.
By filing suit, the broadcasters are making it clear that they do not like existing law. However, because they know the public will not support a legislative change, broadcasters are seeking to nullify current law in the courts.
So intent is the TV industry on cultural pollution, it is launching a $300 million campaign to teach parents how to not watch the filth the industry is suing to air.
Let me repeat that: The industry is spending $300 million to teach parents how block, program out, and generally not watch the filthy material they are suing in federal court for the right to air.
Is this incongruency registering with anyone?
Certainly not our nation's top lawmakers.
Friends, the Senate leadership and I have a different vision.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has been sitting on Congressman Fred Upton's Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act for more than a year. The bill would increase the maximum fine for indeceny to $500,000 per incident, along with other strong provisions. Although the House passed this bill by a vote of 389-38, Frist has refused to bring the bill to a vote in the Senate.
Calls to his office have yielded no results. One aide claimed that "no one watches broadcast TV, so (Upton's bill) wouldn't help anything." Perhaps this aide hasn't heard of the Super Bowl which registers nearly 100 million American viewers each year. Or, maybe the aide doesn't see the Nielsen TV ratings each week, which rarely, if ever, show a cable program cracking the top 20.
Another bitter disappointment has been Sen. Ted Stevens, chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Stevens, who likes to position himself as a friend of the people, invited Jack Valenti, former head of the Motion Picture Association of America, to find a solution to TV indecency. Valenti's solution: It's the parents' job. Forgive me if I sound cynical. It seems a bit like asking Enron to solve corporate corruption.
Stevens has bottlenecked at least four indecency-related bills in his committee during the current session and has publicly stated that none has enough support to pass. Really? Not even a similar bill by Sen. Sam Brownback which passed the Senate by a vote of 99-1 last session?
Stevens has made it clear that his solution for corporate irresponsibility is for parents to be more vigilant. This bizarre and inexplicable coddling has led the industry to file its brazen lawsuit seeking to dismantle decency laws. Sen. Stevens, this is not leadership.
Dear friends, my opponents and I have a different vision.
The time to choose is now. Either the airwaves belong to the people or to the entertainment industry. You've seen what the industry wants to do with them. Which side will you stand on?
We have an FCC chairman committed to enforcing indecency law, but he needs our help. The indecency fines are outdated and ineffective. The TV industry is thumbing its nose at the law. We can sit idly by or take action now.
Call Sens. Frist and Stevens and ask them to pass the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. Ask them to choose American families over cultural polluters. And, if they don't, replace them with someone who will.
The choice and the responsibility are yours.
TAKE ACTION: Ask your senators to support Rep. Fred Upton's Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, H.R. 310, which has already passed the House and would increase maximum fines to $500,000 per incident. You can contact your senators through our new Action Center.
http://vocusgr.vocus.com/GRSPACE2/dotnet/WebPublish/Controller.aspx?SiteName=FOTF&Definition=ViewIssue&IssueID=2258
----- 5 -----
BILL PRESERVES CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS
Today’s Family News
Focus on the Family Canada
April 21, 2006
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/religiousFreedom/stories/042106.html
Albertans who disagree with Parliament’s decision last year to pass Bill C-38, which redefined marriage, may soon be able to breathe easier. Members of the Alberta legislature could soon be debating a private bill that would protect Albertans from losing their jobs or facing lawsuits because of their beliefs about marriage.
“In a free society, the most important right is the right to disagree with and criticize government policy, and this bill enhances that right,” Conservative MLA Ted Morton, who is sponsoring Bill 208, told the Cochrane Times
The federal law includes limited protections for people of faith and religious institutions who cannot in good conscience endorse same-sex marriage. But as critics pointed out at the time, they are weak, since the areas of protection cited come under provincial jurisdiction.
( Full text of bill here: http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p=bills_bill&selectbill=208 )
[More at URL]
[NOT on the web page, in mail only:]
TAKE ACTION> Protect Freedom of Religion and Conscience
Contact your provincial or territorial government representative and urge them to make changes to provincial laws so that freedom of religion is protected in light of the passing of the Civil Marriage Act. If you live in Alberta, contact your MLA in support of the bill that proposes protection of these freedoms. If you live elsewhere, remind your provincial or territorial government that these protections are needed and that Alberta is setting an example that they can follow.
----- 6 -----
UNION’S PRO-GAY STANCE CHALLENGED
Today’s Family News
Focus on the Family Canada
April 21, 2006
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/religiousFreedom/stories/042106_02.html
The Public Service Alliance of Canada is refusing to let one of its members conscientiously object to its open support of same-sex marriage and families.
As the Ottawa Sun reported last week, Susan Comstock, a Roman Catholic employed by the Treasury Board of Canada, is asking that the portion of her union dues used to fund its campaign in support of Bill C-38 be diverted to a charity. She also wants the union to scrap its internal policy of “zero tolerance of homophobia and heterosexism” on grounds that it violates her religious freedom.
[More at URL]
Take Action> For contact information to express your concerns to PSAC, click here:
http://www.psac-afpc.org/about/contacts-e.shtml
----- 7 -----
EVOLUTIONIST DENIED FEDERAL FUNDING
Today’s Family News
Focus on the Family Canada
April 21, 2006
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/misc/042106.html
One of Canada’s foremost evolutionary scientists is accusing the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of not being resolute enough in its rejection of intelligent design as a counter-argument for the origins of life on Earth.
Director of McGill University’s Evolution Education Research Centre Brian Alters clashed with the SSHRC when it denied his request for a $40,000 grant to study how the growing popularity of intelligent design (ID) in the United States is hurting Canadians’ acceptance of evolution, according to the Ottawa Citizen.
ID advocates propose that the observable complexity of the natural world is all the work of an intelligent designer, and that science cannot determine who or what this designer is.
The SSHRC said that Alters’ application had been turned down because he had not supplied “adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent design theory, was correct.” Alters and the university both consider that statement a “factual error” and want the council to reconsider.
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Judicial Confirmation Battle Could Resume in May
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
April 20, 2006
A former blocked nominee speaks out.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0040193.cfm
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., plans to bring two controversial judicial nominees to the floor in May.
A Frist aide said Tuesday that votes will likely be scheduled next month on the long-blocked nominations of U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and White House aide Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Senate Democrats have stalled those nominations -- along with nearly a dozen others.
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said it's past time for the Senate to give the pair up-or-down votes.
[...]
Pickering said the process of delaying action on nominations for three and four years is not acceptable and the best qualified nominees are not going to be willing to go through it.
Finally, he wants a constitutional amendment that would bar any changes or alternations to the Constitution, except by the amendment process.
"Judges need to leave changing the Constitution to the people," he said, "Judges and the Supreme Court need to interpret the Constitution according to the common understanding of the relevant provision at the time the provision was adopted.
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
Planned Parenthood Ad Promotes Teen Sex
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
from staff reports
April 20, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040190.cfm
TV commercial maintains that "safe is sexy."
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America is running a crude commercial targeting teens -- part of its new "safe is sexy" campaign. The ads have been appearing on MTV and a Web site popular with teens called MySpace.com.
The commercial depicts a young woman practicing "safe sex" by using the right "tools" -- in one reference she's referring to condoms and in another she's making a crude reference to her male partner.
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Where's Tim Russert When You Need Him?
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
Citizenlink Features
April 20, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/commentary/a0040189.cfm
Imagine I'm Tim Russert. It's easy if you try.
Pretend this is NBC's Meet the Press, and you're my guest on the program -- a moderate Democratic senator.
Let's pretend the topic for discussion is same-sex "marriage" -- especially the upcoming June vote in Congress on the Marriage Protection Amendment.
As a veteran Washington, D.C., journalist and pundit who has covered Capitol Hill for decades -- remember now, we're just pretending -- I want to know how you are going to vote.
I ask outright, no holds barred (because I'm Tim Russert after all) -- "Senator, how are you going to vote in June?" Or maybe it would be, "Where do you stand on the issue of same-sex marriage?" Straight-shooting. No nonsense. Yup. That's what I want to know.
And you answer, equally forthrightly: "I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but the regulation of marriage has always been, and should remain, the jurisdiction of the states. We should not enshrine discrimination against any group in our Constitution."
So, now I ask the quintessential Russert question: "Senator, am I hearing you say you approve of discrimination, but only if it's done at the state level and not enshrined in the federal Constitution?"
[...]
Either marriage is a form of "discrimination" -- that is, was created by man and hence subject to the tinkering of men doing whatever they want to it -- or it is something which is bigger than man and transcends man's petty little categories. It cannot be both.
I'm not Tim Russert, but let me set the record straight on this issue. First off, marriage is neither man-made nor a human right. It is a God-given gift and privilege.
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
U.S. Lawmakers Aim to Protect Christian Colleges
Private schools would be exempt from laws concerning homosexual students.
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
Citizenlink Features
April 19, 2006
http://family.org/cforum/news/a0040177.cfm
One lawmaker has proposed legislation that would prevent college accreditation boards from requiring private Christian colleges to follow non-discrimination laws. Though most boards do not make such adherence a requirement, pressure from gay activists has many concerned for the future.
The measure, proposed by Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, has already passed the House and is now before the Senate.
Carri Jenkins, spokeswoman for Brigham Young University (BYU), one of many schools lobbying for the legislation, said the proposed law would protect private institutions.
"This is really a pre-emptive move on the part of these schools," she said.
[...]
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said non-discrimination statutes and policies are a bad idea for all segments of society, not just for Christian or religious colleges.
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
U.S. Scientists to Try Human Cloning
Focus on the Family
Citizenlink Features
April 20, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/briefs/a0040197.cfm
American researchers plan to clone human embryos in pursuit of embryonic stem cells, a feat that Korean scientists falsely claimed they accomplished last year.
According to Bloomberg, the announcement was made by scientists from Harvard University at a conference in Cambridge, Mass., earlier this month.
"We really don't have a lot of other avenues available'' for research, said Kevin Eggan, a cloning expert and molecular biologist at Harvard.
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus on the Family Action, said embryonic stem-cell research is always wrong.
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
Federal Judge Rules Against Florida Buffer Zone
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 20, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/briefs/a0040196.cfm
The 20-foot buffer zone imposed by West Palm beach against pro-life sidewalk counselors violates their free speech rights, according to a federal judge in Florida.
The Associated Press reported that U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks ruled April 11 that the ordinance was too restrictive.
"Freedom of speech is rarely an issue when everyone agrees," Middlebrooks wrote in his decision. "Perhaps more than at any other place and any other time, in cases such as this, speech guaranteed by the First Amendment must be protected."
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
Late-Term Abortionist Faces Grand-Jury Investigation
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
April 20, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/briefs/a0040198.cfm
George R. Tiller, one of the most notorious late-term abortionists in the U.S., will face a grand-jury investigation over the death of a girl following a botched abortion.
According to Life Site News, a petition drive garnered nearly three times the required number of signatures needed to proceed with an investigation. The signatures were certified Tuesday.
Nineteen-year-old Christin A. Gilbert died in January 2005 at Tiller's Women's Health Care Services. Gilbert, who had Down syndrome, was a victim of sexual abuse.
The Kansas Board of Healing Arts cleared Tiller of responsibility last November. But Kansas allows a petition drive to convene grand juries to investigate suspected criminal violations when counties fail to act.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
Conservatives Not Alone in Fighting for Marriage
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
Extra
April 18, 2006
The battle to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment is being waged by a diverse coalition.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/conservatives.htm
The proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage from radical redefinition by the courts will come to a vote in June in Congress -- and it's not just social conservatives who are working hard for its passage.
Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, said support for traditional marriage cuts across racial, ethnic and religious boundaries -- and so does the coalition of those who support the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA).
"The problem we face is that Washington needs to catch up with the rest of America," Daniels told CitizenLink. "Our momentum outside the Beltway is enormous. It is momentum that crosses party lines and racial lines; you see it in red states, you see it in blue states. It's driven by a deep consensus in this country that kids do best with a mom and a dad."
Though homosexual activists try to argue that the amendment is "discriminatory," defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is not at all a divisive issue outside the gay community, Daniels maintained.
[...]
TAKE ACTION
Please use the CitizenLink Action Center to e-mail or call your senators, urging them to support the MPA. We've not only made it easy for you to send a message via e-mail form, we've also given you talking points you can use in your conversation should you choose to call. Simply select which method of communication -- e-mail or phone -- you'd like to use when you visit the Action Center.
Additionally, a campaign is currently under way to get pastors to mobilize their congregations to send 1 million postcards to Congress in support of MPA.
Pastors who want to order postcard sheets can do so by calling (866) 655-4545 or you may download and print as many as you like on your home computer through our new CitizenLink Action Center.
----- 16 -----
56 days left for Referendum 65 Signatures!
Faith and Freedom Network
Freedom Update
Gary Randall
Dated April 13, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
The days are counting down on Referendum 65. May I personally urge you get your signatures and mail in the petition form as quickly as possible?
Also, there is still time, at this point, to request more forms if you need them. You can find the link below.
If people of faith are able to meet and exceed the required number of names to place the issue on the ballot in November, it will not only repeal our elected officials attempt to force special gay rights on Washington State, but will say something about our strength and resolve.
Please do your part. Consider forwarding this email to your friends and family committed to advancing Judeo-Christian values in America.
[...]
Tim Eyman reports, "We're making good progress, we're not there yet, we're just going to keep our heads down and keep working hard. We've got 56 days left to get signatures for Referendum 65. We need 112,440 by June 7th."
------ 17 -----
Protect Marriage Illinois deadline extended to April 30th as signatures continue to arrive
email this item
Family Research Council
April 19, 2006 - Wednesday
Illinois (more on this state)
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL06D12
The deadline to mail in the Protect Marriage Illinois petition has been extended to April 30th. At the request of a number of churches who still want to participate in the Protect Marriage Illinois (PMI) petition drive, the internal deadline for this project has now been extended to April 30th (please get your signatures in the mail by that date). More than 1,800 churches have already held petition drives, and dozens more will complete their petition drives over the next two weekends.
The grassroots response has been overwhelming. More than 45,000 volunteers have been or are circulating the petition, and this past Friday more than 11,000 signatures were gathered.
This is great news! However, more work needs to be done.
Please consider doing the following:
--If you have any petitions on hand, even a single signature on a sheet, get them notarized and mail them immediately to:
Protect Marriage Illinois
P.O. Box 419
Wheaton, Illinois 60189
--If you have not done so, print, sign, notarize and mail the official Protect Marriage Illinois petition found at: http://www.protectmarriageillinois.org/MarriageReferendumPetition.pdf. Keep circulating petitions at your church, school, neighborhood, etc. Then have your petitions notarized and in the mail by April 30th.
--Forward this e-mail to your friends and family and attach a link to: www.protectmarriageillinois.org, so that they can easily print out a petition, sign it, notarize it and mail it back to PMI.
--Ask your pastor to have your church distribute petitions during church services in these last two weeks. Every signature counts and many people have not signed for various reasons. Church petition drive resources can be found at: www.protectmarriageillinois.org/pastors.htm.
--Please keep the Protect Marriage Illinois effort in your prayers.
Thank you for your commitment to the protection of traditional marriage in Illinois.
----- 18 -----
Petition to U.S. Senators for Preserving Traditional One-Man/One-Woman Marriage in America
Family Research Council
Main page - online as of 22 April 2006
http://www.frc.org/
Join your fellow concerned citizens across the fruited plain and make your voice heard in defense of traditional marriage in our country! With activist judges striking down state constitutional amendments left and right, and overturning ballot initiatives to the same effect, it is time to take a stand and ensure your sons and daughters will grow up to live in a country which values and supports their marriages, instead of in one where marriage as we know it no longer exists.
Please partner with us to help reach our goal of 50,000 signed petitions to present to your lawmakers. Sign your petition today!
----- 19 -----
CALIFORNIA SENATE POISED TO VOTE ON BILL THAT WOULD IMPLEMENT BLATANT HOMOSEXUAL TEACHINGS IN ALL CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS & IN ALL SUBJECTS!!
April 20, 2006 -- SB 1437 by Kuehl (D): Pro-Homosexual Curriculum
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2691
The California State Senate could vote on Senate Bill 1437, authored by lesbian State Senator Sheila Kuehl, as early as Thursday, April 20 th.
If the State Senate passes SB 1437 California’s schools will be one step closer to being forced to implement pro-homosexual textbooks and lessons and our children would be one step closer to being forced to be taught about blatant homosexuality!
California’s young students are the target of liberal legislators who wish to have every classroom blatantly teach and advocate homosexuality. It has been their goal to infiltrate the classroom for decades! Senator Kuehl recently said to the press, “We’ve been working since 1955 to try to improve the climate for in schools for gay[s]…”
[...]
TVC Lobbyist Benjamin Lopez has been tracking the bill and is asking every concerned parent, grandparents and individual in California to contact key Democrat Senators who could decide the fate of the bill and ask that they vote NO on SB 1437. Lopez also request that Californians also contact their local State Senator as well.
Senator Region Capitol Phone # District Phone #
Denise Ducheny (D) Chula Vista 916 651-4040 619 409-7690
Dean Florez (D) Bakersfield 916 651-4016 661-395-2620
Mike Machado (D) Stockton 916 651-4005 209-948-7930
Jack Scott (D) Pasadena 916 651-4021 626 683-0282
Nell Soto (D) Ontario/Pomona 916 651-4032 909-984-7741
Ed Vincent (D) Inglewood 916 651-4025 310-412-0393
To find your State Senator directly click this link and then enter your zip code:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html
For State Senator’s Websites, to find local contact numbers, faxes and emails please go to: http://www.sen.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp
[More at URL]
----- 20 -----
ADF Wins Jury Trial Over Botched Abortion
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2690
April 20, 2006 – The Alliance Defense Fund has just won a jury trial in New Jersey in a case involving a woman who experienced a botched abortion.
A jury will decide if an abortion doctor properly informed a pregnant woman of all relevant information involving her unborn child before she decided to abort her baby. The woman, Rosa Acuna, agreed to a first-term abortion. Three weeks after aborting her child, she began feeling pain and was rushed to the hospital. A nurse told her that the doctor had “left part of the baby in you.” When confronted with the facts about her baby, she would not aborted her child.
[More at URL]
----- 21 -----
Pro-Aborts Seek Legalize Unlimited Abortion On Demand
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2687
April 20, 2006 -- Pro-abortion legislators in Congress are pushing for passage of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion on demand in 1973.
The legislation is being pushed by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and is sponsored by Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer (CA) and Democrat Representative Jerold Nadler (NY). Fortunately, this legislation may never reach a committee for a hearing because pro-life lawmakers control the agenda—at least for now. If pro-aborts regain control of the House or Senate, it is likely that such legislation could get passed. A pro-life President would veto such legislation, but a liberal in the White House would likely sign it.
[more at URL]
----- 22 -----
Transgender Activists Gain Momentum In Mainstream Media
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2681
April 20, 2006 – The gender confusion movement is gaining strength in cities, mainstream media, and in Hollywood, according to a recent article published by a Chicago Tribune reporter.
Transgender activists (who believe they are actually the opposite sex or no sex at all) are portraying themselves as victims of an intolerant culture—just as homosexuals portrayed themselves as victims two decades ago.
The Chicago Tribune article featured Shawn Coleman, a young woman whose real name is Patricia. Coleman rejects sexual labels and considers herself neither male nor female. She says she is not a lesbian or cross-dresser, but believes that “gender” is a continuum with many stops between male and female.
[More at URL]
----- 23 -----
Lists of anti-family and anti-marriage resources listed for BC teachers
Canada Family Action Coalition
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/education/lists-for-bc-teachers.htm
After having only read a few of the list descriptions one can see the anti-heterosexual nature of this stuff. Some of it seems to me to promote discrimination against heterosexual persons and sets children from heterosexual marriages in opposition to teachers and other students.
Check this website out and ask if the resources are actually even truthful.
Parents of children in BC public education system really ought to be concerned about this kind of promotion of homosexual sex and behaviors by the BC Teachers federation.
One way to protect your children is to take them out of public education.
[More at URL]
----- 24 -----
Homosexual School Promotions Threaten Students' Health; PMI Deadline Extended to April 30th
4/20/2006 8:33:00 AM
By Peter LaBarbera, Illinois Family Institute
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=32829
IMPORTANT NEWS!! The deadline to mail in the Protect Marriage Illinois petition has been extended to April 30th. Petitions are pouring in (we recently received 11,000 in one day!) and we are on target for reaching our goal. But we need your help in this critical final stage! See the bottom of this e-mail for more information.
A Note from the Executive Director:
[WARNING: UNCOMFORTABLE REALITIES OF 'GAY' BEHAVIOR PRESENTED BELOW]
This is a big week in Illinois for those promoting homosexuality to young people: yesterday, many Illinois students were engaged in a pro-"gay" propaganda exercise called the "Day of Silence," in which students (and some teachers!) go silent all day in school in solidarity with suffering homosexuals the world over.
And beginning today, students at Wheaton College will be engaged in "dialogue" with traveling activists from a radical homosexual group called Soulforce--a conversation forced by Soulforce's nationwide protest against Christian Colleges that "discriminate" against "gays and lesbians" (read: they believe the Bible that same-sex sexual behavior is sinful; more on Soulforce tomorrow).
[Picture and caption: Dr. John Diggs, author of "The "Health Risks of Gay Sex," says homosexual sodomy is so dangerous that it's almost as if it was created to spread disease. So why are liberal teachers promoting "gay" identities to students? Links to: http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf ]
[More at URL]
----- 25 -----
Ford To Sponsor Homosexual 'Marriage' at Motor City Pride Event
American Family Association
April 18, 2006
http://www.afa.net/petitions/motorcityprideevent.htm
Showing contempt for the concerns of traditional families, Ford has agreed to sponsor the "Family Area" at the Motor City Pride Event June 2-4 which will feature a homosexual marriage "commitment ceremony." The purpose of the ceremony is to "make a political statement."
According to the Motor City Pride website, "Metropolitan Community (homosexual) Church of Detroit and Triangle Foundation are looking for Same-Gender couples willing to make a political statement by celebrating their love in a commitment ceremony to be held in the City of Ferdale on June 4, 2006."
When one clicks on the "Family" section of the website, the caption reads: "The Family Area (which includes the 'marriage' ceremony) is Generously Sponsored by: Ford Motor Company Fund." Ford Motor Company Fund gets its funding from Ford Motor Company. Click here to see the Ford sponsorship. To see the Committment Ceremony page, click here.
Since the boycott began, Ford stock has fallen 7% and Associated Press stated that Ford sales were down 5% in March. Many financial consultants believe that Ford is headed for bankruptcy.
It appears that Ford is more willing to face bankruptcy than ending their support of homosexual groups and causes.
[More at URL]
----- 26 -----
Research Shows Early Porn Exposure Has Lasting Effects
By AFA Journal
April 21, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/afa/212006g.asp
(AgapePress) - Recent studies confirming the corruptive impact of pornography on people revealed a growing concern among both secularists and Christians regarding its effect on children, especially if they are exposed at an early age.
Author Peter Stock addressed the concern in a document titled "The Harmful Effects on Children of Exposure to Pornography," in which he noted that viewing pornography distorts the sexual development of children and adolescents. Not only does it give an inadequate perspective of human sexuality, it dehumanizes women.
"This possibly violent, very degrading image or depiction of sexuality becomes the normal depiction of sexuality in the child's mind," said Daniel Weiss of Focus on the Family Action.
[...]
According to researcher Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, these problems surface when external beauty fades after years of marriage. "The ability to see the human being on the inside and respond erotically requires that you not have set up and trained yourself in a set of completely artificial, impersonal expectations," he said.
[More at URL]
----- 27 -----
Massachusetts 2nd-grade teacher reads class 'gay marriage' book; administrator backs her
Apr 20, 2006
By Michael Foust
Baptist Press
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23077
LEXINGTON, Mass. (BP)--A Massachusetts second-grade teacher is being criticized for reading a book about "gay marriage" to her students, and conservatives say it is an example of what happens when a state redefines one of society's most important institutions.
The teacher at Joseph Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Mass., read to her class "King & King" -- a colorful 29-page children's book in which a prince searches for a wife, only in the end to choose another prince. The story ends with the two princes "marrying" and living "happily ever after." On the last page, the princes -- now kings -- even share a kiss.
[...]
"There is no doubt that the Lexington school officials have an agenda, and that agenda is to indoctrinate children into homosexuality and same-sex marriage," said Mineau, who is leading an effort to amend the state constitution and reverse the state's "gay marriage" law. "Needless to say, parents in Lexington are aroused over this issue, and they should be."
[More at URL]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re Shameful T-shirt
Date: 2006-04-22 12:38 pm (UTC)Front: "What God Has Condemned" Back: "Shameful"
Or else the old standby "This Mind Intentionally Left Blank".
no subject
Date: 2006-04-22 03:02 pm (UTC)Anyway, in the US children have a reduced right to express themselves, which is overridden by the right of the school to remove a disruptive influence. Court cases have pretty uniformly determined that if a t-shirt or other item of clothing or whatever is disruptive, the school can forbid it. However, the school has to prove disruption.
I've seen the same thing in NRA bulletins about kids wearing pro-firearms shirts. In those cases, courts in areas where there is no gun culture have usually declared them disruptive, while those where guns are accepted as part of life usually don't. (Big surprise.)
no subject
Date: 2006-04-22 04:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-22 07:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-23 12:44 am (UTC)I love how they don't actually recount any of her alleged experiences, only that she was having nightmares and blacking out, which may not even be relevant to her treatment by her adoptive parents. Have you been able to dig up any more info on this person and the nature of her testimony?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-23 12:58 am (UTC)Occasionally, I still see numbers from some of his "studies" showing up in fundamentalist reports and rhetoric.
On the school issue
Date: 2006-04-24 04:32 am (UTC)