Today's Cultural Warfare Update (2/2)
Jan. 21st, 2007 01:02 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdBay Area Reporter: "Anti-gay Democrat to lead DLC";
Faith and Freedom Network ACTION ITEM against Domestic Partnership bill in Olympia (Washington State);
FFN ACTION ITEM against DP bill, and against the longshot civil marriage bills; includes talking points;
Focus on the Family Canada condemns court ruling giving the biological father of a lesbian couple's child some parental rights as "redefining the Family;" as some sperm donors have found out in the past, this kind of ruling has a >30 year history, but they don't talk about that in their article. Note where they're quoting their own think tank (Institute for Marriage and Family Canada) as an outside source, to make themselves look bigger - tho' again, unlike in the US, they acknowledge the link later;
REAL Women of Canada (quoted on the Canada Family Action Coalition web page) start quoting anti-gay "statistics" (sourcelessly) that are part of the usual suite; queers can't have stable relationships, queers have short, diseased lives; etc;
Canada Family Action Coalition picks up on the "tolerance is intolerant" rhetoric;
CFAC and various others are picking up the US "liberal judicial activists" drumbeat, mostly to refer to decisions they dislike;
Catholic Organisation for Life and Family want marriage rights "public[ly] evaluated" again, and are very cranky about the Ontario Court of Appeals ruling; does anyone know whether any of these organisations had these kinds of issues when they were only applied to straight couples getting married/divorced/remarried, or where adoptions, or genetic material (sperm and egg donation) were involved? I'm not aware of any such complaints in the US when it was about straights, but you get queers involved and it's nothing but splody time;
Focus on the Family's Institute for Marriage and Family Canada gets an article redistributed by CFAC - they want marriage rights "re-evaluated" again, of course, saying children are harmed by GBLT parentage;
CFAC reprints Life Decisions International/LifeNews.com's boycott list for support of Planned Parenthood;
CFAC points to Ontario online petition to Premier McGuinty and Atty. General Bryant over the Ontario Appeals Court decision;
Institute for Canadian Values calls Ontario decision "naked judicial activism" while, interestingly, saying that the issues the court raised were "valid." So, um, what;
Okay, so: the Traditional Values Coalition is reporting that a therapist was fired by her employer when she refused to help a client (a lesbian) work out some issues to improve her relationship with her same-sex partner, on the basis that she had religious objections to GBLT people. The therapist filed a wrongful-termination suit, and lost. TVC calls this a "legal precedent against religious-oriented therapists" and "one more example of how homosexual activists and radical liberal judges are determined to undermine religious freedom in this country in favor of the homosexual agenda";
AFA ACTION ITEM against Fox Sports over the "Fuck Da Eagles" T-shirt worn by somebody in the crowd and seen on camera;
AFA founder and chairman Don Wildmon criticises fundamentalists for not doing enough to keep homosexuality illegal, abortion illegal, no-fault divorce off the books, and working against pr0n, and all that;
PFOX, the "ex-gay" group modeled after PFLAG, but, you know, anti-gay instead, gets a big article in the latest AFA Journal; PFOX does things like argue against anti-bullying policies that include GBLT kids, and spends a lot of time slagging PFLAG;
AFA promotes its "Origins" DVD series which claims to disprove evolutionary theory, mostly by saying, "it's just too complex!";
AFA promotes "Christian Heritage Tour" of Washington, DC - one of the many tools in the general theocon 'the founding fathers were fundamentalists' history retcon;
Family Research Council front page notes that Senator and Presidential Candidate Sam Brownback will be joining the "Blogs for Life" conference;
James Dobson tells John McCain to fuck off, demonstrating that attempting to suck up to the theocons can only go so far; this implies (to me, anyway) that Mitt Romney's attempt to convert from pro-GBLT-rights to bible-thumping Mormon anti-gay activist to get the GOP nod will fail spectacularly;
Family Research Council demands anti-gay legislation, an anti-marriage amendment to the Federal constitution, and anti-abortion law, from Nancy Pelosi, which you have to admit, is pretty funny;
FRC ACTION ITEM to suck up to Mr. Bush in thanks for his support against abortion rights, his support for the "gag rule," and so on.
----- 1 -----
Anti-gay Dem to head DLC
by Lisa Keen
Bay Area Reporter
Published 01/18/2007
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1489
A group that aspires to reform the Democratic Party to appeal to a greater number of voters has chosen a new chairman who is best known to LGBT activists for having abandoned support for equal rights for gays in order to pursue higher office.
Former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. is best known to the rest of the country for almost winning the U.S. Senate seat in Tennessee last November – a race closely watched not only because it was close but because the control of the Senate was teetering between Republicans and Democrats. Republican Bob Corker went on to win the Senate seat, although Democrats did win control of the Senate after wins in Montana and Virginia.
[More at URL]
----- 2 ------
"Domestic Partners" Bill to be Heard Next Thursday
Faith and Freedom Network
Friday, January 19, 2007
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2007/01/domestic-partners-bill-to-be-heard.html
We learned yesterday afternoon that HB 5336 will be heard next Thursday, January 25th at 3:30 p.m. in Olympia.
We will be at the hearing.
Please do two things.
First, take a moment to write to your Washington State Representatives. Click here for contact information. You may use information from my blog yesterday if that is helpful -- but please write asking your representatives to oppose this bill. Then call of email them.
Secondly, spend time in prayer regarding this matter. It is more spiritual than political. I believe God will honor our prayers.
Thank you and God bless you.
________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
----- 3 ------
Gay Marriage & Domestic Partnerships Are On WA Agenda
Faith and Freedom Network
Thursday, January 18, 2007
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2007/01/gay-marriage-domestic-partnerships-are.html
As promised, gay activist legislators and a number of their supporters have introduced bills in both the House and Senate to advance the gay-rights agenda in Washington State.
The House bill, HB 1350, and the Senate, SB 5335 are both asking for “civil marriage equality” – gay marriage.
The House Bill, HB 1351 and Senate bill, SB 5336, are both asking for “Domestic Partnerships.”
All four of these bills must be defeated. Here’s why.
HB 1350 and SB 5335 is an attempt to revive gay marriage. We don’t think they have the votes to pass this legislation at this time. But we must communicate with our elected officials in the strongest possible way.
A part of this bill states that it is “to ensure that all persons in the state may enjoy the freedom to marry on equal terms.” That right is already provided. Both men and women are free to marry.
This is not about marriage equality, but rather redefining marriage. In fact, in the text of the bill they are replacing “male and female” with the word, “person” and “husband and wife” with the word “person” or “spouse.”
These bills must be defeated.
The “Domestic Partners” bills, HB 1351 and SB 5336 are probably their fall-back bills.
These bills sound sympathetic and “fair.” In fact, they have included a specific class, along with same-sex couples, of couples in which at least one is 62 years or older. The bills state that “social security and pension laws make it impractical for these couples to marry.”
I have no doubt that the gay activists will highlight the fact that they are trying to help the elderly. I suspect anyone who takes a position against these bills will be cast as insensitive, uncaring and prejudiced.
In fact, homosexual couples, as well as the elderly couples, already have access to contractual agreements that cover all the various needs they have outlined in their bill.
These bills must be defeated for three reasons.
1. They are fiscally irresponsible. They open up a new class of entitlements on a social security and welfare system that is already broken.
2. They are socially and spiritually irresponsible. These bills provide government incentive to live together as though married, without the commitments of marriage. They are also contrary to the spiritual and moral teaching of the Bible and the historic mores of American culture.
3. They are a “gateway” or incremental step toward gay marriage. Mr. Murray, Mr. Moeller and others have repeatedly told the press and the public that the prize is ultimately marriage for gays.
We are asking you to respond immediately to your elected Senator and Representative. You can find your elected official contact information on our website. Click here.
We are suggesting you write a letter. You may use some of the talking points I have included above if that is helpful. Be sure to mention the bills by number and be respectful but clear on your position.
We would also suggest that in addition to your mailed letter that you either call their office or email them as well.
Finally, and I know this isn’t for everyone, but if you would feel comfortable, we would like you to give testimony regarding these bills.
If you would consider this, please contact Jon Russell, FFN Washington Lobbyist, at j.russell@faithandfreedom.us and let him know you may be interested and able to speak at the appropriate time. He will work with you and let you know when testimony will be heard.
It is important to have strong convictions about issues such as these. However, conviction is different than action.
This is a time for action.
Thank you and God bless you.
________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
----- 4 -----
Ontario court re-defines family
Focus on the Family Canada
January 10, 2007
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/family/stories/2007/070110_01.html
Ontario’s highest court has seen fit to re-define the family in a highly controversial ruling that allows a child to have three legal parents.
In a judgment handed down January 2, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared that a five-year-old boy can have two mothers – his biological mother as well as her lesbian partner. His biological father is, according to the Toronto Star, a “friend” who “remains involved” in his son’s life “at the request of the two women.”
Under Ontario law, if the lesbian partner had adopted the boy, the father would have had to forfeit his parental rights.
In June 2003, the same court had declared that gay and lesbian couples in the province had the legal right to marry. Within months, courts or legislatures in most of the other provinces had followed suit.
In this case, as the National Post noted, the decision rewrites Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act, passed in the 1970s to protect the rights of children born out of wedlock. It also sets a legal precedent that other courts across Canada will have to take into consideration when adjudicating similar cases.
The three-member panel agreed unanimously that the Act unintentionally left a “legislative gap,” because at the time, no one could have foreseen that a child could have more than one father and one mother.
“The possibility of legally and socially recognized same-sex unions and the implications of advances in reproductive technology were not on the radar screen,” the judges stated.
Family advocates were quick to denounce the ruling. “It opens the door to complete social engineering that can only harm the institution of the family,” Dave Quist, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC), told Today’s Family News.
[More at URL]
----- 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
Reprinted via Canada Family Action Coalition
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.
[...]
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. [Editor's note: I don't remember actually seeing a defined source for this - not even to a theocon source. It just seems to be taken as a given.]
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. [Editor's Note: these last two elements are part of the slew of anti-gay bullshit "studies" from sources such as, but by no means exclusive to, Paul Cameron and other anti-GBLT theoconservatives.]
A trend resulting from same-sex marriage is evident in the Netherlands, which has allowed homosexual couples to register their partnerships since 1997 and which legalized same-sex marriages in 2000. Statistics show that the out-of-wedlock birthrate there has increased by an average of 2 per cent a year -- more than in any other country in western Europe. This indicates a marked decrease in a desire for legal marriage and an increase in cohabitation. [Editor's note: there has been no change in the rate of change before and after same-sex marriage. This is an example of context-removal in statistics quotation to change the data to indicate something other than it actually indicates.]
[More at URL]
----- 6 ------
An excellent column by the author of "Against Judicial Activism” – Rory Leishman. If you do not have this book you need to get it through McGill-Queen's University Press (click here for a direct link).
Legislators versus Judges?
The London Free Press - Jan 16, 2007
By Rory Leishman
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/politics-law/courts/leg-vs-judges.htm
In a classic 18th-century text, The Spirit of the Laws, Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, pointed out that the separation of legislative and judicial powers is essential to freedom under law. He wrote: "Were (the judicial power) joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would then be the legislator."
Sir William Blackstone likewise warned in his magisterial Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69): "Were (the judicial power) joined with the legislative, the life, liberty, and property of the subject would be in the hands of arbitrary judges, whose decisions would be then regulated only by their own opinions, and not by any fundamental principles of law; which, though legislators may depart from, yet judges are bound to observe."
Until recently, the great majority of Canadian judges agreed with Montesquieu and Blackstone. Instead of arbitrarily changing the law to conform with their ideas of what justice requires, they undertook to uphold the plain text of the laws and the Constitution of Canada as enacted and originally understood by elected representatives of the people in the legislative branch of government.
Judicial activists know no such restraint. They have no compunction about arbitrarily enacting their ideological preferences into law by unilaterally amending statute laws and the Constitution through judicial interpretation.
Consider in this respect the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in A.A. v B.B.. At issue in this case, were two lesbian partners - A.A. and C.C. - and a man - B.B. - who had donated sperm so C.C. could give birth to a child.
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Three parents for one child?
Time has come to pause and reflect
Catholic Organization for
Life and Family (COLF)
MEDIA RELEASE - January 8, 2007
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/family/parenting/three-parents.htm
The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision of January 2, 2007 to allow three legal parents for the same child should sound the alarm for federal and provincial governments across Canada. It is necessary to slow the accelerated rate of change that has been transforming our most fundamental social institutions. Canadians urgently need to pause, reflect, study and debate where our changing standards of marriage and family are taking us.
Parenthood is a natural reality based on biological facts that are beyond redefinition by courts or legislatures. Every child genetically originates from one mother and one father, and has a right and a need to be raised by its biological parents to the extent possible. Where this is not possible, adoption is a commendable and important alternative to serve the best interests of the child.
The evolving desires of adults have not changed the needs of children. Research continues to confirm that children do best when raised by their own married mother and father. Intentionally steering our society away from this model provides grave cause for concern. We do not yet know the effects of three or more legal parents on our children, but our experience with divorce and its negative impact on children calls for caution. We can only imagine the extensive consequences that may result from radically redefining parenthood and family.
Children are the future of Canada. We owe it to them to make responsible, thoroughly studied decisions regarding the structure of the family, since it most profoundly affects their development and well-being. Children are vulnerable and have to be protected instead of subjected to another social experiment.
Rather than allowing courts to define social policies, governments need to ensure that their laws continue to promote the natural two-parent family model. Canadians also need a public commission to comprehensively evaluate the impact upon children and upon society itself of redefining parenthood and marriage. Finally, we invite all Canadian citizens to participate in a thorough social dialogue on these issues.
COLF is co-sponsored by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus. It promotes respect for human life and dignity, and the essential role of the family.
For more information:
Michèle Boulva, Director
Catholic Organization for Life and Family
Tel.: (613) 241-9461, ext. 141
E-mail: mboulva@colf.ca
----- 8 -----
The marriage debate: We’ve moved on.
But to what?
The same sex marriage debate is firmly behind us. We’ve all moved on…
to legally recognizing multiple parents.
By Andrea Mrozek
Manager of Research and Communications
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/family/parenting/moved-on-to-what.htm
Ah yes. The new year, a perfect time to move on from the divisive marriage debate of late 2006. And how. If the debate is over on same sex marriage; we must now welcome a new debate over the legal recognition of multiple parents. When the Ontario Court of Appeal granted three adults legal parent status on January 2, 2007 it was not social conservative activists who opened up the marriage debate--it was the judges at the Ontario Court of Appeal. And why? They did so for the benefit of the adults involved.
There is evidence to suggest the best child outcomes occur in low conflict, biological married parent settings. [1] But there is no research to show that three parents, or even that same sex parents are good, bad, or irrelevant for child outcomes. [2] There is a definitive need for better comparative studies. In spite of what Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, calls an emerging consensus on the success of traditional family structure, there are related but competing fields of study, which challenge those assertions, without offering direct comparisons. “Thus the powerful new consensus on family structure is on a collision course with a separate emerging consensus from a related field: the social science literature on sexual orientation and parenting,” writes Gallagher. [3]
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
Canadians need to know and take actions also. See who all connects with and supports the actions of an anti-life organization.
Newly Identified Corporate Supporters of Planned Parenthood Named
LifeSiteNews.com
As reposted on Canada Family Action Coalition website
January 11, 2007 - Original article
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/life/corp-supporters.htm
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Life Decisions International (LDI) has released a revised edition of The Boycott List, which identifies corporations that are boycott targets due to their support of Planned Parenthood, the world's primary abortion-advocacy group.
"As a direct result of the commitment, action and prayers of pro-family people, at least 137 corporations have stopped funding Planned Parenthood," said LDI President Douglas R. Scott, Jr. It is estimated that the boycott has cost Planned Parenthood more than $35 million since the Corporate Funding Project (CFP) began some 15 years ago. "This should be a testament to those who believe it is impossible to change corporate philanthropic behavior," Scott said.
Corporations appearing on The Boycott List for the first time include AlphaGraphics (graphics/printing), Arizona Lotus (radio/television broadcasting), Blackjack Pizza (restaurants), BolchalkFReY Marketing (advertising/public relations), Kara-Line (Wild Carrots apparel), Lowe Enterprises (hotels/resorts/financing), Pizza Pizza (restaurants), Scolari's Food & Drug, and Tiffany & Company, among others.
Corporations continuing as boycott targets from the previously released Boycott List include high-end retailer Neiman Marcus, Basics Office Products, Adobe (software), Wachovia (finance), Golub (Price Chopper supermarkets), Nike (shoes/apparel, etc.), Time Warner (Cinemax, HBO, AOL, etc.), Unilever (Q-Tips, Lipton, Best Foods, Birds Eye, CountryCrock, Wish-Bone, Ben & Jerry's, Axe, Finesse, Salon Selectives, Suave, etc.), Bank of America, the Dallas Cowboys, CIGNA (insurance), Walt Disney, Cost Plus World Market, Johnson & Johnson, Lost Arrow (Patagonia, etc.), Wells Fargo, Whole Foods Market, and Nationwide (insurance), among others.
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
To: Premier Dalton McGuinty and Attorney General Michael Bryant
Pointed to by Canada Family Action Coalition website
Online as of 20 January 2007
http://www.petitiononline.com/3parents/
As Canadian citizens and residents of Ontario, we the undersigned urge you to appeal the Ontario Appeal Court decision on January 2, 2007, which allowed a 5-year-old boy to have three parents. Such appeal would allow the public and various levels of government to thoroughly study the possible personal, societal, and legal imparts of allowing more than 2 parents for a child. This would be in the best interest of all children and families in Ontario.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
----- 11 -----
Institute calls Ontario Court of Appeal three parent decision act of "naked judicial activism"
Date: Jan 03, 2007
Institute for Canadian Values
http://canadianvalues.ca/news.aspx?aid=249
OTTAWA - The Institute for Canadian Values is calling a ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal that a child can have three parents "unnecessary" and an act of "naked judicial activism" not unlike the same Court's 2003 ruling redefining marriage.
"Yesterday's decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal that a child can have three parents was an act of naked judicial activism," said Joseph C. Ben-Ami, Executive Director and Director of Policy Development for the ICV.
The case involved an Application by the lesbian partner of a child's mother to be recognized as a legal parent despite the fact that the child's father still actively participates in the child's life. Her argument was that, although she is a de facto parent, she had no legal right to make parenting decisions on behalf of the child and may be prevented from exercising her authority should the child's biological mother die or become unable to make decisions on behalf of the child.
The case was originally dismissed in 2003.
Although he acknowledged the validity of the concerns raised, Ben-Ami dismissed them as justification for the Court's Ruling.
"Disputes regarding who makes legal decisions on behalf of minor children, including disputes between children's actual parents, are adjudicated every day in Canada on a case by case basis in the best interest of the children without the need to change the definition of family," observed Ben-Ami. "The unlikely possibility of such a dispute arising at some time in the future between these adults is no justification for this sweeping Ruling. The only explanation is that the Court saw this case as an opportunity to entrench so-called alternative family structures in law without submitting the idea to the rigours of the legislative process."
----- 12 -----
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
(A Focus on the Family project)
For Immediate Release
January 2, 2007
http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/Three-Parent_Case_Jan_2_2007.pdf
ARE THREE PARENTS REALLY
IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST?
(Ottawa) A decision brought down on January 2, 2007, by the Court of Appeal for Ontario allows for the legal recognition of three parents. “Today’s ruling in favour of the so-called Three Parent Case sends an ominous message regarding the foundation of family,” stated Dave Quist, Executive Director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.
There are significant short-term and long-term outcomes that follow this decision. “This ruling leaves a number of unanswered questions hanging over our heads. In the event of adversarial applications for parental recognition, who decides? How does custody work in three parent divorces? How many parents can a child have? How do grandparent rights apply?” asked Quist.
“Unfortunately, once again we see judicial activism creating public policy that will affect all of us. Any gaps in existing legislation should not be filled solely by one court, rather it needs to be debated in the appropriate public forum – our legislatures and parliament,” continued Quist.
“Although this is a provincial ruling, this lends support to our call for a Royal Commission on the Future of the Family,” concluded Quist. “The societal implications for this ruling have consequences that should not be decided solely by one court. Social engineering is not the purview of the court, nor should it be. Surely the needs and best interests of children have not been protected under this ruling.”
The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada is an initiative of Focus on the Family (Canada) and participated as an intervener in the Three Parent Case (AA v BB) case as a member of the Alliance for Marriage and the Family.
– 30 –
For additional information or comment, please contact: Dave Quist, Executive Director at 613-565-3832.
2001-130 rue Albert Street Ottawa Ontario Canada K1P 5G4
t 613.565.3832 f/t 613.565.3803 1.866.373.4632
www.imfcanada.org
----- 13 -----
Legal Case May Set Precedent Against Religious-Oriented Therapists
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2975
January 11, 2007 – Dr. Chris Rosik, a leader in the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has published a review of a legal case from 2001 that may be used to stifle the religious beliefs of therapists who refuse to provide pro-homosexual counseling services in their practices.
Rosik reviewed an article from the Journal of Counseling & Development by M.A. Herman and B.R. Herilhy. The authors reviewed a legal case from the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2001 that ruled against a Christian therapist who refused to provide positive counseling for a homosexual (identified only as Jane Doe) seeking a better relationship with her partner.
The therapist was eventually terminated by her counseling service and then filed a wrongful termination lawsuit. She lost.
Herman and Herilhy believe that religiously-oriented therapists should be willing to provide positive counseling for homosexuals even if they personally oppose the lifestyle.
[...]
“This case is simply one more example of how homosexual activists and radical liberal judges are determined to undermine religious freedom in this country in favor of the homosexual agenda,”said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. “This is why our effort to reform the federal court system is so important.”
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
Fox Deliberately Displays the F-Word During Prime Time Football
Your complaint will be sent to and filed with the Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau. NOTE: To speed the process of your complaint, please include your local Fox station call letters (ex. WLOV) where indicated on the complaint letter text box below.
American Family Association
ACTION ALERT
Online as of 20 January 2007
http://www.afa.net/petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=230
It used to be that you could sit down and watch an evening football game with your children without fear of them being exposed to inappropriate material. Sadly, that's no longer the case as was proven Saturday night during the Fox broadcast of the NFL playoff game between the New Orleans Saints and the Philadelphia Eagles.
During a cutaway shot to the stadium spectators, the camera focused directly on a woman wearing a t-shirt clearly inscribed with the words "F--k Da Eagles" (without the dashes). The shot stayed focused on the woman and her shirt for several seconds. There can be no doubt that this was an intentional airing of patently offensive language on the public airwaves, as the person wearing the profane t-shirt was culled by Fox Network's broadcast crew from more than 70,000 spectators in the stadium. The camera operator selected that particular woman and the director and/or producers of the event made an affirmative and conscious decision to air the shot from that particular camera, forcing the f-word into millions of homes. Furthermore, the v-chip would not and could not have protected children and families from the type of content evidenced here.
To view the offensive scene, click here ( http://www.afa.net/images/eagles.gif ). WARNING – GRAPHIC CONTENT
Fans on the East Coast saw this obscenity televised during the Family Hour (8:30 p.m. ET) -- but it aired at 5:30 p.m. in the evening on the West Coast.
Send Your Letter Now!
----- 15 -----
That’s what Christians do
By Don WILDMON | AFA founder/chairman
Online (and pointed to) as of 20 January 2007
Originally published August, 1999
http://www.afajournal.org/2006/nov-dec/1206don.asp
In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court said it was OK to kill unborn babies. Since then, we have killed more than the entire population of Canada. And it continues. A woman’s choice? Half of those who have died in their mothers’ wombs have been women. They didn’t have a choice. It is called abortion.
Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.
First it was in dingy, dirty theaters. Then, convenience stores. Then, grocery stores. Then on television. Now it is in the homes of millions via the Internet. It is called pornography.
Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.
They called it no-fault. Why should we blame anyone when something so tragic happens? Haven’t they already suffered enough? Half of the marriages in America end this way. The children suffer. The family breaks down. It is called divorce.
Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.
At one time it was a perversion. We kept it secret. We offered help and hope for those who practised it. Now it is praised. We have parades celebrating it, and elected officials give it their blessings. Now it is endowed with special privileges and protected by special laws. Even some Christian leaders and denominations praise it. It is called homosexuality.
Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.
[More at URL]
----- 16 -----
Struggling Gays and Lesbians Welcomed
PFOX REACHES OUT WITH MESSAGE OF HOPE
By Ed Vitagliano | AFA Journal news editor
American Family Association Journal
http://www.afajournal.org/2006/september/0906PFOX.asp
Homosexuality is a flashpoint in the culture wars, but that lifestyle is more than simply a political issue for gays and lesbians who struggle with it. For those who want to change, there are a number of organizations which are willing to help them find freedom.
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) is one of them. It was founded in 1998 by families who had homosexual children, and by friends of the ex-gay community.
“PFOX was started because there were no organizations supporting parents in loving their homosexual children unconditionally,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX, in an interview with AFA Journal. At the time, she added, the secular-minded organizations dealing with homosexuality insisted “that parents love their children only if they affirm the child’s homosexual behavior.”
[...]
Following the PTA-PFOX dust-up concerning the 2005 convention, AFA Journal (11-12/05) interviewed Weselak to allow her to explain PTA’s position. She said PFLAG was only present “to help educate and inform parents on the topic of bullying in order to help make their children more safe in schools. And that’s what their invitation was based upon.”
However, psychology professor Dr. Warren Throckmorton, director of the college counseling service at Grove City College in Pennsylvania and a spokesman for PFOX, said Weselak’s explanation wasn’t the whole story.
“In fact, [PFLAG] had an article that was distributed to all the attendees criticizing my work in sexual identity therapy [that helps homosexuals leave that lifestyle],” he said. “Now what does that have to do with bullying?”
Furthermore, he said, PFLAG used its workshop in 2005 to stress the need to raise more “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” issues in the shaping of public school policies and curricula. Once again, Throckmorton noted, such matters fall far outside a simple message about bullying.
What also troubles PFOX officials is the fact that PFLAG is a political advocacy group that promotes homosexual political causes like same-sex marriage, hate-crime laws, and gay adoption. Griggs, for example, believes that giving PFLAG a forum at the PTA convention is nothing short of an implicit endorsement of the homosexual advocacy group’s radical agenda.
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
Nature has its say
DVD SERIES LETS ANIMAL BEHAVIOR, DESIGN UNDERMINE EVOLUTION
By Ed Vitagliano | AFA Journal news editor
American Family Association Journal
http://www.afajournal.org/2006/september/0906origines.asp
What do giraffes, woodpeckers, beavers, spiders and geckos all have in common? According to one video series, they all clearly demonstrate the variety and creative brilliance of nature’s God – and in the process undermine the theory of evolution.
Titled Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution, the series from Exploration Films (www.explorationfilms.com) drives a stake through the heart of the evolution monster by arguing that the complexity of animal design and behavior cannot be the result of chance and random mutations. Instead, it is proof of creationism, which states that the God of the Bible is the Creator – and the mind behind the natural world and the universe. This view takes the Bible’s Genesis account of creation literally.
The video series features Dr. Jobe Martin, founder of Biblical Discipleship Ministries, who has an enthusiastic delivery as he explains the arguments of creationism to viewers. He has spent the last 20 years exploring the differences between evolution and creationism.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
FOR MORAL ISSUES TO PREVAIL
America's historic sites reveal her Christian foundation
American Family Association Journal
by Stephen McDowell
http://www.afajournal.org/2006/october/1006mcdowell.asp
Throughout history, nations have built monuments, usually to record victories in battle or to honor their gods. Every nation’s monuments and national symbols reflect the heart of the people and identify what they believe is the source of their nation’s greatness and achievements.
However, America’s monuments were not built to record countries conquered or battles won. Our memorials contain the declaration that the source of our birth, liberty, and greatness is God.
A tour of our historic sites reveals that America was a nation birthed by men who had a firm reliance upon Almighty God and His Son Jesus Christ.
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
Brownback, Hunter to Join Blogs For Life Conference
Family Research Council
Online as of 20 January 2007
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=HOME
On Monday, January 22nd at 9:00 am, Family Research Council will host Blogs for Life, the second annual conference of pro-life bloggers.
Blogs for Life is scheduled to take place the day of the 34th annual March for Life, during which thousands of pro-life advocates gather in the Nation's capitol to celebrate life and demand the reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
The conference will feature Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA). Other featured speakers include Bobby Schindler, the brother of Terri Schindler Schiavo and Ramesh Ponnuru, noted author of The Party of Death and senior editor at National Review. Blogs for Life is an excellent opportunity for individuals and organizations to network with pro-life bloggers and develop an understanding of how weblog technology can be used to strategically promote life and transform ideas into action as we move toward a post-Roe America.
For more information or to register for this free event visit the Blogs for Life website.
----- 20 -----
Brownback joins race seeking to conservatives' choice
JOHN HANNA
Associated Press
20 January 2007
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/16508409.htm
TOPEKA, Kan. - Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback jumped into the 2008 presidential race Saturday, a favorite of religious conservatives in an uphill battle against better-known rivals for the Republican nomination.
"I am a conservative and I'm proud of being a conservative," he proclaimed to hundreds of supporters.
The 50-year-old Brownback, serving his second term in the Senate, considers himself a "full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative." In his remarks, he pledged to fight on behalf of the nation's cultural values and to focus on rebuilding families.
"Search the record of history. To walk away from the Almighty is to embrace decline for a nation," Brownback said. "To embrace him leads to renewal, for individuals and for nations."
Brownback entered a Republican field with as many as 10 potential candidates, including Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
"My positions are at the heart of where the Republican Party is," Brownback told reporters after his speech. "I'm willing to take those positions with all comers."
[...]
This week, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson said he wouldn't vote for McCain "under any circumstances," adding, "I pray that we will not get stuck with him."
Duke University's Rohde said Brownback is in a relatively good position as a dark-horse candidate because among the big names, "There is no representative of the conservative wing of the party, so somebody's going to have to come forward to claim that mantle."
[More at URL]
----- 21 -----
Clock Runs Out on the Family
January 18, 2007 - Thursday
Family Research Council
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 18, 2007 CONTACT: J.P. Duffy, (866) FRC-NEWS
Will Speaker Pelosi Schedule a Family Hour?
Washington, D.C. - As Congress finishes the first '100 Hours,' Family Research Council President Tony Perkins asks "when will Speaker Pelosi schedule a family hour?" FRC is also releasing an overview of the best and worst legislation that can be expected in a media environment of great expectations.
"Hard working families across this country will be watching to see if all the pro-family sentiments expressed during the campaign become real policies that help and protect our children and our most sacred institutions. Is there a part two to the '100 hours' or is this all we get? We will remain vigilant to protect our families from liberal extremism and heavy-handed social engineering."
Worst of Legislation:
Legislation that establishes "hate crimes," funds abortion, regulates grassroots efforts to contact Congress, raises taxes on families, ends abstinence programs, allows human cloning, and protects groups that support sex-trafficking and prostitution.
Best of Legislation:
The priority list includes twenty five legislative items such as the Marriage Protection Amendment, child tax credit, Informed Choice Act, Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, and the Public Expression of Religion Act.
"Speaker Pelosi claims to seek common ground on social issues," Perkins said. "Once she concludes the first '100 hours,' we urge her to schedule at least an hour on pro-family legislation. Judging from the first '100 hours,' it appears that we must be ready to counter a slew of legislation that will fail to live up to pre-election hype. It won't be policy to reach out to the majority of Americans, but pay back for liberal and cultural activists."
To Obtain a Complete Copy of FRC's List of Priorities, please visit www.frc.org.
----- 22 -----
Stand for Life: Tell President Bush to Defend the Unborn from New Attacks
Family Research Council
Online as of 20 January 2007
https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PT06L01&f=AL07A04&track=0
Please sign the following petition to President Bush requesting a veto of any anti-life or anti-abstinence bills.
Dear President Bush:
Thank you for strongly supporting the dignity of human life. I wish to especially thank you for the steps you have taken to protect the sanctity of human life, which have included reinstating the Mexico City Policy, vetoing a bill that would have required U.S. taxpayers to fund research requiring the killing of human embryos, and supporting pro-life legislation such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
I am also encouraged by your strong support of abstinence-until-marriage programs. These programs convey to adolescents a commonsense message that is critical for preventing teen pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. I respectfully ask that you veto any bill that would weaken or eliminate current pro-life policies, or any bill that would undermine abstinence-until-marriage programs.
Your leadership has been an encouragement to a growing pro-life community.
[More at URL]
Faith and Freedom Network ACTION ITEM against Domestic Partnership bill in Olympia (Washington State);
FFN ACTION ITEM against DP bill, and against the longshot civil marriage bills; includes talking points;
Focus on the Family Canada condemns court ruling giving the biological father of a lesbian couple's child some parental rights as "redefining the Family;" as some sperm donors have found out in the past, this kind of ruling has a >30 year history, but they don't talk about that in their article. Note where they're quoting their own think tank (Institute for Marriage and Family Canada) as an outside source, to make themselves look bigger - tho' again, unlike in the US, they acknowledge the link later;
REAL Women of Canada (quoted on the Canada Family Action Coalition web page) start quoting anti-gay "statistics" (sourcelessly) that are part of the usual suite; queers can't have stable relationships, queers have short, diseased lives; etc;
Canada Family Action Coalition picks up on the "tolerance is intolerant" rhetoric;
CFAC and various others are picking up the US "liberal judicial activists" drumbeat, mostly to refer to decisions they dislike;
Catholic Organisation for Life and Family want marriage rights "public[ly] evaluated" again, and are very cranky about the Ontario Court of Appeals ruling; does anyone know whether any of these organisations had these kinds of issues when they were only applied to straight couples getting married/divorced/remarried, or where adoptions, or genetic material (sperm and egg donation) were involved? I'm not aware of any such complaints in the US when it was about straights, but you get queers involved and it's nothing but splody time;
Focus on the Family's Institute for Marriage and Family Canada gets an article redistributed by CFAC - they want marriage rights "re-evaluated" again, of course, saying children are harmed by GBLT parentage;
CFAC reprints Life Decisions International/LifeNews.com's boycott list for support of Planned Parenthood;
CFAC points to Ontario online petition to Premier McGuinty and Atty. General Bryant over the Ontario Appeals Court decision;
Institute for Canadian Values calls Ontario decision "naked judicial activism" while, interestingly, saying that the issues the court raised were "valid." So, um, what;
Okay, so: the Traditional Values Coalition is reporting that a therapist was fired by her employer when she refused to help a client (a lesbian) work out some issues to improve her relationship with her same-sex partner, on the basis that she had religious objections to GBLT people. The therapist filed a wrongful-termination suit, and lost. TVC calls this a "legal precedent against religious-oriented therapists" and "one more example of how homosexual activists and radical liberal judges are determined to undermine religious freedom in this country in favor of the homosexual agenda";
AFA ACTION ITEM against Fox Sports over the "Fuck Da Eagles" T-shirt worn by somebody in the crowd and seen on camera;
AFA founder and chairman Don Wildmon criticises fundamentalists for not doing enough to keep homosexuality illegal, abortion illegal, no-fault divorce off the books, and working against pr0n, and all that;
PFOX, the "ex-gay" group modeled after PFLAG, but, you know, anti-gay instead, gets a big article in the latest AFA Journal; PFOX does things like argue against anti-bullying policies that include GBLT kids, and spends a lot of time slagging PFLAG;
AFA promotes its "Origins" DVD series which claims to disprove evolutionary theory, mostly by saying, "it's just too complex!";
AFA promotes "Christian Heritage Tour" of Washington, DC - one of the many tools in the general theocon 'the founding fathers were fundamentalists' history retcon;
Family Research Council front page notes that Senator and Presidential Candidate Sam Brownback will be joining the "Blogs for Life" conference;
James Dobson tells John McCain to fuck off, demonstrating that attempting to suck up to the theocons can only go so far; this implies (to me, anyway) that Mitt Romney's attempt to convert from pro-GBLT-rights to bible-thumping Mormon anti-gay activist to get the GOP nod will fail spectacularly;
Family Research Council demands anti-gay legislation, an anti-marriage amendment to the Federal constitution, and anti-abortion law, from Nancy Pelosi, which you have to admit, is pretty funny;
FRC ACTION ITEM to suck up to Mr. Bush in thanks for his support against abortion rights, his support for the "gag rule," and so on.
----- 1 -----
Anti-gay Dem to head DLC
by Lisa Keen
Bay Area Reporter
Published 01/18/2007
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1489
A group that aspires to reform the Democratic Party to appeal to a greater number of voters has chosen a new chairman who is best known to LGBT activists for having abandoned support for equal rights for gays in order to pursue higher office.
Former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. is best known to the rest of the country for almost winning the U.S. Senate seat in Tennessee last November – a race closely watched not only because it was close but because the control of the Senate was teetering between Republicans and Democrats. Republican Bob Corker went on to win the Senate seat, although Democrats did win control of the Senate after wins in Montana and Virginia.
[More at URL]
----- 2 ------
"Domestic Partners" Bill to be Heard Next Thursday
Faith and Freedom Network
Friday, January 19, 2007
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2007/01/domestic-partners-bill-to-be-heard.html
We learned yesterday afternoon that HB 5336 will be heard next Thursday, January 25th at 3:30 p.m. in Olympia.
We will be at the hearing.
Please do two things.
First, take a moment to write to your Washington State Representatives. Click here for contact information. You may use information from my blog yesterday if that is helpful -- but please write asking your representatives to oppose this bill. Then call of email them.
Secondly, spend time in prayer regarding this matter. It is more spiritual than political. I believe God will honor our prayers.
Thank you and God bless you.
________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
----- 3 ------
Gay Marriage & Domestic Partnerships Are On WA Agenda
Faith and Freedom Network
Thursday, January 18, 2007
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2007/01/gay-marriage-domestic-partnerships-are.html
As promised, gay activist legislators and a number of their supporters have introduced bills in both the House and Senate to advance the gay-rights agenda in Washington State.
The House bill, HB 1350, and the Senate, SB 5335 are both asking for “civil marriage equality” – gay marriage.
The House Bill, HB 1351 and Senate bill, SB 5336, are both asking for “Domestic Partnerships.”
All four of these bills must be defeated. Here’s why.
HB 1350 and SB 5335 is an attempt to revive gay marriage. We don’t think they have the votes to pass this legislation at this time. But we must communicate with our elected officials in the strongest possible way.
A part of this bill states that it is “to ensure that all persons in the state may enjoy the freedom to marry on equal terms.” That right is already provided. Both men and women are free to marry.
This is not about marriage equality, but rather redefining marriage. In fact, in the text of the bill they are replacing “male and female” with the word, “person” and “husband and wife” with the word “person” or “spouse.”
These bills must be defeated.
The “Domestic Partners” bills, HB 1351 and SB 5336 are probably their fall-back bills.
These bills sound sympathetic and “fair.” In fact, they have included a specific class, along with same-sex couples, of couples in which at least one is 62 years or older. The bills state that “social security and pension laws make it impractical for these couples to marry.”
I have no doubt that the gay activists will highlight the fact that they are trying to help the elderly. I suspect anyone who takes a position against these bills will be cast as insensitive, uncaring and prejudiced.
In fact, homosexual couples, as well as the elderly couples, already have access to contractual agreements that cover all the various needs they have outlined in their bill.
These bills must be defeated for three reasons.
1. They are fiscally irresponsible. They open up a new class of entitlements on a social security and welfare system that is already broken.
2. They are socially and spiritually irresponsible. These bills provide government incentive to live together as though married, without the commitments of marriage. They are also contrary to the spiritual and moral teaching of the Bible and the historic mores of American culture.
3. They are a “gateway” or incremental step toward gay marriage. Mr. Murray, Mr. Moeller and others have repeatedly told the press and the public that the prize is ultimately marriage for gays.
We are asking you to respond immediately to your elected Senator and Representative. You can find your elected official contact information on our website. Click here.
We are suggesting you write a letter. You may use some of the talking points I have included above if that is helpful. Be sure to mention the bills by number and be respectful but clear on your position.
We would also suggest that in addition to your mailed letter that you either call their office or email them as well.
Finally, and I know this isn’t for everyone, but if you would feel comfortable, we would like you to give testimony regarding these bills.
If you would consider this, please contact Jon Russell, FFN Washington Lobbyist, at j.russell@faithandfreedom.us and let him know you may be interested and able to speak at the appropriate time. He will work with you and let you know when testimony will be heard.
It is important to have strong convictions about issues such as these. However, conviction is different than action.
This is a time for action.
Thank you and God bless you.
________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
----- 4 -----
Ontario court re-defines family
Focus on the Family Canada
January 10, 2007
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/family/stories/2007/070110_01.html
Ontario’s highest court has seen fit to re-define the family in a highly controversial ruling that allows a child to have three legal parents.
In a judgment handed down January 2, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared that a five-year-old boy can have two mothers – his biological mother as well as her lesbian partner. His biological father is, according to the Toronto Star, a “friend” who “remains involved” in his son’s life “at the request of the two women.”
Under Ontario law, if the lesbian partner had adopted the boy, the father would have had to forfeit his parental rights.
In June 2003, the same court had declared that gay and lesbian couples in the province had the legal right to marry. Within months, courts or legislatures in most of the other provinces had followed suit.
In this case, as the National Post noted, the decision rewrites Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act, passed in the 1970s to protect the rights of children born out of wedlock. It also sets a legal precedent that other courts across Canada will have to take into consideration when adjudicating similar cases.
The three-member panel agreed unanimously that the Act unintentionally left a “legislative gap,” because at the time, no one could have foreseen that a child could have more than one father and one mother.
“The possibility of legally and socially recognized same-sex unions and the implications of advances in reproductive technology were not on the radar screen,” the judges stated.
Family advocates were quick to denounce the ruling. “It opens the door to complete social engineering that can only harm the institution of the family,” Dave Quist, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC), told Today’s Family News.
[More at URL]
----- 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
Reprinted via Canada Family Action Coalition
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.
[...]
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. [Editor's note: I don't remember actually seeing a defined source for this - not even to a theocon source. It just seems to be taken as a given.]
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. [Editor's Note: these last two elements are part of the slew of anti-gay bullshit "studies" from sources such as, but by no means exclusive to, Paul Cameron and other anti-GBLT theoconservatives.]
A trend resulting from same-sex marriage is evident in the Netherlands, which has allowed homosexual couples to register their partnerships since 1997 and which legalized same-sex marriages in 2000. Statistics show that the out-of-wedlock birthrate there has increased by an average of 2 per cent a year -- more than in any other country in western Europe. This indicates a marked decrease in a desire for legal marriage and an increase in cohabitation. [Editor's note: there has been no change in the rate of change before and after same-sex marriage. This is an example of context-removal in statistics quotation to change the data to indicate something other than it actually indicates.]
[More at URL]
----- 6 ------
An excellent column by the author of "Against Judicial Activism” – Rory Leishman. If you do not have this book you need to get it through McGill-Queen's University Press (click here for a direct link).
Legislators versus Judges?
The London Free Press - Jan 16, 2007
By Rory Leishman
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/politics-law/courts/leg-vs-judges.htm
In a classic 18th-century text, The Spirit of the Laws, Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, pointed out that the separation of legislative and judicial powers is essential to freedom under law. He wrote: "Were (the judicial power) joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would then be the legislator."
Sir William Blackstone likewise warned in his magisterial Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69): "Were (the judicial power) joined with the legislative, the life, liberty, and property of the subject would be in the hands of arbitrary judges, whose decisions would be then regulated only by their own opinions, and not by any fundamental principles of law; which, though legislators may depart from, yet judges are bound to observe."
Until recently, the great majority of Canadian judges agreed with Montesquieu and Blackstone. Instead of arbitrarily changing the law to conform with their ideas of what justice requires, they undertook to uphold the plain text of the laws and the Constitution of Canada as enacted and originally understood by elected representatives of the people in the legislative branch of government.
Judicial activists know no such restraint. They have no compunction about arbitrarily enacting their ideological preferences into law by unilaterally amending statute laws and the Constitution through judicial interpretation.
Consider in this respect the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in A.A. v B.B.. At issue in this case, were two lesbian partners - A.A. and C.C. - and a man - B.B. - who had donated sperm so C.C. could give birth to a child.
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Three parents for one child?
Time has come to pause and reflect
Catholic Organization for
Life and Family (COLF)
MEDIA RELEASE - January 8, 2007
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/family/parenting/three-parents.htm
The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision of January 2, 2007 to allow three legal parents for the same child should sound the alarm for federal and provincial governments across Canada. It is necessary to slow the accelerated rate of change that has been transforming our most fundamental social institutions. Canadians urgently need to pause, reflect, study and debate where our changing standards of marriage and family are taking us.
Parenthood is a natural reality based on biological facts that are beyond redefinition by courts or legislatures. Every child genetically originates from one mother and one father, and has a right and a need to be raised by its biological parents to the extent possible. Where this is not possible, adoption is a commendable and important alternative to serve the best interests of the child.
The evolving desires of adults have not changed the needs of children. Research continues to confirm that children do best when raised by their own married mother and father. Intentionally steering our society away from this model provides grave cause for concern. We do not yet know the effects of three or more legal parents on our children, but our experience with divorce and its negative impact on children calls for caution. We can only imagine the extensive consequences that may result from radically redefining parenthood and family.
Children are the future of Canada. We owe it to them to make responsible, thoroughly studied decisions regarding the structure of the family, since it most profoundly affects their development and well-being. Children are vulnerable and have to be protected instead of subjected to another social experiment.
Rather than allowing courts to define social policies, governments need to ensure that their laws continue to promote the natural two-parent family model. Canadians also need a public commission to comprehensively evaluate the impact upon children and upon society itself of redefining parenthood and marriage. Finally, we invite all Canadian citizens to participate in a thorough social dialogue on these issues.
COLF is co-sponsored by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus. It promotes respect for human life and dignity, and the essential role of the family.
For more information:
Michèle Boulva, Director
Catholic Organization for Life and Family
Tel.: (613) 241-9461, ext. 141
E-mail: mboulva@colf.ca
----- 8 -----
The marriage debate: We’ve moved on.
But to what?
The same sex marriage debate is firmly behind us. We’ve all moved on…
to legally recognizing multiple parents.
By Andrea Mrozek
Manager of Research and Communications
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/family/parenting/moved-on-to-what.htm
Ah yes. The new year, a perfect time to move on from the divisive marriage debate of late 2006. And how. If the debate is over on same sex marriage; we must now welcome a new debate over the legal recognition of multiple parents. When the Ontario Court of Appeal granted three adults legal parent status on January 2, 2007 it was not social conservative activists who opened up the marriage debate--it was the judges at the Ontario Court of Appeal. And why? They did so for the benefit of the adults involved.
There is evidence to suggest the best child outcomes occur in low conflict, biological married parent settings. [1] But there is no research to show that three parents, or even that same sex parents are good, bad, or irrelevant for child outcomes. [2] There is a definitive need for better comparative studies. In spite of what Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, calls an emerging consensus on the success of traditional family structure, there are related but competing fields of study, which challenge those assertions, without offering direct comparisons. “Thus the powerful new consensus on family structure is on a collision course with a separate emerging consensus from a related field: the social science literature on sexual orientation and parenting,” writes Gallagher. [3]
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
Canadians need to know and take actions also. See who all connects with and supports the actions of an anti-life organization.
Newly Identified Corporate Supporters of Planned Parenthood Named
LifeSiteNews.com
As reposted on Canada Family Action Coalition website
January 11, 2007 - Original article
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/life/corp-supporters.htm
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Life Decisions International (LDI) has released a revised edition of The Boycott List, which identifies corporations that are boycott targets due to their support of Planned Parenthood, the world's primary abortion-advocacy group.
"As a direct result of the commitment, action and prayers of pro-family people, at least 137 corporations have stopped funding Planned Parenthood," said LDI President Douglas R. Scott, Jr. It is estimated that the boycott has cost Planned Parenthood more than $35 million since the Corporate Funding Project (CFP) began some 15 years ago. "This should be a testament to those who believe it is impossible to change corporate philanthropic behavior," Scott said.
Corporations appearing on The Boycott List for the first time include AlphaGraphics (graphics/printing), Arizona Lotus (radio/television broadcasting), Blackjack Pizza (restaurants), BolchalkFReY Marketing (advertising/public relations), Kara-Line (Wild Carrots apparel), Lowe Enterprises (hotels/resorts/financing), Pizza Pizza (restaurants), Scolari's Food & Drug, and Tiffany & Company, among others.
Corporations continuing as boycott targets from the previously released Boycott List include high-end retailer Neiman Marcus, Basics Office Products, Adobe (software), Wachovia (finance), Golub (Price Chopper supermarkets), Nike (shoes/apparel, etc.), Time Warner (Cinemax, HBO, AOL, etc.), Unilever (Q-Tips, Lipton, Best Foods, Birds Eye, CountryCrock, Wish-Bone, Ben & Jerry's, Axe, Finesse, Salon Selectives, Suave, etc.), Bank of America, the Dallas Cowboys, CIGNA (insurance), Walt Disney, Cost Plus World Market, Johnson & Johnson, Lost Arrow (Patagonia, etc.), Wells Fargo, Whole Foods Market, and Nationwide (insurance), among others.
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
To: Premier Dalton McGuinty and Attorney General Michael Bryant
Pointed to by Canada Family Action Coalition website
Online as of 20 January 2007
http://www.petitiononline.com/3parents/
As Canadian citizens and residents of Ontario, we the undersigned urge you to appeal the Ontario Appeal Court decision on January 2, 2007, which allowed a 5-year-old boy to have three parents. Such appeal would allow the public and various levels of government to thoroughly study the possible personal, societal, and legal imparts of allowing more than 2 parents for a child. This would be in the best interest of all children and families in Ontario.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
----- 11 -----
Institute calls Ontario Court of Appeal three parent decision act of "naked judicial activism"
Date: Jan 03, 2007
Institute for Canadian Values
http://canadianvalues.ca/news.aspx?aid=249
OTTAWA - The Institute for Canadian Values is calling a ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal that a child can have three parents "unnecessary" and an act of "naked judicial activism" not unlike the same Court's 2003 ruling redefining marriage.
"Yesterday's decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal that a child can have three parents was an act of naked judicial activism," said Joseph C. Ben-Ami, Executive Director and Director of Policy Development for the ICV.
The case involved an Application by the lesbian partner of a child's mother to be recognized as a legal parent despite the fact that the child's father still actively participates in the child's life. Her argument was that, although she is a de facto parent, she had no legal right to make parenting decisions on behalf of the child and may be prevented from exercising her authority should the child's biological mother die or become unable to make decisions on behalf of the child.
The case was originally dismissed in 2003.
Although he acknowledged the validity of the concerns raised, Ben-Ami dismissed them as justification for the Court's Ruling.
"Disputes regarding who makes legal decisions on behalf of minor children, including disputes between children's actual parents, are adjudicated every day in Canada on a case by case basis in the best interest of the children without the need to change the definition of family," observed Ben-Ami. "The unlikely possibility of such a dispute arising at some time in the future between these adults is no justification for this sweeping Ruling. The only explanation is that the Court saw this case as an opportunity to entrench so-called alternative family structures in law without submitting the idea to the rigours of the legislative process."
----- 12 -----
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
(A Focus on the Family project)
For Immediate Release
January 2, 2007
http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/Three-Parent_Case_Jan_2_2007.pdf
ARE THREE PARENTS REALLY
IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST?
(Ottawa) A decision brought down on January 2, 2007, by the Court of Appeal for Ontario allows for the legal recognition of three parents. “Today’s ruling in favour of the so-called Three Parent Case sends an ominous message regarding the foundation of family,” stated Dave Quist, Executive Director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.
There are significant short-term and long-term outcomes that follow this decision. “This ruling leaves a number of unanswered questions hanging over our heads. In the event of adversarial applications for parental recognition, who decides? How does custody work in three parent divorces? How many parents can a child have? How do grandparent rights apply?” asked Quist.
“Unfortunately, once again we see judicial activism creating public policy that will affect all of us. Any gaps in existing legislation should not be filled solely by one court, rather it needs to be debated in the appropriate public forum – our legislatures and parliament,” continued Quist.
“Although this is a provincial ruling, this lends support to our call for a Royal Commission on the Future of the Family,” concluded Quist. “The societal implications for this ruling have consequences that should not be decided solely by one court. Social engineering is not the purview of the court, nor should it be. Surely the needs and best interests of children have not been protected under this ruling.”
The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada is an initiative of Focus on the Family (Canada) and participated as an intervener in the Three Parent Case (AA v BB) case as a member of the Alliance for Marriage and the Family.
– 30 –
For additional information or comment, please contact: Dave Quist, Executive Director at 613-565-3832.
2001-130 rue Albert Street Ottawa Ontario Canada K1P 5G4
t 613.565.3832 f/t 613.565.3803 1.866.373.4632
www.imfcanada.org
----- 13 -----
Legal Case May Set Precedent Against Religious-Oriented Therapists
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2975
January 11, 2007 – Dr. Chris Rosik, a leader in the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has published a review of a legal case from 2001 that may be used to stifle the religious beliefs of therapists who refuse to provide pro-homosexual counseling services in their practices.
Rosik reviewed an article from the Journal of Counseling & Development by M.A. Herman and B.R. Herilhy. The authors reviewed a legal case from the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2001 that ruled against a Christian therapist who refused to provide positive counseling for a homosexual (identified only as Jane Doe) seeking a better relationship with her partner.
The therapist was eventually terminated by her counseling service and then filed a wrongful termination lawsuit. She lost.
Herman and Herilhy believe that religiously-oriented therapists should be willing to provide positive counseling for homosexuals even if they personally oppose the lifestyle.
[...]
“This case is simply one more example of how homosexual activists and radical liberal judges are determined to undermine religious freedom in this country in favor of the homosexual agenda,”said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. “This is why our effort to reform the federal court system is so important.”
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
Fox Deliberately Displays the F-Word During Prime Time Football
Your complaint will be sent to and filed with the Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau. NOTE: To speed the process of your complaint, please include your local Fox station call letters (ex. WLOV) where indicated on the complaint letter text box below.
American Family Association
ACTION ALERT
Online as of 20 January 2007
http://www.afa.net/petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=230
It used to be that you could sit down and watch an evening football game with your children without fear of them being exposed to inappropriate material. Sadly, that's no longer the case as was proven Saturday night during the Fox broadcast of the NFL playoff game between the New Orleans Saints and the Philadelphia Eagles.
During a cutaway shot to the stadium spectators, the camera focused directly on a woman wearing a t-shirt clearly inscribed with the words "F--k Da Eagles" (without the dashes). The shot stayed focused on the woman and her shirt for several seconds. There can be no doubt that this was an intentional airing of patently offensive language on the public airwaves, as the person wearing the profane t-shirt was culled by Fox Network's broadcast crew from more than 70,000 spectators in the stadium. The camera operator selected that particular woman and the director and/or producers of the event made an affirmative and conscious decision to air the shot from that particular camera, forcing the f-word into millions of homes. Furthermore, the v-chip would not and could not have protected children and families from the type of content evidenced here.
To view the offensive scene, click here ( http://www.afa.net/images/eagles.gif ). WARNING – GRAPHIC CONTENT
Fans on the East Coast saw this obscenity televised during the Family Hour (8:30 p.m. ET) -- but it aired at 5:30 p.m. in the evening on the West Coast.
Send Your Letter Now!
----- 15 -----
That’s what Christians do
By Don WILDMON | AFA founder/chairman
Online (and pointed to) as of 20 January 2007
Originally published August, 1999
http://www.afajournal.org/2006/nov-dec/1206don.asp
In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court said it was OK to kill unborn babies. Since then, we have killed more than the entire population of Canada. And it continues. A woman’s choice? Half of those who have died in their mothers’ wombs have been women. They didn’t have a choice. It is called abortion.
Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.
First it was in dingy, dirty theaters. Then, convenience stores. Then, grocery stores. Then on television. Now it is in the homes of millions via the Internet. It is called pornography.
Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.
They called it no-fault. Why should we blame anyone when something so tragic happens? Haven’t they already suffered enough? Half of the marriages in America end this way. The children suffer. The family breaks down. It is called divorce.
Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.
At one time it was a perversion. We kept it secret. We offered help and hope for those who practised it. Now it is praised. We have parades celebrating it, and elected officials give it their blessings. Now it is endowed with special privileges and protected by special laws. Even some Christian leaders and denominations praise it. It is called homosexuality.
Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.
[More at URL]
----- 16 -----
Struggling Gays and Lesbians Welcomed
PFOX REACHES OUT WITH MESSAGE OF HOPE
By Ed Vitagliano | AFA Journal news editor
American Family Association Journal
http://www.afajournal.org/2006/september/0906PFOX.asp
Homosexuality is a flashpoint in the culture wars, but that lifestyle is more than simply a political issue for gays and lesbians who struggle with it. For those who want to change, there are a number of organizations which are willing to help them find freedom.
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) is one of them. It was founded in 1998 by families who had homosexual children, and by friends of the ex-gay community.
“PFOX was started because there were no organizations supporting parents in loving their homosexual children unconditionally,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX, in an interview with AFA Journal. At the time, she added, the secular-minded organizations dealing with homosexuality insisted “that parents love their children only if they affirm the child’s homosexual behavior.”
[...]
Following the PTA-PFOX dust-up concerning the 2005 convention, AFA Journal (11-12/05) interviewed Weselak to allow her to explain PTA’s position. She said PFLAG was only present “to help educate and inform parents on the topic of bullying in order to help make their children more safe in schools. And that’s what their invitation was based upon.”
However, psychology professor Dr. Warren Throckmorton, director of the college counseling service at Grove City College in Pennsylvania and a spokesman for PFOX, said Weselak’s explanation wasn’t the whole story.
“In fact, [PFLAG] had an article that was distributed to all the attendees criticizing my work in sexual identity therapy [that helps homosexuals leave that lifestyle],” he said. “Now what does that have to do with bullying?”
Furthermore, he said, PFLAG used its workshop in 2005 to stress the need to raise more “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” issues in the shaping of public school policies and curricula. Once again, Throckmorton noted, such matters fall far outside a simple message about bullying.
What also troubles PFOX officials is the fact that PFLAG is a political advocacy group that promotes homosexual political causes like same-sex marriage, hate-crime laws, and gay adoption. Griggs, for example, believes that giving PFLAG a forum at the PTA convention is nothing short of an implicit endorsement of the homosexual advocacy group’s radical agenda.
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
Nature has its say
DVD SERIES LETS ANIMAL BEHAVIOR, DESIGN UNDERMINE EVOLUTION
By Ed Vitagliano | AFA Journal news editor
American Family Association Journal
http://www.afajournal.org/2006/september/0906origines.asp
What do giraffes, woodpeckers, beavers, spiders and geckos all have in common? According to one video series, they all clearly demonstrate the variety and creative brilliance of nature’s God – and in the process undermine the theory of evolution.
Titled Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution, the series from Exploration Films (www.explorationfilms.com) drives a stake through the heart of the evolution monster by arguing that the complexity of animal design and behavior cannot be the result of chance and random mutations. Instead, it is proof of creationism, which states that the God of the Bible is the Creator – and the mind behind the natural world and the universe. This view takes the Bible’s Genesis account of creation literally.
The video series features Dr. Jobe Martin, founder of Biblical Discipleship Ministries, who has an enthusiastic delivery as he explains the arguments of creationism to viewers. He has spent the last 20 years exploring the differences between evolution and creationism.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
FOR MORAL ISSUES TO PREVAIL
America's historic sites reveal her Christian foundation
American Family Association Journal
by Stephen McDowell
http://www.afajournal.org/2006/october/1006mcdowell.asp
Throughout history, nations have built monuments, usually to record victories in battle or to honor their gods. Every nation’s monuments and national symbols reflect the heart of the people and identify what they believe is the source of their nation’s greatness and achievements.
However, America’s monuments were not built to record countries conquered or battles won. Our memorials contain the declaration that the source of our birth, liberty, and greatness is God.
A tour of our historic sites reveals that America was a nation birthed by men who had a firm reliance upon Almighty God and His Son Jesus Christ.
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
Brownback, Hunter to Join Blogs For Life Conference
Family Research Council
Online as of 20 January 2007
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=HOME
On Monday, January 22nd at 9:00 am, Family Research Council will host Blogs for Life, the second annual conference of pro-life bloggers.
Blogs for Life is scheduled to take place the day of the 34th annual March for Life, during which thousands of pro-life advocates gather in the Nation's capitol to celebrate life and demand the reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
The conference will feature Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA). Other featured speakers include Bobby Schindler, the brother of Terri Schindler Schiavo and Ramesh Ponnuru, noted author of The Party of Death and senior editor at National Review. Blogs for Life is an excellent opportunity for individuals and organizations to network with pro-life bloggers and develop an understanding of how weblog technology can be used to strategically promote life and transform ideas into action as we move toward a post-Roe America.
For more information or to register for this free event visit the Blogs for Life website.
----- 20 -----
Brownback joins race seeking to conservatives' choice
JOHN HANNA
Associated Press
20 January 2007
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/16508409.htm
TOPEKA, Kan. - Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback jumped into the 2008 presidential race Saturday, a favorite of religious conservatives in an uphill battle against better-known rivals for the Republican nomination.
"I am a conservative and I'm proud of being a conservative," he proclaimed to hundreds of supporters.
The 50-year-old Brownback, serving his second term in the Senate, considers himself a "full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative." In his remarks, he pledged to fight on behalf of the nation's cultural values and to focus on rebuilding families.
"Search the record of history. To walk away from the Almighty is to embrace decline for a nation," Brownback said. "To embrace him leads to renewal, for individuals and for nations."
Brownback entered a Republican field with as many as 10 potential candidates, including Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
"My positions are at the heart of where the Republican Party is," Brownback told reporters after his speech. "I'm willing to take those positions with all comers."
[...]
This week, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson said he wouldn't vote for McCain "under any circumstances," adding, "I pray that we will not get stuck with him."
Duke University's Rohde said Brownback is in a relatively good position as a dark-horse candidate because among the big names, "There is no representative of the conservative wing of the party, so somebody's going to have to come forward to claim that mantle."
[More at URL]
----- 21 -----
Clock Runs Out on the Family
January 18, 2007 - Thursday
Family Research Council
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 18, 2007 CONTACT: J.P. Duffy, (866) FRC-NEWS
Will Speaker Pelosi Schedule a Family Hour?
Washington, D.C. - As Congress finishes the first '100 Hours,' Family Research Council President Tony Perkins asks "when will Speaker Pelosi schedule a family hour?" FRC is also releasing an overview of the best and worst legislation that can be expected in a media environment of great expectations.
"Hard working families across this country will be watching to see if all the pro-family sentiments expressed during the campaign become real policies that help and protect our children and our most sacred institutions. Is there a part two to the '100 hours' or is this all we get? We will remain vigilant to protect our families from liberal extremism and heavy-handed social engineering."
Worst of Legislation:
Legislation that establishes "hate crimes," funds abortion, regulates grassroots efforts to contact Congress, raises taxes on families, ends abstinence programs, allows human cloning, and protects groups that support sex-trafficking and prostitution.
Best of Legislation:
The priority list includes twenty five legislative items such as the Marriage Protection Amendment, child tax credit, Informed Choice Act, Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, and the Public Expression of Religion Act.
"Speaker Pelosi claims to seek common ground on social issues," Perkins said. "Once she concludes the first '100 hours,' we urge her to schedule at least an hour on pro-family legislation. Judging from the first '100 hours,' it appears that we must be ready to counter a slew of legislation that will fail to live up to pre-election hype. It won't be policy to reach out to the majority of Americans, but pay back for liberal and cultural activists."
To Obtain a Complete Copy of FRC's List of Priorities, please visit www.frc.org.
----- 22 -----
Stand for Life: Tell President Bush to Defend the Unborn from New Attacks
Family Research Council
Online as of 20 January 2007
https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PT06L01&f=AL07A04&track=0
Please sign the following petition to President Bush requesting a veto of any anti-life or anti-abstinence bills.
Dear President Bush:
Thank you for strongly supporting the dignity of human life. I wish to especially thank you for the steps you have taken to protect the sanctity of human life, which have included reinstating the Mexico City Policy, vetoing a bill that would have required U.S. taxpayers to fund research requiring the killing of human embryos, and supporting pro-life legislation such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
I am also encouraged by your strong support of abstinence-until-marriage programs. These programs convey to adolescents a commonsense message that is critical for preventing teen pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. I respectfully ask that you veto any bill that would weaken or eliminate current pro-life policies, or any bill that would undermine abstinence-until-marriage programs.
Your leadership has been an encouragement to a growing pro-life community.
[More at URL]
