Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Jun. 5th, 2006 11:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdI think this is the largest single-day CWU ever; last Friday's was the largest two-day CWU ever. And this is with several of the sites slowing down a bit, and with a couple of the groups not being as heavily into the anti-marriage amendment as you'd expect; too many of them are unhappy that it isn't more virulently anti-gay, and doesn't ban civil unions as per the 2004 version.
In Washington State news, Tim Eyman didn't show up with anti-gay initiatives today. He showed up with his latest destroy-all-road-maintenance car-tabs initiative instead. He says he'll be in on Tuesday with the anti-GBLT signatures instead, and that he's awaiting a last shipment of petitions from Spokane. Tomorrow is the last day, so I guess instead of finding out today whether an all-church petition drive can get a referendum on the ballot, we'll find out on Tuesday, instead.
And now, today's news.
Official transcript of President Bush's radio address endorsing the anti-marriage "Marriage Protection Amendment"; "In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives" - so we need an amendment against queer marriage. What the fuck? Seriously, this might as well have been written by the FRC;
Fundamentalist Mormons against "supposed-to-be conservatives," the American Family Association, and The Advocate on polygamy;
Focus on the Family's ACTION ITEM against marriage rights and for the anti-marriage Federal amendment;
FotF article (and ACTION ITEM) promoting the FMA/MPA amendment; apparently their Tuesday broadcast will have White House Press Secretary Tony Snow on, pushing the amendment;
Focus on the Family talking points against marriage rights;
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM to vote Alabama anti-marriage amendment in the PRIMARY ELECTION TOMORROW (Tuesday); also, what the hell is "Focus on the Family Alabama Marriage Amendment Committee"? Are they making individual committees for every anti-gay initiative out there now, or is there something in Alabama's political law requiring this? I dunno;
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM for Pennsylvanians to contact their state legislators in advance of an anti-gay anti-marriage-rights amendment vote later this week;
FotF ACTION ITEM to support some form of either "obscene" or "objectionable" (they use both words) materials ban in Yellowstone County, Montana; they're voting on it in tomorrow's primary;
FotF article on sash-wearing gay Catholics being denied communion;
LA Times reports on disgruntled social conservatives unhappy with Bush's level of support for the anti-marriage amendment;
Concerned Women for America now says lesbians and gays don't just want societal approval, they're demanding approval from GOD;
Family Research Council's Tony Perkins "Joins 100 Black Pastors on Marriage";
FRC ad against Sens. McCain and Clinton in USA Today on the anti-marriage amendment; includes ACTION ITEM to support the amendment;
American Family Association article warning on the dangers of not passing the anti-marriage Federal amendment;
AFA outrage that a judge has ruled against Iowa paying Prison Fellowship to convert inmates to fundamentalist Christianity; it's the "InnerChange Freedom Initiative" and that is in fact what it did; Prison Fellowship is having to return $1.5M in taxpayer dollars they were paid by Iowa;
AFA article on last Sunday's planned "Marriage Protection Sunday" effort in Southern Baptist Convention and other churches; I don't know how this went, but I missed this particular article so am running it now;
AFA suggests that the government should regulate Google for dropping a right-wing news site as a news provider - and not, as the article implies but does not say, from its search results;
The anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund is appealing their case supporting a student wearing an anti-gay T-shirt to school; school officials banned it from the grounds on the ground that it is disruptive and attacks other students; ADF calls it religious discrimination;
AFA/Agape press on Tim LaHaye's last prequel in the Left Behind series, which I include only because it's funny. Also, an anti-birth-control pharmacist loses his firing lawsuit against Wal*Mart - he was dismissed not just for refusing to prescribe, but for violating Wal*Mart policy requiring him to get another pharmacist to do it; instead, he would leave customers on hold indefinitely and ignore customers who appeared in person;
Traditional Values Coalition condemns MPA, claims it "promote[s] civil unions" by not banning them; they want a much more strongly anti-gay amendment;
TVC runs the "queers don't want marriage, they want to destroy everyone" tape again;
TVC "Special Report" on why civil unions are just as bad as marriage rights;
Faith and Freedom Network says, "We don't know how many signatures we have, Tim Eyman hasn't told us";
Tim Eyman misses Monday appointment for anti-gay referendum signatures, turns in latest anti-roads-repair ($30 tabs) initiative instead; says he'll be back Tuesday after he gets a final batch of signatures in from Spokane; several non-fundamentalist church groups pledge to campaign to retain the GBLT basic civil rights law;
Canada Family Action Coalition runs American Life League press release attacking Planned Parenthood as a news article;
Tory MP Garth Turner (Toronto) lets Canadian Theoconservatives have it in no uncertain terms; “I have no time for groups in our society who try to force their morals, or their culture, on the rest of us"; Canada Family Action Coalition calls him a racist and anti-religious bigot; I don't know much about this guy, but I am sincerely enjoying how much he's making the theocons hate him. If only we had anyone down here with his spine.
----- 1 -----
President's Radio Address
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 3, 2006
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060603.html
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They're Republicans, Democrats, and independents who've come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and why I'm urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.
Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.
In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage. And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years. Since 2004, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judges in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own laws or state constitutions say. This national question requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts.
An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice. The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.
As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard. A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.
Thank you for listening.
END
----- 2 -----
No such thing as 'Gay Polygamy' - It’s Biologically Impossible
Date: Jun 01, 2006
Word Count: 1000 words
Cross-Reference: The Advocate, "gay polygamy", supposed-to-be conservatives, American Family Association, WorldNetDaily.com
Pro-Polygamy.com
Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing
news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0043
As the homosexual magazine, The Advocate, published an article about “homosexual multiple partners,” supposed-to-be conservatives referenced the article to try to liberally re-define polygamy and marriage with an invented fiction called “homosexual polygamy.”
The established national polygamy rights movement has repeatedly declared that it will not be re-defined - neither by homosexuals nor by anti-polygamists. Even so, supposed-to-be conservatives liberally “colluded” with a homosexual magazine, The Advocate, when that magazine published its June 6, 2006, edition. Both used the magazine’s cover story, “Polygamy & Gay Men,” to liberally imply a re-definition of polygamy and marriage, as if the fiction of “gay polygamy” was even possible.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Marriage Protection Amendment Action Alert
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
The U.S. Senate begins debate today on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) -- and your senators need to hear from you right now about why it's important they vote for its approval.
At issue is nothing less than the future of the American family. If marriage is legally allowed to mean anything other than what it has meant for centuries -- the union of one man and one woman -- it will very quickly mean nothing at all. The MPA is the only way ensure that doesn't happen.
To help you make your views on this important issue known to your two senators, we've written a short, but direct message for you to send them via fax. Even if you've already contacted your senators on this issue, we urge you to do it one more time.
When you send the message attached, it will be sent -- at no charge to you -- not to your senators' e-mail inboxes (which they can easily empty) but to their fax machines. When thousands of faxes begin to stack up in their offices, they will know without a doubt the will of the people on this important issue.
So please take a moment, right now, to click the "Take Action" button to the right and send your fax.
Thanks for doing your part to defend the family.
[Button link]
----- 4 -----
Bush Throws Support to Marriage Amendment; Senate Debate Begins
President calls on Congress to place marriage out of the reach of activist judges.
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0040757.cfm
President Bush spoke today in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) as debate began on the Senate floor for the second time in two years — with a vote to come this week.
In brief remarks at the White House this afternoon, the president endorsed the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would define marriage as between one man and one woman — and only between one man and one woman.
"I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification," Bush told a gathering of pro-family, religious and community leaders who had been invited to the White House.
"You are here because you strongly support the constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of man and a woman — and I am proud to stand with you."
[...]
After the ceremony, Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James Dobson praised the president for taking a stand once again — and took on those who have announced their opposition.
"What do we want, 50 different definitions of marriage? That's crazy," Dobson said in a Focus on the Family broadcast taping session with White House Press Secretary Tony Snow to be aired Tuesday. "But that's what Democrats — and I'm sorry to say, some squishy Republicans — are saying."
[...]
TAKE ACTION/FOR MORE INFORMATION:
If you are a CitizenLink Daily Update subscriber, click on the blue "Take Action" button on the right side of the e-mail to be automatically logged in to the Action Center where you may fax you senators a pre-written note concerning the MPA. Even if you have already contacted them, we urge you to fax them again through our Action Center and let them know the nation supports marriage being defined as one man and one woman. Otherwise, click on this link. Be sure to either log in or enter your address information and hit "Go" before trying to send the fax.
Click here to view the president's speech via C-SPAN.
Click here to read the text of the president's speech.
To find a station that carries Focus on the Family or to hear the broadcast with Tony Snow online on Tuesday, click here.
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Answering the Skeptics
by Tom Hess
Focus on the Familiy
Citizen Magazine
June 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0040680.cfm
If you’ve followed the debate over same-sex marriage, you’ve probably seen liberal activists disparage the Marriage Protection Amendment. To people who don’t know much beyond what they’ve heard or read in the media, some of these criticisms can sound convincing. But in every case, there are good answers which reflect the values of most Americans.
Below are five of the more common criticisms. In each case, we offer responses that should give the skeptic you know reason to reconsider. What other responses can you think of? E-mail them to us at citizeneditor@fotf.org.
1. Discriminates against gays. The amendment violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that every American be treated equally under the law.
Our response Marriage between two people of the same sex was not legal anywhere in America throughout or history until 2003. That’s the year when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court voted 4-3 to allow same-sex couples to wed. But society has long recognized many limits on who could marry. A man cannot legally marry more than one woman, nor can a parent marry his or her child. The institution of marriage has always, in every society, meant the union of one man and one woman. Marriage predates the ACLU, the U.S. Constitution, even the Bible itself.
2. Betrays family values. It’s hypocritical for the far right to talk about the importance of “family values” and withhold benefits and legal protection from loving, committed gay couples. Heterosexuals themselves ruined the “sanctity” of marriage with their high divorce rates.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Alabama State Marriage Amendment Vote on Tuesday
Pro-family voters needed to speak out in the primary election.
by Mona Passignano, state issues analyst
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040751.cfm
Alabama voters will have the unique opportunity Tuesday to amend the state constitution to clearly define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. So far, 19 states have approved state constitutional marriage amendments, and the key to their success was the involvement of the church.
[...]
TAKE ACTION:
Vote to protect traditional marriage and the family by voting “Yes” on the state marriage amendment.
(Paid for by Focus on the Family Alabama Marriage Amendment Committee, 8605 Explorer Dr., Colorado Springs, CO 80920.)
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Pennsylvania Legislature to Vote on State Marriage Amendment
Urge them to protect the institution from redefinition.
by Mona Passignano, state issues analyst
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040752.cfm
The Pennsylvania Legislature will vote on a state marriage amendment in the next few days.
[...]
If you are a Pennsylvania resident, please contact your state legislators and urge them to support the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment when it comes up for a vote.
TAKE ACTION:
To contact your state legislators, go to our Citizen Link Action Center. If you haven't already, make sure to click on "edit profile" to update your address information. That's how the Action Center determines your elected officials.
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Montana's Yellowstone County to Vote on Obscenity Ordinance
Action could stop dissemination of objectionable material.
by Mona Passignano, state issues analyst
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040750.cfm
In Tuesday's primary election, Yellowstone County, Mont., residents will have the opportunity to vote on an obscenity ordinance that will stop the dissemination of obscene material within the county. Ninety-eight percent of the U.S. population live in areas where obscene material is regulated, but Montana residents are among the 2 percent with no obscenity laws.
TAKE ACTION:
If you live in Yellowstone County, please visit the Montana Family Foundation for more information. And remember to vote.
----- 9 -----
Gay Activists Protest at Catholic Mass, Denied Communion
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
June 5, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/briefs/a0040753.cfm
Homosexual activists wearing rainbow-colored sashes were told they could not participate in Holy Communion at a St. Paul, Minn. Roman Catholic Cathedral, The Washington Post reported.
Wearing the sash on the day of Pentecost — a symbol of gay protest — began in 1997 in England and quickly moved overseas to the U.S.
[...]
Brian McNeill, an organizer of the protest, insisted that wearing the sash on the day of Pentecost is not a protest, but a celebration of gay sexuality.
"The premise of the sash is that gay people are part of the Catholic Community, part of the people of God," he said. "We are there proudly celebrating Mass."
Dennis McGrath, spokesman for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, said each of the more than 50 people wearing sashes were turned away but one unidentified man who wasn't wearing a sash received a wafer and immediately broke it into pieces and handed it to sash wearers.
People were visibly disturbed by the defiant act — some calling it sacrilege.
"It was confrontational," McGrath said, "but we decided not to try to arrest the guy."
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Gay Marriage Amendment Getting a Presidential Push
Conservatives who think Bush has buried the issue denounce the planned event as a ruse.
By Maura Reynolds and Janet Hook, Times Staff Writers
June 3, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay3jun03,1,5071907.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo
WASHINGTON — The campaign against gay marriage is scheduled to get the full White House treatment on Monday — words from President Bush in front of assembled VIPs and a bank of television cameras.
Such a carefully staged production aims to confer the grandeur of the office on the push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But even before administration officials announced the event, some invitees denounced it as a sham.
"I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse," said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which opposes gay marriage. "We're not buying it. We're going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, [but] it's too little, too late."
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Debating Marriage: Sacred or Sham?
Concerned Women for America
6/5/2006
By Janice Shaw Crouse
Homosexuals really want divine sanction, not merely legalization, for their behavior.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10890/BLI/dotcommentary/index.htm
Last month while on vacation at the beach, we saw three ocean-side wedding ceremonies and heard about several others scheduled for the following week. How ironic, now that many heterosexual couples are forsaking the church for wedding ceremonies in diverse locations –– on water skis, in fire trucks, and equally weird locales –– homosexual couples are fighting to “marry” and they want all the attendant pomp and ceremony in a church.
Among those most prominent in supporting the “right” to same-sex “marriage” are the liberal churches –– who emphasize individual freedoms rather than the “boundaries” of Biblical Christianity. Their faith is based on personal and corporate interpretations rather than on Scriptural tenets –– no matter how historically authenticated or theologically authoritative.
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Tony Perkins Joins 100 Black Pastors on Marriage
Family Research Council
June 6, 2006
Online as of June 5, 2006
http://www.frc.org/
"A Marriage Protection Amendment is necessary. Activist courts have left our nation with no other option. Marriage will either be defined by the courts or by the people. Now is the time for Congress to act!"~FRC President, Tony Perkins.
Washington, D.C. - Tomorrow Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, will join with religious and community leaders from across political party lines in a joint press conference to support the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Who: Sen. Wayne Allard, Tony Perkins, Bishop Harry Jackson, Reverend William Owens, Star Parker, and Students from TeenPact
What: Joint press conference in support of the MPA
When: Tuesday, June 6th, 2006
10:30 a.m. EST
Where: Senate Swamp, Washington, DC, (At the corner of Constitution and Delaware Avenues, across from Russell Senate Office Building)
----- 13 -----
Senators McCain and Clinton Are Ignoring America On Gay Marriage Says FRC Action Ad
Family Research Council
June 5, 2006 - Monday
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 5, 2006
CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Bethanie Swendsen, (866) FRC-NEWS
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR06F01&f=PG03I03
"The record is clear. When allowed to speak, Americans speak up against activist judges in defense of marriage." - USA Today, FRC Action Ad
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In today's edition of USA Today, FRC Action - the legislative action arm of the Family Research Council - and Focus on the Family Action launched an ad campaign urging Americans who support traditional marriage to contact their state's two Senators in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA). The ad questions statements made by both Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in which they claim support for traditional marriage, while also opposing the MPA.
The ad lists all 19 states that have enacted marriage protection amendments by an average of 70% of the popular vote. The ad states, "It's abundantly clear that the American people are centered on the definition of marriage. They want it to stay right where it is, and they've been doing some straight talk of their own - every time the issue is on a ballot." However, the ad points out that "as impressive as these majorities are, they can still be overruled with the stroke of a pen by an activist judge."
The ad concludes, "If you're content to leave the future of marriage in the hands of activist judges, then both Senator McCain and Senator Clinton speak for you. But if you're like millions of other Americans who want to protect marriage from redefinition, then call your state's two Senators today at 202-224-3121 and ask them to vote this week for the Marriage Protection Amendment."
----- 14 -----
As Senate Takes Up Marriage Debate, Religious Leaders Urge Support for MPA
By Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
American Family Association/Agape Press
June 5, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/52006a.asp
(AgapePress) - The founder of the American Family Association (AFA) says U.S. Christians concerned about the influence of homosexual activists on their society need to contact their senators regarding the proposed federal marriage amendment.
Tomorrow (June 6) the U.S. Senate begins debate on the proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as valid only between a man and a woman. To become law, the amendment needs two-thirds support in the U.S. Senate and House and then would have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures. Senators are expected to vote on the proposal later this week.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
Judge Rules Christian Prison Program Unconstitutional; Appeal Planned
"The courts took God our of America's schools --
now they are on the path to take God out of America's prisons."
-- Mark Earley, Prison Fellowship President
By Jody Brown
American Family Association/Agape Press
June 5, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/52006b.asp
(AgapePress) - Evidently it matters not that a well-known and highly successful prison ministry believes one of its premier programs is constitutional and well within the guidelines of the First Amendment, or that statistics bear out the effectiveness of the program. A federal judge has ruled the program is unconstitutional -- and now the program that equips prisoners to successfully re-enter society is in jeopardy.
A federal judge has ruled that an Iowa prison program that involves inmates immersing themselves in evangelical Christianity is unconstitutional and must be shut down. Associated Press reports that Judge Robert Pratt, in a ruling expected to have national implications, said Prison Fellowship's InnerChange Freedom Initiative amounts to a government establishment of religion.
Pratt ruled that the Iowa Department of Corrections must close the program within 60 days and that $1.5 million in contract payments must be returned to state officials, but he suspended those orders while an appeal is pending.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
Marriage Amendment -- Baptists on Sunday, Bush on Monday
Family Advocate Highly Disappointed in White House Passivity Toward MPA
By Allie Martin, Jody Brown, and Rusty Pugh
American Family Association
June 2, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/22006a.asp
(AgapePress) - Southern Baptist pastors are being encouraged this weekend to preach about the necessity of a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. The legislative matter is scheduled to come before the U.S. Senate for debate and a vote next week.
The Marriage Protection Amendment (S.J. Res. 1) has 32 co-sponsors, all Republicans. The amendment states, in part, that marriage in the U.S. "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" and that neither the U.S. Constitution nor any state's constitution shall confer the legal incidents of marriage on any other type of union.
[...]
Pro-family and faith-based groups across the country have been urging their supporters to contact their senators and encourage them to vote for the MPA. Among those groups is the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), which has dubbed June 4 as "Marriage Protection Sunday" throughout its churches in an effort to encourage Southern Baptists to learn more about the threat to biblical marriage posed by same-sex unions.
[More at URL]
----- 16 -----
Attorney Suggests Gov't Regulation of Google a Possibility
By Allie Martin
American Family Association
June 5, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/52006f.asp
(AgapePress) - An attorney with a prominent conservative Christian group says he is troubled by the recent announcement that the popular Internet search engine Google(tm) has dumped news sites criticizing radical Islam.
Last month Frank Salvato, owner of The New Media Journal, was informed by representatives of Google that his website's news page would be dropped as one of the search engine's news resources because of complaints regarding "hate speech." Google officials referenced three articles from the site that allegedly contained such speech directed at the Muslim religion. (See earlier article)
The chief counsel of the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy says Google's decision is troubling because of the company's influence on the Worldwide Web. Steve Crampton explains that the whole concept behind a search engine is that users are just looking for information -- and that the users will then take it from there.
"[Users are essentially saying] 'I'll do the decision-making -- the discriminating, if you will -- as to which articles I want to read and which ones I don't,'" says Crampton. "But when you retrieve only left-leaning articles or only articles that are favorable to the religion of Islam, you're not really providing news. You're providing a slanted view of the world."
And evidently Google provides its view to a major portion of American Internet users. According to the Nielsen/NetRatings report [PDF], half (50 percent) of all the Internet searches -- or approximately 2.65 billion searches -- conducted in the U.S. in April 2006 were carried out on Google. Yahoo! search and MSN search followed with 22 and 11 percent respectively. That makes Google, a private entity, one with vast influence -- and consequently, an argument might be made for government regulation, Crampton says.
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
ADF Appeals Liberal Judges' Ruling in Christian Student's Censorship Case
By Jim Brown
American Family Association/Agape Press
June 2, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/22006b.asp
(AgapePress) - A pro-family attorney says a San Diego school district violated the free-speech rights of a California high school student by prohibiting him from expressing his Christian viewpoint against homosexuality.
In 2004, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed a lawsuit challenging the Poway School District's decision to suspend student Chase Harper for wearing a Christian T-shirt. Harper's shirt bore the phrases "Homosexuality is shameful" and "Our school embraced what God has condemned."
Recently, two judges with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the U.S. Constitution does not permit Harper to wear the shirt. ADF, a pro-family legal defense organization, is appealing the ruling.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
Commentary & News Briefs
June 5, 2006
American Family Association/Agape Press
Compiled by Jody Brown
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/52006h.asp
[...]
...On Tuesday, when the date will be 6-6-06, fans of the "Left Behind" novels can enjoy The Rapture. That's the title of the last prequel to the apocalyptic series about the biblical end times. Author Tim LaHaye says this new book describes what it will feel like for Christians to be part of the Rapture. "They'll all be taken up to be with Christ and then into Heaven, that place that He said He'd prepare for us -- and then the judgment seat of Christ, the marriage supper of the Lamb," he explains. "There are plenty of activities." LaHaye does not expect Christians to really be "raptured" -- or caught up from Earth to Heaven -- on June 6, 2006, since Jesus said no one knows the day that will happen. And he says he is sure the mark of the beast -- 666 -- will not be introduced on Tuesday. LaHaye understands scripture to teach that that will not happen until three-and-a-half years after the Rapture. [AP]
[...]
...A judge has rejected a Wisconsin pharmacist's claim that his religious rights were violated when Wal-Mart fired him for refusing to fill birth-control prescriptions. The ruling said Wal-Mart had accommodated Neil Noesen's religious opposition to birth control by having other pharmacists fill prescriptions. But federal Judge John Shabaz said Noesen went too far by putting customers who called about birth control on hold indefinitely and by refusing to get service for those who showed up in person. The 32-year-old Noesen, a Roman Catholic, also was sanctioned by the state Pharmacy Examining Board for refusing to fill a contraceptive prescription or transfer it while working at another store in 2002. The board reprimanded him and forced him to attend ethics classes. [AP]
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT DOES MORE TO PROMOTE CIVIL UNIONS THAN PROTECT MARRIAGE
Traditional Values Coalition
White House & Religious Conservatives mislead American people on effect of MPA
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2743
June 5, 2006 - Washington, DC – The Traditional Values Coalition will not attend the White House ceremony today to promote the Marriage Protection Amendment because it puts in the U.S. Constitution the right to civil unions and other forms of counterfeit marriage, which are one small step from full marriage rights for homosexuals.
“This amendment is a hollow gesture when it comes to protecting marriage,” said TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon. “It does not ‘fully protect marriage’ but it amends the Constitution to allow civil unions and other forms of counterfeit marriage in all 50 states.”
“I am disappointed in the White House, but I am even more disappointed in those social conservative leaders who have misled the American people into believing that the Marriage Protection Amendment will stop homosexual marriage. Promoting a civil unions amendment disguised as a marriage protection amendment is shameful.
“No reasonable person will deny marriage to homosexuals once a Constitutional right to a ‘civil union’ is established. And this amendment is not compassionate conservatism, this is unprincipled relativism.
[More at URL]
----- 20 -----
Do Homosexuals Really Want The Right To Marry?
In their own words: Homosexual activists reveal their real agenda.
Traditional Values Coalition
Online as of June 5, 2006
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1150
Homosexuals claim they want the "right" to get married and live normal lives just like heterosexual married couples.
The truth is, however, that the drive to gain legalization of so-called "gay" or "same-sex" marriage is part of a larger sexual agenda. Homosexual activists are now beginning to openly admit that they don't want to marry just to have a normal home life. They want same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy and polyamory (group sex) as "families."
[More at URL]
----- 21 -----
Homosexual Civil Unions
Homosexual activists explain why ‘civil unions’ are just as good as ‘same-sex marriage’ in the battle to undermine the traditional family.
Traditional Values Coalition
January 2005
Online (and relinked) as of June 5, 2006
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/CivilUnions.pdf
January, 2005 — Homosexual activists are openly strategizing on how to gain all of the legal benefits of marriage under state-passed “civil union” legislation.
Dale Carpenter, a homosexual writer for the Independent Gay Forum (11/25/2004), for example, has described the “California Model” to gain the legal status of marriage—without calling it marriage under state laws. The objective is to gain marriage status through incrementalism. This is the strategy followed in California.
[More at URL]
----- 22 -----
Last Weekend for Referendum 65
Faith and Freedom Network
Saturday, June 03, 2006
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2006/06/last-weekend-for-referendum-65.html
As many of you know, this is the last week-end to circulate Referendum 65 petitions. Please do so. If you have any petition forms, gather as many last minute signatures as possible and mail them in. Please follow the mailing instructions on our website. Click here for instructions.
Many are calling to ask where we are in regard to the number of names collected. We don’t know because Tim Eyman has not disclosed the numbers.
For the latest news source on the Referendum, click here to view the news link on our home page.
[More at URL]
----- 23 -----
Monday, June 5, 2006 · Last updated 5:07 p.m. PT
Several high-profile church leaders ready to rally support gay rights
By ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SEATTLE -- Several high-profile church leaders said Monday they're poised to rally voters to uphold a measure adding sexual orientation to a state law that bans discrimination in housing, employment, insurance and credit.
"Discrimination against any human being on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, or sexual orientation is a moral wrong," Rev. Jon M. Luopa, senior minister of University Unitarian Church, told a news conference at Seattle's Episcopalian Diocesan House. "It is the duty of a democratic government to protect us from such wrong. It is our duty as citizens to hold the government accountable for such protection."
[...]
Eyman made an appointment to turn in signatures Monday at the secretary of state's office in Olympia, but instead he showed up dressed up as Darth Vader, carting boxes of petition signatures for another initiative he's sponsoring for $30 car tabs.
He refused to say how many Referendum 65 signatures his team had gathered so far, only that he was awaiting a final batch from Spokane and that he would turn them all in Tuesday afternoon.
[...]
In the past few weeks, some churches have been running a "Referendum Sunday" campaign to gather signatures for the measure, after Eyman sent out an e-mail saying he had received less than 10,000 signatures.
[...]
The Right Rev. Vincent Warner, bishop of the Episcopal Church in Western Washington, said church leaders who support gay rights need to be more vocal about their beliefs.
"I think we're too quiet about it," Warner said. "I think we really need to let people know that respecting the dignity of every human being is very, very important."
[More at URL]
----- 24 -----
Planned Parenthood makes money off sexually active children
Canada Family Action Coalition
June 5, 2006
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/sexuality/planned-parenthood-record-profits.htm
Is it any wonder Planned Parenthood supports homosexual activists here in Canada opposing raising the age of consent. It would likely reduce their profits here even in this nation. I think it very apparent that this organization has no concern nor compassion for humans. And it wants taxpayers money to do it's deeds.
We need to ask every level of government to cut ALL funding of this organization as it does no "charitable" work.
READ US stats - but beware this outfit operates in Canada ands has access to students in many schools also.
-- CFAC
Planned Parenthood swimming in record profits while tax dollars siphoned from worthy programs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Amber Dolle
June 5, 2006
WASHINGTON, D.C. - "Planned Parenthood must assume that elected officials can't read a simple annual report," said American Life League vice president Jim Sedlak. "While Planned Parenthood is begging for increased government funding, it's also admitting that it racked up record operating profits in its most recent fiscal year."
Newly released data reveals that for the 2004-2005 fiscal year, Planned Parenthood had a record income of $882 million dollars and a profit of $63 million, the second highest the organization has ever reported in a single year. Planned Parenthood also set new standards for the number of abortions in a single year (255,015) and for its ratio of abortions to adoption referrals (180 to 1).
[More at URL]
----- 25 -----
Renegade Conservative MP Garth Turner Calls Ethnic and Religious People Evil Flowers and Taliban
By Dr. Charles McVety, Canada
Christian College, Toronto
(President, Canada Family Action Coalition)
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/politics-law/government/renegade-MP.htm
Since elected on January 23rd MP Garth Turner has frequently attacked Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Now he has turned his sights on ethnic and religious people. On television and then his website, under the title “Agenda of Hate” Turner blasted us saying “Call it Defend Marriage Canada. Call it the Taliban, Fleurs du mal (flowers of evil)”.
After a spirited televised debate with me on Friday, May 26th, Garth Turner lost it as he ranted and raved on his website www.garth.ca. During the interview Mr. Turner made the argument that busloads of ethnic and religious people take over nomination meetings and elect candidates that do not reflect society. I protested, “Are you saying ethnic and religious people are not Canadians and cannot participate in democracy? That only the ”elites” should elect our candidates?”
This was enough to trigger a caustic response from Turner, revealing an underlying hatred for people who do not share his religious views or culture. In his writings, paragraph after paragraph Turner castigates anyone who dares challenge his entitlement as a Member of Parliament. “I have no time for groups in our society who try to force their morals, or their culture, on the rest of us.”
[More at URL]
In Washington State news, Tim Eyman didn't show up with anti-gay initiatives today. He showed up with his latest destroy-all-road-maintenance car-tabs initiative instead. He says he'll be in on Tuesday with the anti-GBLT signatures instead, and that he's awaiting a last shipment of petitions from Spokane. Tomorrow is the last day, so I guess instead of finding out today whether an all-church petition drive can get a referendum on the ballot, we'll find out on Tuesday, instead.
And now, today's news.
Official transcript of President Bush's radio address endorsing the anti-marriage "Marriage Protection Amendment"; "In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives" - so we need an amendment against queer marriage. What the fuck? Seriously, this might as well have been written by the FRC;
Fundamentalist Mormons against "supposed-to-be conservatives," the American Family Association, and The Advocate on polygamy;
Focus on the Family's ACTION ITEM against marriage rights and for the anti-marriage Federal amendment;
FotF article (and ACTION ITEM) promoting the FMA/MPA amendment; apparently their Tuesday broadcast will have White House Press Secretary Tony Snow on, pushing the amendment;
Focus on the Family talking points against marriage rights;
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM to vote Alabama anti-marriage amendment in the PRIMARY ELECTION TOMORROW (Tuesday); also, what the hell is "Focus on the Family Alabama Marriage Amendment Committee"? Are they making individual committees for every anti-gay initiative out there now, or is there something in Alabama's political law requiring this? I dunno;
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM for Pennsylvanians to contact their state legislators in advance of an anti-gay anti-marriage-rights amendment vote later this week;
FotF ACTION ITEM to support some form of either "obscene" or "objectionable" (they use both words) materials ban in Yellowstone County, Montana; they're voting on it in tomorrow's primary;
FotF article on sash-wearing gay Catholics being denied communion;
LA Times reports on disgruntled social conservatives unhappy with Bush's level of support for the anti-marriage amendment;
Concerned Women for America now says lesbians and gays don't just want societal approval, they're demanding approval from GOD;
Family Research Council's Tony Perkins "Joins 100 Black Pastors on Marriage";
FRC ad against Sens. McCain and Clinton in USA Today on the anti-marriage amendment; includes ACTION ITEM to support the amendment;
American Family Association article warning on the dangers of not passing the anti-marriage Federal amendment;
AFA outrage that a judge has ruled against Iowa paying Prison Fellowship to convert inmates to fundamentalist Christianity; it's the "InnerChange Freedom Initiative" and that is in fact what it did; Prison Fellowship is having to return $1.5M in taxpayer dollars they were paid by Iowa;
AFA article on last Sunday's planned "Marriage Protection Sunday" effort in Southern Baptist Convention and other churches; I don't know how this went, but I missed this particular article so am running it now;
AFA suggests that the government should regulate Google for dropping a right-wing news site as a news provider - and not, as the article implies but does not say, from its search results;
The anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund is appealing their case supporting a student wearing an anti-gay T-shirt to school; school officials banned it from the grounds on the ground that it is disruptive and attacks other students; ADF calls it religious discrimination;
AFA/Agape press on Tim LaHaye's last prequel in the Left Behind series, which I include only because it's funny. Also, an anti-birth-control pharmacist loses his firing lawsuit against Wal*Mart - he was dismissed not just for refusing to prescribe, but for violating Wal*Mart policy requiring him to get another pharmacist to do it; instead, he would leave customers on hold indefinitely and ignore customers who appeared in person;
Traditional Values Coalition condemns MPA, claims it "promote[s] civil unions" by not banning them; they want a much more strongly anti-gay amendment;
TVC runs the "queers don't want marriage, they want to destroy everyone" tape again;
TVC "Special Report" on why civil unions are just as bad as marriage rights;
Faith and Freedom Network says, "We don't know how many signatures we have, Tim Eyman hasn't told us";
Tim Eyman misses Monday appointment for anti-gay referendum signatures, turns in latest anti-roads-repair ($30 tabs) initiative instead; says he'll be back Tuesday after he gets a final batch of signatures in from Spokane; several non-fundamentalist church groups pledge to campaign to retain the GBLT basic civil rights law;
Canada Family Action Coalition runs American Life League press release attacking Planned Parenthood as a news article;
Tory MP Garth Turner (Toronto) lets Canadian Theoconservatives have it in no uncertain terms; “I have no time for groups in our society who try to force their morals, or their culture, on the rest of us"; Canada Family Action Coalition calls him a racist and anti-religious bigot; I don't know much about this guy, but I am sincerely enjoying how much he's making the theocons hate him. If only we had anyone down here with his spine.
----- 1 -----
President's Radio Address
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 3, 2006
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060603.html
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They're Republicans, Democrats, and independents who've come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and why I'm urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.
Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.
In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage. And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years. Since 2004, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judges in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own laws or state constitutions say. This national question requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts.
An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice. The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.
As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard. A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.
Thank you for listening.
END
----- 2 -----
No such thing as 'Gay Polygamy' - It’s Biologically Impossible
Date: Jun 01, 2006
Word Count: 1000 words
Cross-Reference: The Advocate, "gay polygamy", supposed-to-be conservatives, American Family Association, WorldNetDaily.com
Pro-Polygamy.com
Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing
news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0043
As the homosexual magazine, The Advocate, published an article about “homosexual multiple partners,” supposed-to-be conservatives referenced the article to try to liberally re-define polygamy and marriage with an invented fiction called “homosexual polygamy.”
The established national polygamy rights movement has repeatedly declared that it will not be re-defined - neither by homosexuals nor by anti-polygamists. Even so, supposed-to-be conservatives liberally “colluded” with a homosexual magazine, The Advocate, when that magazine published its June 6, 2006, edition. Both used the magazine’s cover story, “Polygamy & Gay Men,” to liberally imply a re-definition of polygamy and marriage, as if the fiction of “gay polygamy” was even possible.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Marriage Protection Amendment Action Alert
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
The U.S. Senate begins debate today on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) -- and your senators need to hear from you right now about why it's important they vote for its approval.
At issue is nothing less than the future of the American family. If marriage is legally allowed to mean anything other than what it has meant for centuries -- the union of one man and one woman -- it will very quickly mean nothing at all. The MPA is the only way ensure that doesn't happen.
To help you make your views on this important issue known to your two senators, we've written a short, but direct message for you to send them via fax. Even if you've already contacted your senators on this issue, we urge you to do it one more time.
When you send the message attached, it will be sent -- at no charge to you -- not to your senators' e-mail inboxes (which they can easily empty) but to their fax machines. When thousands of faxes begin to stack up in their offices, they will know without a doubt the will of the people on this important issue.
So please take a moment, right now, to click the "Take Action" button to the right and send your fax.
Thanks for doing your part to defend the family.
[Button link]
----- 4 -----
Bush Throws Support to Marriage Amendment; Senate Debate Begins
President calls on Congress to place marriage out of the reach of activist judges.
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0040757.cfm
President Bush spoke today in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) as debate began on the Senate floor for the second time in two years — with a vote to come this week.
In brief remarks at the White House this afternoon, the president endorsed the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would define marriage as between one man and one woman — and only between one man and one woman.
"I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification," Bush told a gathering of pro-family, religious and community leaders who had been invited to the White House.
"You are here because you strongly support the constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of man and a woman — and I am proud to stand with you."
[...]
After the ceremony, Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James Dobson praised the president for taking a stand once again — and took on those who have announced their opposition.
"What do we want, 50 different definitions of marriage? That's crazy," Dobson said in a Focus on the Family broadcast taping session with White House Press Secretary Tony Snow to be aired Tuesday. "But that's what Democrats — and I'm sorry to say, some squishy Republicans — are saying."
[...]
TAKE ACTION/FOR MORE INFORMATION:
If you are a CitizenLink Daily Update subscriber, click on the blue "Take Action" button on the right side of the e-mail to be automatically logged in to the Action Center where you may fax you senators a pre-written note concerning the MPA. Even if you have already contacted them, we urge you to fax them again through our Action Center and let them know the nation supports marriage being defined as one man and one woman. Otherwise, click on this link. Be sure to either log in or enter your address information and hit "Go" before trying to send the fax.
Click here to view the president's speech via C-SPAN.
Click here to read the text of the president's speech.
To find a station that carries Focus on the Family or to hear the broadcast with Tony Snow online on Tuesday, click here.
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Answering the Skeptics
by Tom Hess
Focus on the Familiy
Citizen Magazine
June 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0040680.cfm
If you’ve followed the debate over same-sex marriage, you’ve probably seen liberal activists disparage the Marriage Protection Amendment. To people who don’t know much beyond what they’ve heard or read in the media, some of these criticisms can sound convincing. But in every case, there are good answers which reflect the values of most Americans.
Below are five of the more common criticisms. In each case, we offer responses that should give the skeptic you know reason to reconsider. What other responses can you think of? E-mail them to us at citizeneditor@fotf.org.
1. Discriminates against gays. The amendment violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that every American be treated equally under the law.
Our response Marriage between two people of the same sex was not legal anywhere in America throughout or history until 2003. That’s the year when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court voted 4-3 to allow same-sex couples to wed. But society has long recognized many limits on who could marry. A man cannot legally marry more than one woman, nor can a parent marry his or her child. The institution of marriage has always, in every society, meant the union of one man and one woman. Marriage predates the ACLU, the U.S. Constitution, even the Bible itself.
2. Betrays family values. It’s hypocritical for the far right to talk about the importance of “family values” and withhold benefits and legal protection from loving, committed gay couples. Heterosexuals themselves ruined the “sanctity” of marriage with their high divorce rates.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Alabama State Marriage Amendment Vote on Tuesday
Pro-family voters needed to speak out in the primary election.
by Mona Passignano, state issues analyst
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040751.cfm
Alabama voters will have the unique opportunity Tuesday to amend the state constitution to clearly define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. So far, 19 states have approved state constitutional marriage amendments, and the key to their success was the involvement of the church.
[...]
TAKE ACTION:
Vote to protect traditional marriage and the family by voting “Yes” on the state marriage amendment.
(Paid for by Focus on the Family Alabama Marriage Amendment Committee, 8605 Explorer Dr., Colorado Springs, CO 80920.)
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Pennsylvania Legislature to Vote on State Marriage Amendment
Urge them to protect the institution from redefinition.
by Mona Passignano, state issues analyst
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040752.cfm
The Pennsylvania Legislature will vote on a state marriage amendment in the next few days.
[...]
If you are a Pennsylvania resident, please contact your state legislators and urge them to support the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment when it comes up for a vote.
TAKE ACTION:
To contact your state legislators, go to our Citizen Link Action Center. If you haven't already, make sure to click on "edit profile" to update your address information. That's how the Action Center determines your elected officials.
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Montana's Yellowstone County to Vote on Obscenity Ordinance
Action could stop dissemination of objectionable material.
by Mona Passignano, state issues analyst
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040750.cfm
In Tuesday's primary election, Yellowstone County, Mont., residents will have the opportunity to vote on an obscenity ordinance that will stop the dissemination of obscene material within the county. Ninety-eight percent of the U.S. population live in areas where obscene material is regulated, but Montana residents are among the 2 percent with no obscenity laws.
TAKE ACTION:
If you live in Yellowstone County, please visit the Montana Family Foundation for more information. And remember to vote.
----- 9 -----
Gay Activists Protest at Catholic Mass, Denied Communion
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
June 5, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/briefs/a0040753.cfm
Homosexual activists wearing rainbow-colored sashes were told they could not participate in Holy Communion at a St. Paul, Minn. Roman Catholic Cathedral, The Washington Post reported.
Wearing the sash on the day of Pentecost — a symbol of gay protest — began in 1997 in England and quickly moved overseas to the U.S.
[...]
Brian McNeill, an organizer of the protest, insisted that wearing the sash on the day of Pentecost is not a protest, but a celebration of gay sexuality.
"The premise of the sash is that gay people are part of the Catholic Community, part of the people of God," he said. "We are there proudly celebrating Mass."
Dennis McGrath, spokesman for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, said each of the more than 50 people wearing sashes were turned away but one unidentified man who wasn't wearing a sash received a wafer and immediately broke it into pieces and handed it to sash wearers.
People were visibly disturbed by the defiant act — some calling it sacrilege.
"It was confrontational," McGrath said, "but we decided not to try to arrest the guy."
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Gay Marriage Amendment Getting a Presidential Push
Conservatives who think Bush has buried the issue denounce the planned event as a ruse.
By Maura Reynolds and Janet Hook, Times Staff Writers
June 3, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay3jun03,1,5071907.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo
WASHINGTON — The campaign against gay marriage is scheduled to get the full White House treatment on Monday — words from President Bush in front of assembled VIPs and a bank of television cameras.
Such a carefully staged production aims to confer the grandeur of the office on the push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But even before administration officials announced the event, some invitees denounced it as a sham.
"I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse," said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which opposes gay marriage. "We're not buying it. We're going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, [but] it's too little, too late."
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Debating Marriage: Sacred or Sham?
Concerned Women for America
6/5/2006
By Janice Shaw Crouse
Homosexuals really want divine sanction, not merely legalization, for their behavior.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10890/BLI/dotcommentary/index.htm
Last month while on vacation at the beach, we saw three ocean-side wedding ceremonies and heard about several others scheduled for the following week. How ironic, now that many heterosexual couples are forsaking the church for wedding ceremonies in diverse locations –– on water skis, in fire trucks, and equally weird locales –– homosexual couples are fighting to “marry” and they want all the attendant pomp and ceremony in a church.
Among those most prominent in supporting the “right” to same-sex “marriage” are the liberal churches –– who emphasize individual freedoms rather than the “boundaries” of Biblical Christianity. Their faith is based on personal and corporate interpretations rather than on Scriptural tenets –– no matter how historically authenticated or theologically authoritative.
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Tony Perkins Joins 100 Black Pastors on Marriage
Family Research Council
June 6, 2006
Online as of June 5, 2006
http://www.frc.org/
"A Marriage Protection Amendment is necessary. Activist courts have left our nation with no other option. Marriage will either be defined by the courts or by the people. Now is the time for Congress to act!"~FRC President, Tony Perkins.
Washington, D.C. - Tomorrow Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, will join with religious and community leaders from across political party lines in a joint press conference to support the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Who: Sen. Wayne Allard, Tony Perkins, Bishop Harry Jackson, Reverend William Owens, Star Parker, and Students from TeenPact
What: Joint press conference in support of the MPA
When: Tuesday, June 6th, 2006
10:30 a.m. EST
Where: Senate Swamp, Washington, DC, (At the corner of Constitution and Delaware Avenues, across from Russell Senate Office Building)
----- 13 -----
Senators McCain and Clinton Are Ignoring America On Gay Marriage Says FRC Action Ad
Family Research Council
June 5, 2006 - Monday
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 5, 2006
CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Bethanie Swendsen, (866) FRC-NEWS
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR06F01&f=PG03I03
"The record is clear. When allowed to speak, Americans speak up against activist judges in defense of marriage." - USA Today, FRC Action Ad
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In today's edition of USA Today, FRC Action - the legislative action arm of the Family Research Council - and Focus on the Family Action launched an ad campaign urging Americans who support traditional marriage to contact their state's two Senators in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA). The ad questions statements made by both Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in which they claim support for traditional marriage, while also opposing the MPA.
The ad lists all 19 states that have enacted marriage protection amendments by an average of 70% of the popular vote. The ad states, "It's abundantly clear that the American people are centered on the definition of marriage. They want it to stay right where it is, and they've been doing some straight talk of their own - every time the issue is on a ballot." However, the ad points out that "as impressive as these majorities are, they can still be overruled with the stroke of a pen by an activist judge."
The ad concludes, "If you're content to leave the future of marriage in the hands of activist judges, then both Senator McCain and Senator Clinton speak for you. But if you're like millions of other Americans who want to protect marriage from redefinition, then call your state's two Senators today at 202-224-3121 and ask them to vote this week for the Marriage Protection Amendment."
----- 14 -----
As Senate Takes Up Marriage Debate, Religious Leaders Urge Support for MPA
By Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
American Family Association/Agape Press
June 5, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/52006a.asp
(AgapePress) - The founder of the American Family Association (AFA) says U.S. Christians concerned about the influence of homosexual activists on their society need to contact their senators regarding the proposed federal marriage amendment.
Tomorrow (June 6) the U.S. Senate begins debate on the proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as valid only between a man and a woman. To become law, the amendment needs two-thirds support in the U.S. Senate and House and then would have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures. Senators are expected to vote on the proposal later this week.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
Judge Rules Christian Prison Program Unconstitutional; Appeal Planned
"The courts took God our of America's schools --
now they are on the path to take God out of America's prisons."
-- Mark Earley, Prison Fellowship President
By Jody Brown
American Family Association/Agape Press
June 5, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/52006b.asp
(AgapePress) - Evidently it matters not that a well-known and highly successful prison ministry believes one of its premier programs is constitutional and well within the guidelines of the First Amendment, or that statistics bear out the effectiveness of the program. A federal judge has ruled the program is unconstitutional -- and now the program that equips prisoners to successfully re-enter society is in jeopardy.
A federal judge has ruled that an Iowa prison program that involves inmates immersing themselves in evangelical Christianity is unconstitutional and must be shut down. Associated Press reports that Judge Robert Pratt, in a ruling expected to have national implications, said Prison Fellowship's InnerChange Freedom Initiative amounts to a government establishment of religion.
Pratt ruled that the Iowa Department of Corrections must close the program within 60 days and that $1.5 million in contract payments must be returned to state officials, but he suspended those orders while an appeal is pending.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
Marriage Amendment -- Baptists on Sunday, Bush on Monday
Family Advocate Highly Disappointed in White House Passivity Toward MPA
By Allie Martin, Jody Brown, and Rusty Pugh
American Family Association
June 2, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/22006a.asp
(AgapePress) - Southern Baptist pastors are being encouraged this weekend to preach about the necessity of a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. The legislative matter is scheduled to come before the U.S. Senate for debate and a vote next week.
The Marriage Protection Amendment (S.J. Res. 1) has 32 co-sponsors, all Republicans. The amendment states, in part, that marriage in the U.S. "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" and that neither the U.S. Constitution nor any state's constitution shall confer the legal incidents of marriage on any other type of union.
[...]
Pro-family and faith-based groups across the country have been urging their supporters to contact their senators and encourage them to vote for the MPA. Among those groups is the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), which has dubbed June 4 as "Marriage Protection Sunday" throughout its churches in an effort to encourage Southern Baptists to learn more about the threat to biblical marriage posed by same-sex unions.
[More at URL]
----- 16 -----
Attorney Suggests Gov't Regulation of Google a Possibility
By Allie Martin
American Family Association
June 5, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/52006f.asp
(AgapePress) - An attorney with a prominent conservative Christian group says he is troubled by the recent announcement that the popular Internet search engine Google(tm) has dumped news sites criticizing radical Islam.
Last month Frank Salvato, owner of The New Media Journal, was informed by representatives of Google that his website's news page would be dropped as one of the search engine's news resources because of complaints regarding "hate speech." Google officials referenced three articles from the site that allegedly contained such speech directed at the Muslim religion. (See earlier article)
The chief counsel of the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy says Google's decision is troubling because of the company's influence on the Worldwide Web. Steve Crampton explains that the whole concept behind a search engine is that users are just looking for information -- and that the users will then take it from there.
"[Users are essentially saying] 'I'll do the decision-making -- the discriminating, if you will -- as to which articles I want to read and which ones I don't,'" says Crampton. "But when you retrieve only left-leaning articles or only articles that are favorable to the religion of Islam, you're not really providing news. You're providing a slanted view of the world."
And evidently Google provides its view to a major portion of American Internet users. According to the Nielsen/NetRatings report [PDF], half (50 percent) of all the Internet searches -- or approximately 2.65 billion searches -- conducted in the U.S. in April 2006 were carried out on Google. Yahoo! search and MSN search followed with 22 and 11 percent respectively. That makes Google, a private entity, one with vast influence -- and consequently, an argument might be made for government regulation, Crampton says.
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
ADF Appeals Liberal Judges' Ruling in Christian Student's Censorship Case
By Jim Brown
American Family Association/Agape Press
June 2, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/22006b.asp
(AgapePress) - A pro-family attorney says a San Diego school district violated the free-speech rights of a California high school student by prohibiting him from expressing his Christian viewpoint against homosexuality.
In 2004, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed a lawsuit challenging the Poway School District's decision to suspend student Chase Harper for wearing a Christian T-shirt. Harper's shirt bore the phrases "Homosexuality is shameful" and "Our school embraced what God has condemned."
Recently, two judges with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the U.S. Constitution does not permit Harper to wear the shirt. ADF, a pro-family legal defense organization, is appealing the ruling.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
Commentary & News Briefs
June 5, 2006
American Family Association/Agape Press
Compiled by Jody Brown
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/52006h.asp
[...]
...On Tuesday, when the date will be 6-6-06, fans of the "Left Behind" novels can enjoy The Rapture. That's the title of the last prequel to the apocalyptic series about the biblical end times. Author Tim LaHaye says this new book describes what it will feel like for Christians to be part of the Rapture. "They'll all be taken up to be with Christ and then into Heaven, that place that He said He'd prepare for us -- and then the judgment seat of Christ, the marriage supper of the Lamb," he explains. "There are plenty of activities." LaHaye does not expect Christians to really be "raptured" -- or caught up from Earth to Heaven -- on June 6, 2006, since Jesus said no one knows the day that will happen. And he says he is sure the mark of the beast -- 666 -- will not be introduced on Tuesday. LaHaye understands scripture to teach that that will not happen until three-and-a-half years after the Rapture. [AP]
[...]
...A judge has rejected a Wisconsin pharmacist's claim that his religious rights were violated when Wal-Mart fired him for refusing to fill birth-control prescriptions. The ruling said Wal-Mart had accommodated Neil Noesen's religious opposition to birth control by having other pharmacists fill prescriptions. But federal Judge John Shabaz said Noesen went too far by putting customers who called about birth control on hold indefinitely and by refusing to get service for those who showed up in person. The 32-year-old Noesen, a Roman Catholic, also was sanctioned by the state Pharmacy Examining Board for refusing to fill a contraceptive prescription or transfer it while working at another store in 2002. The board reprimanded him and forced him to attend ethics classes. [AP]
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT DOES MORE TO PROMOTE CIVIL UNIONS THAN PROTECT MARRIAGE
Traditional Values Coalition
White House & Religious Conservatives mislead American people on effect of MPA
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2743
June 5, 2006 - Washington, DC – The Traditional Values Coalition will not attend the White House ceremony today to promote the Marriage Protection Amendment because it puts in the U.S. Constitution the right to civil unions and other forms of counterfeit marriage, which are one small step from full marriage rights for homosexuals.
“This amendment is a hollow gesture when it comes to protecting marriage,” said TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon. “It does not ‘fully protect marriage’ but it amends the Constitution to allow civil unions and other forms of counterfeit marriage in all 50 states.”
“I am disappointed in the White House, but I am even more disappointed in those social conservative leaders who have misled the American people into believing that the Marriage Protection Amendment will stop homosexual marriage. Promoting a civil unions amendment disguised as a marriage protection amendment is shameful.
“No reasonable person will deny marriage to homosexuals once a Constitutional right to a ‘civil union’ is established. And this amendment is not compassionate conservatism, this is unprincipled relativism.
[More at URL]
----- 20 -----
Do Homosexuals Really Want The Right To Marry?
In their own words: Homosexual activists reveal their real agenda.
Traditional Values Coalition
Online as of June 5, 2006
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1150
Homosexuals claim they want the "right" to get married and live normal lives just like heterosexual married couples.
The truth is, however, that the drive to gain legalization of so-called "gay" or "same-sex" marriage is part of a larger sexual agenda. Homosexual activists are now beginning to openly admit that they don't want to marry just to have a normal home life. They want same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy and polyamory (group sex) as "families."
[More at URL]
----- 21 -----
Homosexual Civil Unions
Homosexual activists explain why ‘civil unions’ are just as good as ‘same-sex marriage’ in the battle to undermine the traditional family.
Traditional Values Coalition
January 2005
Online (and relinked) as of June 5, 2006
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/CivilUnions.pdf
January, 2005 — Homosexual activists are openly strategizing on how to gain all of the legal benefits of marriage under state-passed “civil union” legislation.
Dale Carpenter, a homosexual writer for the Independent Gay Forum (11/25/2004), for example, has described the “California Model” to gain the legal status of marriage—without calling it marriage under state laws. The objective is to gain marriage status through incrementalism. This is the strategy followed in California.
[More at URL]
----- 22 -----
Last Weekend for Referendum 65
Faith and Freedom Network
Saturday, June 03, 2006
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2006/06/last-weekend-for-referendum-65.html
As many of you know, this is the last week-end to circulate Referendum 65 petitions. Please do so. If you have any petition forms, gather as many last minute signatures as possible and mail them in. Please follow the mailing instructions on our website. Click here for instructions.
Many are calling to ask where we are in regard to the number of names collected. We don’t know because Tim Eyman has not disclosed the numbers.
For the latest news source on the Referendum, click here to view the news link on our home page.
[More at URL]
----- 23 -----
Monday, June 5, 2006 · Last updated 5:07 p.m. PT
Several high-profile church leaders ready to rally support gay rights
By ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SEATTLE -- Several high-profile church leaders said Monday they're poised to rally voters to uphold a measure adding sexual orientation to a state law that bans discrimination in housing, employment, insurance and credit.
"Discrimination against any human being on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, or sexual orientation is a moral wrong," Rev. Jon M. Luopa, senior minister of University Unitarian Church, told a news conference at Seattle's Episcopalian Diocesan House. "It is the duty of a democratic government to protect us from such wrong. It is our duty as citizens to hold the government accountable for such protection."
[...]
Eyman made an appointment to turn in signatures Monday at the secretary of state's office in Olympia, but instead he showed up dressed up as Darth Vader, carting boxes of petition signatures for another initiative he's sponsoring for $30 car tabs.
He refused to say how many Referendum 65 signatures his team had gathered so far, only that he was awaiting a final batch from Spokane and that he would turn them all in Tuesday afternoon.
[...]
In the past few weeks, some churches have been running a "Referendum Sunday" campaign to gather signatures for the measure, after Eyman sent out an e-mail saying he had received less than 10,000 signatures.
[...]
The Right Rev. Vincent Warner, bishop of the Episcopal Church in Western Washington, said church leaders who support gay rights need to be more vocal about their beliefs.
"I think we're too quiet about it," Warner said. "I think we really need to let people know that respecting the dignity of every human being is very, very important."
[More at URL]
----- 24 -----
Planned Parenthood makes money off sexually active children
Canada Family Action Coalition
June 5, 2006
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/sexuality/planned-parenthood-record-profits.htm
Is it any wonder Planned Parenthood supports homosexual activists here in Canada opposing raising the age of consent. It would likely reduce their profits here even in this nation. I think it very apparent that this organization has no concern nor compassion for humans. And it wants taxpayers money to do it's deeds.
We need to ask every level of government to cut ALL funding of this organization as it does no "charitable" work.
READ US stats - but beware this outfit operates in Canada ands has access to students in many schools also.
-- CFAC
Planned Parenthood swimming in record profits while tax dollars siphoned from worthy programs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Amber Dolle
June 5, 2006
WASHINGTON, D.C. - "Planned Parenthood must assume that elected officials can't read a simple annual report," said American Life League vice president Jim Sedlak. "While Planned Parenthood is begging for increased government funding, it's also admitting that it racked up record operating profits in its most recent fiscal year."
Newly released data reveals that for the 2004-2005 fiscal year, Planned Parenthood had a record income of $882 million dollars and a profit of $63 million, the second highest the organization has ever reported in a single year. Planned Parenthood also set new standards for the number of abortions in a single year (255,015) and for its ratio of abortions to adoption referrals (180 to 1).
[More at URL]
----- 25 -----
Renegade Conservative MP Garth Turner Calls Ethnic and Religious People Evil Flowers and Taliban
By Dr. Charles McVety, Canada
Christian College, Toronto
(President, Canada Family Action Coalition)
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/politics-law/government/renegade-MP.htm
Since elected on January 23rd MP Garth Turner has frequently attacked Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Now he has turned his sights on ethnic and religious people. On television and then his website, under the title “Agenda of Hate” Turner blasted us saying “Call it Defend Marriage Canada. Call it the Taliban, Fleurs du mal (flowers of evil)”.
After a spirited televised debate with me on Friday, May 26th, Garth Turner lost it as he ranted and raved on his website www.garth.ca. During the interview Mr. Turner made the argument that busloads of ethnic and religious people take over nomination meetings and elect candidates that do not reflect society. I protested, “Are you saying ethnic and religious people are not Canadians and cannot participate in democracy? That only the ”elites” should elect our candidates?”
This was enough to trigger a caustic response from Turner, revealing an underlying hatred for people who do not share his religious views or culture. In his writings, paragraph after paragraph Turner castigates anyone who dares challenge his entitlement as a Member of Parliament. “I have no time for groups in our society who try to force their morals, or their culture, on the rest of us.”
[More at URL]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-06 06:52 am (UTC)They just don't fucking get it, do they? They're forcing their shit on the rest of us! Must. Control. Fist. of Clue-by-four!
no subject
Date: 2006-06-06 06:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-06 07:57 am (UTC)