Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Dec. 30th, 2006 01:02 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdOh, hey, look, I was wrong about the fundamentalist movement taking the week off. How unfortunate. "Faith and Freedom Network," our very own local theocrats, are not taking the week off, and instead have sent out a position paper and pastor's letter and announcement about how they're going to fight any form of "spousal equivalency" legislation this coming year, saying, of course, that they "redefine marriage." The interesting part about this how they have their position paper, their announcement, and then a third thing that they're sending specifically to preachers and pastors which outlines their specifically religious core opposition to any recognition of same-sex partnerships. Quoting their Pastor's Letter:
Not only is it explicitly theocratic in nature, they even say outright that they're leaving it out of their position papers, presumably to avoid charges that they're implementing religious law.
Neat.
Oh, I've also noticed - tho' I haven't been repeating their posts - that FFN has been doing a lot of reposting of Focus on the Family material. It's mostly just reprints, or link-tos with some small amount of additional commentary. They're well connected into the James Dobson network. He's built quite the theocratic empire... which leads us to Canada, where Focus on the Family is busily putting together their extended network of front-groups as part of their effort to export American theoconservatism. There are several news stories from Canada here today, too.
And now, today's news.
Faith and Freedom Network's official position paper opposing any form of "reciprocal benefits," no matter how minour, for GBLT couples;
FFN's "Pastor's Letter" wherein they explain that the real reason for opposing these benefits is because they think it'll encourage more people to violate God's Law; includes ACTION ITEM to pastors to preach against reciprocal benefits and have their congregations write in against any such legislation;
Washington State Senator Dan Swecker's opposition paper, as adopted by FFN - slightly different than the first link;
Institute for Canadian Values claims they are neither "surprised nor disappointed" by the overwhelming free vote not to reconsider marriage rights in Canada, say it wasn't what they wanted anyway;
Canada Family Action Coalition vows to keep fighting GBLT marriage rights, proclaims it wasn't "really" a free vote because the Bloc Quebecois and NDP didn't release their MPs to vote against their own party positions; also snipes at the Liberal party, despite the Liberals allowing their MPs free votes; also lists a bunch of unsourced statistics popular in the theocon movement - about how queers are diseased, have lower lifespans, are incapable of stable relationships, and so on;
Focus on the Family Canada story about the free vote not to reconsider marriage rights; note that this "story" is in part about the "Institute of Marriage and Family Canada" report, which they quote as if it were a completely separate entity, rather than a Focus on the Family project in Canada. This is, again, how they recycle material endlessly to make it look like it's coming from many different sources - the "echo chamber" effect;
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (a Focus on the Family project) press release saying "this ain't over," will continue to fight GBLT marriage rights;
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (a Focus on the Family project) newsletter: C-38 (allowing marriage between lesbian and gay people) is a "fundamental re-engineering of parenthood" and is "gender under construction";
Focus on the Family's Institute of Marriage and Family Canada seems to be trying to revive an abortion debate in Canada - they got an op-ed by one of their people in the Ottawa Citizen last month.
----- 1 -----
Faith and Freedom Network’s Position Opposing Reciprocal Benefits Legislation
Faith and Freedom Network
Online as of 28 December 2006
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/benefits.htm
“Any redefinition of marriage would create significant problems for traditional families in our society. Some Christian leaders and others have proposed the adoption of ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation as an alternative to redefining marriage. Different versions of the legislation specify a variety of relationships that would be eligible for expanded benefits. Adopting this legislation, as well as legislation creating civil unions more broadly defined, would create even bigger problems for our society.
As the law now stands, traditional marriage is limited to one man and one woman. This is, of course, the only type of relationship that can produce children. The intent of the law is to provide incentives for a man and a woman to remain together as long as possible, to provide benefits to spouses and offspring and to define the process of dissolving those relationships if the marriage fails (custody and provision for the children.)
A first concern is that ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation would extend benefits to a much larger group of people. Any attempt to expand the eligible class of beneficiaries of both private and public programs will reduce critical resources available to sustain children and families in traditional marriages. Many of these programs are already strained for lack of resources, particularly health insurance and Social Security. With finite resources, increasing the number of beneficiaries will reduce the resources available to those already covered.
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Pastor Letter opposing Reciprocal Benefits
Faith and Freedom Network
P.O. Box 399
Bellevue, WA 98009
800.731.5328
www.faithandfreedom.us
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/pdf/2007_PastorLetter_Benefits.pdf
Dear Pastors and Christian Leaders:
There is a concerted effort to adopt some form of “reciprocal benefits” legislation in Olympia during the 2007 legislative session.
Some Christian leaders, as well as other activists, are supporting the move under the guise of an alternative to redefining marriage.
We have been meeting with Senator Dan Swecker and other political leaders, who prefer not to be publicly identified at this time, regarding this matter. They are deeply concerned about it and feel any form of “reciprocal benef its” or civil unions is both inappropriate and unnecessary. In that the State Supreme Court has ruled in favor of traditional, biblical marriage, it is inconceivable that anyone would want to give back something that many of us feel was given to us by God.
While we are aware that this will not be a popular position and will be caste as discrimination, bigotry or even hatred. Our motivation is none of these but rather a deep conviction that this would be a step toward redefining marriage, rather than an effective way of protecting traditional marriage.
Please read the attached position paper written by Senator Swecker and adopted by Faith & Freedom.
The Senator outlines two concerns regarding “reciprocal benefits.” There is a third concern, which we purposefully left out of the official paper, but one that you will readily identify with.
That is, sexually active partners who are not married are in direct conflict with biblical principles. Government incentives to promote these activities may lead many to defy God’s Word and fail to recognize the threat of their eternal salvation.
We hope that by taking the strongest possible position up front we may cause some of the support of such legislation to be lost.
As this and other legislation of interest developes during this session, we will notify you.
Would you stand with us for the sake of righteousness? Jon Russell, our lobbyist will be in Olympia everyday, meeting with lawmakers and their staff on behalf of the Christian community. He will be posting regular reports on our website.
Here’s how you can help us:
* Encourage your congregation to call or write their elected officials and express their position on the issues as appropriate.
* Help circulate our regular reports from Olympia. They will be posted on our website; www.faithandfreedom.us.
* Help underwrite the expenses of our fulltime lobbyist.
If you would like to receiv e regular email alerts, please add your name to our e list located on the home page of the Faith & Freedom website; www.faithandfreedom.us, and select “Pastor’s Alerts.”
God Bless You,
Gary Randall
President
[Editor's Note: Bold as in original.]
----- 3 -----
Faith and Freedom Network’s Position Opposing
Reciprocal Benefits Legislation
Faith and Freedom Network
Office of Senator Dan Swecker
Available as of 28 December 2006
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/pdf/ReciprocalBenefits.pdf
Also found as page two of:
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/pdf/2007_PastorLetter_Benefits.pdf
The following position paper was proposed by Washington State Senator Dan Swecker and adopted by Faith and Freedom Network.
“Any redefinition of marriage would create significant problems for traditional families in our society. Some Christian leaders and ot hers have proposed the adoption of ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation as an alternative to redefining marriage. Different versions of the legislation specify a variety of relationships that would be eligible for expanded benefits. Adopting this legislation, as well as legislation creating civil unions more broadly defined, would create even bigger problems for our society.
As the law now stands, traditional marriage is limited to one man and one woman. This is, of course, the only type of relationship that can produce children. The intent of the law is to provide incent ives for a man and a woman to remain together as long as possible, to provide benefits to spouses and offspring and to define the process of dissolving those relationships if the marriage fails (custody and provision for the children.)
A first concern is that ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation would extend benefits to a much larger group of people. Any attempt to expand the eligible class of beneficiaries of both private and public programs will reduce critical resources available to sustain children and families in traditional marriages. Many of these programs are already strained for lack of resources, particularly health insurance and Social Security. With finite resources, increasing the number of beneficiaries will reduce the resources available to those already covered. [Editor's note: I like to contrast this with the theocon position that there are really very few actual lesbian and gay people, so extending benefits to us is a waste of time - there are too few of us to care about. Somehow there can simultaneously be hardly any of us, and we can bankrupt the system. Incoherent!]
A second concern is that ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation will work at cross purposes to the original intent of the institution of marriage. [Editor's note: Which was property rights, specifically, ownership of the wife by the husband.] That is, it will provide incentives for unmarried heterosexual partners (who may produce children) to remain unmarried. This is the exact opposite of the single most important goal of traditional marriage, permanent commitment. It will also diminish the value society places on this one
most important union.
Finally, children produced in these relationships [Editor's note: which they just said above can't happen in these...] will miss the single most important benefit of traditional marriage, the security of a mother and father committed to the life long preservation of the family. Many children currently lack the important elements of protection, provision, sustenance and nurturing provided by most traditional families. Creating government incentives to abandon this tradition will increase the number of children lacking these necessary elements.”
[Signature of David ("Dan") Swecker]
Senate Office:
PO Box 40420
Olympia, WA 98504 0420
360 786 7638
Faith and Freedom Network can see no tangible advantages resulting from ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation. Instead we believe it violates many of the most important fundamental principles that under gird the traditional definition and purposes of marriage.
[Editor's note: Bold as in original.]
----- 4 -----
Institute neither surprised nor disappointed with "irrelevant" vote on marriage
Institute for Canadian Values
Date: Dec 07, 2006
http://canadianvalues.ca/news.aspx?aid=248
The Institute for Canadian Values today expressed neither surprise, nor disappointment with what it calls an "irrelevant" vote on marriage in House of Commons today.
The vote was on a Motion calling on the government to introduce new legislation restoring the traditional definition of marriage. 175 MPs voted against the Motion while 123 supported it.
"We're neither surprised, nor are we disappointed with this outcome," said Joseph C. Ben-Ami, Executive Director and Director of Policy Development at the Institute. "We didn't ask for this vote, nor did it address what we have asked for all along - a comprehensive, non-partisan study to determine the long term impact of changing the definition of marriage and recommend changes to legislation to address its deficiencies. From our point of view, although we would have preferred that MPs support the government's Motion the outcome is irrelevant."
Ben-Ami was mildly critical of what he described as a lack of leadership by the government in support of its own Motion, saying that the government should not take conservative voters for granted.
"Mr. Harper and the Conservatives are going to have to explain, I think, what people in our constituency are going to perceive as a certain lack of leadership surrounding this question in the last few days."
Ben-Ami was responding to the Prime Minister's statement to reporters that he would not bring the matter back before Parliament. "I don't see reopening this question in the future," Harper told reporters when asked whether same-sex marriage would return to the table if the Conservatives ever formed a majority government.
"Either the new Conservative Party is a big tent with room at the table for all conservatives, including social conservatives, or it's not," said Ben-Ami. "I hear lots of talk about how there's nowhere else for these voters to go come election time. The fact is that they can just stay at home."
"The result might be another Liberal majority with barely 37 percent of the popular vote."
----- 5 -----
Muzzling free speech; Why can't people speak against same-sex marriage?
Two views of homosexuality are creating tensions in Canada
By Gwendolyn Landolt
REAL Women of Canada
Republished by Canada Family Action Coalition
[Undated but online as of 29 December 2006]
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/family/marriage/two-views.htm
Some believe, on the basis of equality, that there should be no distinction drawn in any way by society between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Others are opposed to homosexuality for practical, medical, moral and/or religious reasons.
The "no distinction" approach has dominated primarily because of the decisions of appointed judges and human rights panelists. It was on this basis that the legalization of same-sex marriages was made.
Even within the parliamentary process, the decision on same-sex marriage has been made by a very few individuals. When same-sex marriage was first debated in Parliament in June 2005, 19 NDP MPs and the 39 Liberal Cabinet members were ordered by their leaders to vote in support of it.
The Liberals then rammed through the legislation by disallowing any amendments and imposing closure to cut off debate.
In debate last week, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois parties again excluded the public from the same-sex marriage debate by requiring its MPs vote along party lines.
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion was not much better. He begrudgingly allowed a free vote, although making the claim that same-sex marriage is a "fundamental" right under the Charter of Rights.
He was wrong. The Supreme Court of Canada has never ruled on whether the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision on same-sex marriage, which assumed the leadership role among the provincial courts on this issue, is now under a cloud, due to a complaint laid against Chief Justice Roy McMurtry before the Canadian Judicial Council for serious judicial impropriety and the apprehension of bias for his part in that case.
[...]
Same-sex marriages are not functionally equivalent to opposite-sex marriages, but are different in structure, values and practice. It is widely acknowledged that these differences include the fact that sexual faithfulness is not usually regarded as a requirement in same-sex relationships, but is of vital importance in a heterosexual marriage.
Same-sex partners experience a higher incidence of health problems resulting in shorter life spans.
The duration of same-sex marriages is shorter than that of opposite-sex relationships: on average, the former last only two to three years. These factors are detrimental to children who require stability in their lives.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Debate needed on future of the family
Focus on the Family Canada
December 13, 2006
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/family/stories/121306_01.html
For many Canadians, last week’s vote in the House of Commons may have brought final closure to the issue of same-sex marriage. But others believe all it has done is help spawn a much bigger issue that Parliament still needs to address.
“We need a royal commission . . . that talks about the future of the family in the 21st century,” Dave Quist, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, told Today’s Family News.
[Editor's note: Institute of Marriage and Family Canada is a Focus on the Family project. They're quoting them here as though they were an external organisation in order to make the Focus on the Family theoconservative machine look larger, and to create a sense that there are many independent sources for the same ideas.]
“With all the changes in family structure, the stresses and strains on it, I think we’d be well served to find out what we are doing right and how we can strengthen our children and our families for tomorrow.”
Harper had promised on the first day of the federal election campaign just over a year ago that if the Conservatives were elected, his government would ask MPs whether or not the 2005 law legalizing same-sex marriage should be re-visited.
Last Thursday, MPs voted 175-123 against a Conservative motion that proposed “to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.”
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
IS THE MARRIAGE DEBATE OVER?
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
(A Focus on the Family project)
For Immediate Release
December 7, 2006
http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/Marriage_Vote_December_7_2006.pdf
(Ottawa) While many will feel that today’s vote in the House of Commons of whether the question of the definition of marriage should be reopened or not, will draw this issue to a close, the definition of marriage is really only a small part of a much larger question that requires our attention. Of greater import is how Canadians view the institution of family, that cornerstone of society and in turn how we can strengthen it.
“The debate around the definition of marriage has really only opened up the subject of the Canadian family in society today. If we value a strong family – and I trust that we do – we must determine what we doing right and how can we make the family stronger,” stated Dave Quist, Executive Director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.
Social policy cannot be determined by legislation alone. Social science researchers have learned a great deal in the past number of years, yet many of the decisions are not reflecting or taking into account what has been learned. “I would urge the Federal Government to initiate a Royal Commission on the Future of the Family that draws on the family, social and hard science experts in order to set out a course of action that will result in strong positive family policy that will carry us through to the end of the 21st Century” continued Quist.
“Without an educated and informed plan, the institution of family will be eroded, resulting in dire consequences for all of us.”
– 30 –
For additional information or comment, please contact: Dave Quist, Executive Director at 613-565-3832.
----- 8 -----
Caution ahead: gender under construction
By Peter Jon Mitchell, Research Analyst, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
[A Focus on the Family project]
No. 5
December 2006
http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/eReview-December_20_2006.pdf
When Chris Gardner, the hero-father in the new Will Smith movie The Pursuit of Happyness was faced with life obstacles beyond our understanding—he clung stubbornly to caring for his son. He declared unlike his own life experience, his son would know who his father was, not allowing the two of them to be separated by his wife’s departure, by an eviction from their apartment, and subsequently from a motel. In one of many poignant scenes in the movie, Gardner is bathing his son: scrubbing him with a soapy cloth as the light in the homeless shelter turns off. He puts his son to bed—assuring him that he is nearby, and that his son can trust him.
That might leave a gender-bending movie watcher to comment that Gardner was actually mothering. Men can be mothers according to feminist philosopher Sara Ruddick who claims that “a mother is a person who takes on responsibility for children’s lives and for whom providing childcare is a significant part of her or his working life.” [1] Ruddick reduces motherhood to a job description ably filled by a woman, man or seemingly anyone willing to take on the right tasks. But in the act of nurturing and caring for children, do women and men offer a unique contribution derived from their biologically and socially influenced gender?
[...]
Scientific pursuit may continue to demonstrate biological associations to gender. Epigenetics may continue to reveal the biological and environmental relationship that affects the lives of future generations. These sciences may further clarify social research that confirms the unique and necessary influence of a married biological mother and father in a child’s life. When parliament passed Bill C-38 it tipped its hat to an ideology without considering the future ramifications of redefining parenthood. Policy makers and legislators sighed with relief when the same-sex marriage issue was pronounced ‘finally closed,’– but will policy makers have the fortitude necessary to reconsider the fundamental reengineering of parenthood?
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
Pro-life doesn't mean anti-woman
The Ottawa Citizen
Linked to as an IMFC op-ed by Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
(a Focus on the Family project)
by Andrea Mrozek
Manager of Research and Communications at the
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
Thu 07 Dec 2006
Page: A17
http://www.fpinfomart.ca/help/help_db_details.php?db_code=otct
After a heated debate on campus and in the media, Carleton University's student association decided this week to limit the activity of pro-life groups on campus. Students spoke out in favour of freedom of speech or in favour of women's rights, but this is a false opposition.
There's no battle between feminists and freedom. Being pro-life is a distinctly pro-woman stand; it is only for a lack of freedom of speech in Canada today that the debate is rarely framed this way.
The abortion debate is only partly a question of rights. It is, more often, a question of life. With each repetition of "my body, my choice," women's rights to complete information, to intellectual integrity, to the scientific roots of life, furthermore to her own physical and mental health, are denied.
Without consideration for the status of the unborn fetus, there simply is no abortion debate. If the fetus is not a person, who cares? But if it is, then the Constitution applies, we are faced with competing rights and there are a number of other considerations that are admissible, one of which is the fetus's right to life, liberty and security of the person. But how many of us frame the debate this way?
[More at URL]
That is, sexually active partners who are not married are in direct conflict with biblical principles. Government incentives to promote these activities may lead many to defy God’s Word and fail to recognize the threat of their eternal salvation.[Bold as in original. I also presume they meant "to their eternal salvation" rather than "of their eternal salvation," but I'm not fixing their errors.]
Not only is it explicitly theocratic in nature, they even say outright that they're leaving it out of their position papers, presumably to avoid charges that they're implementing religious law.
Neat.
Oh, I've also noticed - tho' I haven't been repeating their posts - that FFN has been doing a lot of reposting of Focus on the Family material. It's mostly just reprints, or link-tos with some small amount of additional commentary. They're well connected into the James Dobson network. He's built quite the theocratic empire... which leads us to Canada, where Focus on the Family is busily putting together their extended network of front-groups as part of their effort to export American theoconservatism. There are several news stories from Canada here today, too.
And now, today's news.
Faith and Freedom Network's official position paper opposing any form of "reciprocal benefits," no matter how minour, for GBLT couples;
FFN's "Pastor's Letter" wherein they explain that the real reason for opposing these benefits is because they think it'll encourage more people to violate God's Law; includes ACTION ITEM to pastors to preach against reciprocal benefits and have their congregations write in against any such legislation;
Washington State Senator Dan Swecker's opposition paper, as adopted by FFN - slightly different than the first link;
Institute for Canadian Values claims they are neither "surprised nor disappointed" by the overwhelming free vote not to reconsider marriage rights in Canada, say it wasn't what they wanted anyway;
Canada Family Action Coalition vows to keep fighting GBLT marriage rights, proclaims it wasn't "really" a free vote because the Bloc Quebecois and NDP didn't release their MPs to vote against their own party positions; also snipes at the Liberal party, despite the Liberals allowing their MPs free votes; also lists a bunch of unsourced statistics popular in the theocon movement - about how queers are diseased, have lower lifespans, are incapable of stable relationships, and so on;
Focus on the Family Canada story about the free vote not to reconsider marriage rights; note that this "story" is in part about the "Institute of Marriage and Family Canada" report, which they quote as if it were a completely separate entity, rather than a Focus on the Family project in Canada. This is, again, how they recycle material endlessly to make it look like it's coming from many different sources - the "echo chamber" effect;
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (a Focus on the Family project) press release saying "this ain't over," will continue to fight GBLT marriage rights;
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (a Focus on the Family project) newsletter: C-38 (allowing marriage between lesbian and gay people) is a "fundamental re-engineering of parenthood" and is "gender under construction";
Focus on the Family's Institute of Marriage and Family Canada seems to be trying to revive an abortion debate in Canada - they got an op-ed by one of their people in the Ottawa Citizen last month.
----- 1 -----
Faith and Freedom Network’s Position Opposing Reciprocal Benefits Legislation
Faith and Freedom Network
Online as of 28 December 2006
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/benefits.htm
“Any redefinition of marriage would create significant problems for traditional families in our society. Some Christian leaders and others have proposed the adoption of ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation as an alternative to redefining marriage. Different versions of the legislation specify a variety of relationships that would be eligible for expanded benefits. Adopting this legislation, as well as legislation creating civil unions more broadly defined, would create even bigger problems for our society.
As the law now stands, traditional marriage is limited to one man and one woman. This is, of course, the only type of relationship that can produce children. The intent of the law is to provide incentives for a man and a woman to remain together as long as possible, to provide benefits to spouses and offspring and to define the process of dissolving those relationships if the marriage fails (custody and provision for the children.)
A first concern is that ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation would extend benefits to a much larger group of people. Any attempt to expand the eligible class of beneficiaries of both private and public programs will reduce critical resources available to sustain children and families in traditional marriages. Many of these programs are already strained for lack of resources, particularly health insurance and Social Security. With finite resources, increasing the number of beneficiaries will reduce the resources available to those already covered.
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Pastor Letter opposing Reciprocal Benefits
Faith and Freedom Network
P.O. Box 399
Bellevue, WA 98009
800.731.5328
www.faithandfreedom.us
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/pdf/2007_PastorLetter_Benefits.pdf
Dear Pastors and Christian Leaders:
There is a concerted effort to adopt some form of “reciprocal benefits” legislation in Olympia during the 2007 legislative session.
Some Christian leaders, as well as other activists, are supporting the move under the guise of an alternative to redefining marriage.
We have been meeting with Senator Dan Swecker and other political leaders, who prefer not to be publicly identified at this time, regarding this matter. They are deeply concerned about it and feel any form of “reciprocal benef its” or civil unions is both inappropriate and unnecessary. In that the State Supreme Court has ruled in favor of traditional, biblical marriage, it is inconceivable that anyone would want to give back something that many of us feel was given to us by God.
While we are aware that this will not be a popular position and will be caste as discrimination, bigotry or even hatred. Our motivation is none of these but rather a deep conviction that this would be a step toward redefining marriage, rather than an effective way of protecting traditional marriage.
Please read the attached position paper written by Senator Swecker and adopted by Faith & Freedom.
The Senator outlines two concerns regarding “reciprocal benefits.” There is a third concern, which we purposefully left out of the official paper, but one that you will readily identify with.
That is, sexually active partners who are not married are in direct conflict with biblical principles. Government incentives to promote these activities may lead many to defy God’s Word and fail to recognize the threat of their eternal salvation.
We hope that by taking the strongest possible position up front we may cause some of the support of such legislation to be lost.
As this and other legislation of interest developes during this session, we will notify you.
Would you stand with us for the sake of righteousness? Jon Russell, our lobbyist will be in Olympia everyday, meeting with lawmakers and their staff on behalf of the Christian community. He will be posting regular reports on our website.
Here’s how you can help us:
* Encourage your congregation to call or write their elected officials and express their position on the issues as appropriate.
* Help circulate our regular reports from Olympia. They will be posted on our website; www.faithandfreedom.us.
* Help underwrite the expenses of our fulltime lobbyist.
If you would like to receiv e regular email alerts, please add your name to our e list located on the home page of the Faith & Freedom website; www.faithandfreedom.us, and select “Pastor’s Alerts.”
God Bless You,
Gary Randall
President
[Editor's Note: Bold as in original.]
----- 3 -----
Faith and Freedom Network’s Position Opposing
Reciprocal Benefits Legislation
Faith and Freedom Network
Office of Senator Dan Swecker
Available as of 28 December 2006
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/pdf/ReciprocalBenefits.pdf
Also found as page two of:
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/pdf/2007_PastorLetter_Benefits.pdf
The following position paper was proposed by Washington State Senator Dan Swecker and adopted by Faith and Freedom Network.
“Any redefinition of marriage would create significant problems for traditional families in our society. Some Christian leaders and ot hers have proposed the adoption of ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation as an alternative to redefining marriage. Different versions of the legislation specify a variety of relationships that would be eligible for expanded benefits. Adopting this legislation, as well as legislation creating civil unions more broadly defined, would create even bigger problems for our society.
As the law now stands, traditional marriage is limited to one man and one woman. This is, of course, the only type of relationship that can produce children. The intent of the law is to provide incent ives for a man and a woman to remain together as long as possible, to provide benefits to spouses and offspring and to define the process of dissolving those relationships if the marriage fails (custody and provision for the children.)
A first concern is that ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation would extend benefits to a much larger group of people. Any attempt to expand the eligible class of beneficiaries of both private and public programs will reduce critical resources available to sustain children and families in traditional marriages. Many of these programs are already strained for lack of resources, particularly health insurance and Social Security. With finite resources, increasing the number of beneficiaries will reduce the resources available to those already covered. [Editor's note: I like to contrast this with the theocon position that there are really very few actual lesbian and gay people, so extending benefits to us is a waste of time - there are too few of us to care about. Somehow there can simultaneously be hardly any of us, and we can bankrupt the system. Incoherent!]
A second concern is that ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation will work at cross purposes to the original intent of the institution of marriage. [Editor's note: Which was property rights, specifically, ownership of the wife by the husband.] That is, it will provide incentives for unmarried heterosexual partners (who may produce children) to remain unmarried. This is the exact opposite of the single most important goal of traditional marriage, permanent commitment. It will also diminish the value society places on this one
most important union.
Finally, children produced in these relationships [Editor's note: which they just said above can't happen in these...] will miss the single most important benefit of traditional marriage, the security of a mother and father committed to the life long preservation of the family. Many children currently lack the important elements of protection, provision, sustenance and nurturing provided by most traditional families. Creating government incentives to abandon this tradition will increase the number of children lacking these necessary elements.”
[Signature of David ("Dan") Swecker]
Senate Office:
PO Box 40420
Olympia, WA 98504 0420
360 786 7638
Faith and Freedom Network can see no tangible advantages resulting from ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation. Instead we believe it violates many of the most important fundamental principles that under gird the traditional definition and purposes of marriage.
[Editor's note: Bold as in original.]
----- 4 -----
Institute neither surprised nor disappointed with "irrelevant" vote on marriage
Institute for Canadian Values
Date: Dec 07, 2006
http://canadianvalues.ca/news.aspx?aid=248
The Institute for Canadian Values today expressed neither surprise, nor disappointment with what it calls an "irrelevant" vote on marriage in House of Commons today.
The vote was on a Motion calling on the government to introduce new legislation restoring the traditional definition of marriage. 175 MPs voted against the Motion while 123 supported it.
"We're neither surprised, nor are we disappointed with this outcome," said Joseph C. Ben-Ami, Executive Director and Director of Policy Development at the Institute. "We didn't ask for this vote, nor did it address what we have asked for all along - a comprehensive, non-partisan study to determine the long term impact of changing the definition of marriage and recommend changes to legislation to address its deficiencies. From our point of view, although we would have preferred that MPs support the government's Motion the outcome is irrelevant."
Ben-Ami was mildly critical of what he described as a lack of leadership by the government in support of its own Motion, saying that the government should not take conservative voters for granted.
"Mr. Harper and the Conservatives are going to have to explain, I think, what people in our constituency are going to perceive as a certain lack of leadership surrounding this question in the last few days."
Ben-Ami was responding to the Prime Minister's statement to reporters that he would not bring the matter back before Parliament. "I don't see reopening this question in the future," Harper told reporters when asked whether same-sex marriage would return to the table if the Conservatives ever formed a majority government.
"Either the new Conservative Party is a big tent with room at the table for all conservatives, including social conservatives, or it's not," said Ben-Ami. "I hear lots of talk about how there's nowhere else for these voters to go come election time. The fact is that they can just stay at home."
"The result might be another Liberal majority with barely 37 percent of the popular vote."
----- 5 -----
Muzzling free speech; Why can't people speak against same-sex marriage?
Two views of homosexuality are creating tensions in Canada
By Gwendolyn Landolt
REAL Women of Canada
Republished by Canada Family Action Coalition
[Undated but online as of 29 December 2006]
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/family/marriage/two-views.htm
Some believe, on the basis of equality, that there should be no distinction drawn in any way by society between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Others are opposed to homosexuality for practical, medical, moral and/or religious reasons.
The "no distinction" approach has dominated primarily because of the decisions of appointed judges and human rights panelists. It was on this basis that the legalization of same-sex marriages was made.
Even within the parliamentary process, the decision on same-sex marriage has been made by a very few individuals. When same-sex marriage was first debated in Parliament in June 2005, 19 NDP MPs and the 39 Liberal Cabinet members were ordered by their leaders to vote in support of it.
The Liberals then rammed through the legislation by disallowing any amendments and imposing closure to cut off debate.
In debate last week, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois parties again excluded the public from the same-sex marriage debate by requiring its MPs vote along party lines.
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion was not much better. He begrudgingly allowed a free vote, although making the claim that same-sex marriage is a "fundamental" right under the Charter of Rights.
He was wrong. The Supreme Court of Canada has never ruled on whether the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision on same-sex marriage, which assumed the leadership role among the provincial courts on this issue, is now under a cloud, due to a complaint laid against Chief Justice Roy McMurtry before the Canadian Judicial Council for serious judicial impropriety and the apprehension of bias for his part in that case.
[...]
Same-sex marriages are not functionally equivalent to opposite-sex marriages, but are different in structure, values and practice. It is widely acknowledged that these differences include the fact that sexual faithfulness is not usually regarded as a requirement in same-sex relationships, but is of vital importance in a heterosexual marriage.
Same-sex partners experience a higher incidence of health problems resulting in shorter life spans.
The duration of same-sex marriages is shorter than that of opposite-sex relationships: on average, the former last only two to three years. These factors are detrimental to children who require stability in their lives.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Debate needed on future of the family
Focus on the Family Canada
December 13, 2006
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/family/stories/121306_01.html
For many Canadians, last week’s vote in the House of Commons may have brought final closure to the issue of same-sex marriage. But others believe all it has done is help spawn a much bigger issue that Parliament still needs to address.
“We need a royal commission . . . that talks about the future of the family in the 21st century,” Dave Quist, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, told Today’s Family News.
[Editor's note: Institute of Marriage and Family Canada is a Focus on the Family project. They're quoting them here as though they were an external organisation in order to make the Focus on the Family theoconservative machine look larger, and to create a sense that there are many independent sources for the same ideas.]
“With all the changes in family structure, the stresses and strains on it, I think we’d be well served to find out what we are doing right and how we can strengthen our children and our families for tomorrow.”
Harper had promised on the first day of the federal election campaign just over a year ago that if the Conservatives were elected, his government would ask MPs whether or not the 2005 law legalizing same-sex marriage should be re-visited.
Last Thursday, MPs voted 175-123 against a Conservative motion that proposed “to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.”
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
IS THE MARRIAGE DEBATE OVER?
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
(A Focus on the Family project)
For Immediate Release
December 7, 2006
http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/Marriage_Vote_December_7_2006.pdf
(Ottawa) While many will feel that today’s vote in the House of Commons of whether the question of the definition of marriage should be reopened or not, will draw this issue to a close, the definition of marriage is really only a small part of a much larger question that requires our attention. Of greater import is how Canadians view the institution of family, that cornerstone of society and in turn how we can strengthen it.
“The debate around the definition of marriage has really only opened up the subject of the Canadian family in society today. If we value a strong family – and I trust that we do – we must determine what we doing right and how can we make the family stronger,” stated Dave Quist, Executive Director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.
Social policy cannot be determined by legislation alone. Social science researchers have learned a great deal in the past number of years, yet many of the decisions are not reflecting or taking into account what has been learned. “I would urge the Federal Government to initiate a Royal Commission on the Future of the Family that draws on the family, social and hard science experts in order to set out a course of action that will result in strong positive family policy that will carry us through to the end of the 21st Century” continued Quist.
“Without an educated and informed plan, the institution of family will be eroded, resulting in dire consequences for all of us.”
– 30 –
For additional information or comment, please contact: Dave Quist, Executive Director at 613-565-3832.
----- 8 -----
Caution ahead: gender under construction
By Peter Jon Mitchell, Research Analyst, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
[A Focus on the Family project]
No. 5
December 2006
http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/eReview-December_20_2006.pdf
When Chris Gardner, the hero-father in the new Will Smith movie The Pursuit of Happyness was faced with life obstacles beyond our understanding—he clung stubbornly to caring for his son. He declared unlike his own life experience, his son would know who his father was, not allowing the two of them to be separated by his wife’s departure, by an eviction from their apartment, and subsequently from a motel. In one of many poignant scenes in the movie, Gardner is bathing his son: scrubbing him with a soapy cloth as the light in the homeless shelter turns off. He puts his son to bed—assuring him that he is nearby, and that his son can trust him.
That might leave a gender-bending movie watcher to comment that Gardner was actually mothering. Men can be mothers according to feminist philosopher Sara Ruddick who claims that “a mother is a person who takes on responsibility for children’s lives and for whom providing childcare is a significant part of her or his working life.” [1] Ruddick reduces motherhood to a job description ably filled by a woman, man or seemingly anyone willing to take on the right tasks. But in the act of nurturing and caring for children, do women and men offer a unique contribution derived from their biologically and socially influenced gender?
[...]
Scientific pursuit may continue to demonstrate biological associations to gender. Epigenetics may continue to reveal the biological and environmental relationship that affects the lives of future generations. These sciences may further clarify social research that confirms the unique and necessary influence of a married biological mother and father in a child’s life. When parliament passed Bill C-38 it tipped its hat to an ideology without considering the future ramifications of redefining parenthood. Policy makers and legislators sighed with relief when the same-sex marriage issue was pronounced ‘finally closed,’– but will policy makers have the fortitude necessary to reconsider the fundamental reengineering of parenthood?
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
Pro-life doesn't mean anti-woman
The Ottawa Citizen
Linked to as an IMFC op-ed by Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
(a Focus on the Family project)
by Andrea Mrozek
Manager of Research and Communications at the
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
Thu 07 Dec 2006
Page: A17
http://www.fpinfomart.ca/help/help_db_details.php?db_code=otct
After a heated debate on campus and in the media, Carleton University's student association decided this week to limit the activity of pro-life groups on campus. Students spoke out in favour of freedom of speech or in favour of women's rights, but this is a false opposition.
There's no battle between feminists and freedom. Being pro-life is a distinctly pro-woman stand; it is only for a lack of freedom of speech in Canada today that the debate is rarely framed this way.
The abortion debate is only partly a question of rights. It is, more often, a question of life. With each repetition of "my body, my choice," women's rights to complete information, to intellectual integrity, to the scientific roots of life, furthermore to her own physical and mental health, are denied.
Without consideration for the status of the unborn fetus, there simply is no abortion debate. If the fetus is not a person, who cares? But if it is, then the Constitution applies, we are faced with competing rights and there are a number of other considerations that are admissible, one of which is the fetus's right to life, liberty and security of the person. But how many of us frame the debate this way?
[More at URL]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-30 05:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-30 09:17 pm (UTC)