Opinion Essay: Why Rick Warren Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

Barack Obama’s selection to give the prayer at his upcoming inaugural continues to stir controversy. Rick Warren, author of the mega-bestsellingThe Purpose-Driven Life and pastor of a California megachurch, is controversial, because he opposes abortion rights and has campaigned to ban same-sex marriage.

Gay rights activists are particularly incensed. They insist that Obama, elected with overwhelming support from the gay community, should never have picked such a “divisive” figure. Gay rights advocates have called Warren “homophobic” and “hateful” for his support of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that invalidated same-sex marriage in California.

**To watch and read about Rick Warren’s interview with Ann Curry, click here. UNFORTUNATELY…they don’t play the whole interview, and the place the website chose to stop the interview clearly shows their bias.**

Whenever one examines the issue of same-sex marriage, it must be done on two levels. First, the secular, civil level. And, then, the moral and religious one. In Warren’s case, focus is generally on the issue’s religious dimension, since the California pastor is…well…a pastor. 

This blog post won’t get into the civil aspects of the issue. I understand some people objecting to Warren bringing his religious beliefs into the public arena. I understand that criticism, though I don’t agree with it, since a Christian has as much right to engage the public policy arena as any other citizen. But we’ll leave that aspect of the issue for another day. For now, let’s focus on the religious dimension of same-sex marriage.

It’s clear that Rick Warren has little choice on the matter of same-sex marriage, when it comes to his Christian faith. The Bible from which he preaches clearly condemns homosexuality. If Warren were to support same-sex marriage, he would be turning his back on the Bible. This is simply not something a conscientious, honest, sincere, Bible-believing evangelical can do. 

David R. Stokes, a pastor himself and columnist for TownHall.com, points this out in an excellent op-ed titled “An Evangelical Bridge Too Far.” Pastor Stokes writes:

“No matter how understanding evangelicals are and how sincere some are to open a dialogue with same-sex marriage advocates and activists, there can be no real rapprochement without the willingness to change the way the Bible is read and interpreted. And that would be an evangelical bridge too far.”

Sincere, Bible-believing evangelicals don’t oppose same-sex marriage because of hate or homophobia. They object to gay marriage, because of what the Bible teaches on the subject. Pure and simple. 

And while some gay rights activists will point out that earlier generations of evangelical Christians supported slavery and segregation on religious grounds, it’s clear from a straightforward reading of Scripture that racism and race-based slavery are not consistent with Christian principles.

To argue that the Bible endorses race-based slavery shows the same kind of shallow and twisted logic that says the Bible supports polygamy. The Bible clearly condemns involuntary slavery with its denunciation of stealing and covetousness as well as Jesus’ teachings on the Golden Rule. The fact that some people in the Bible practiced slavery doesn’t make slavery right. The same is true for polygamy. 

In the case of homosexuality, the Bible’s moral teachings are consistent throughout. Of course, some critics of the Bible use this against Christians.

These critics argue that the harsh penalties for homosexuals in the Old Testament should prove that a literal reading of the Bible belongs in the past. These critics, among them scholars like former Anglican Bishop John Shelby Spong, say that Christianity must change and adapt to accommodate new discoveries and realities. 

It’s true that the Mosaic Law contained rather harsh and punitive measures for homosexuals (as well as for rebellious teenagers, witches, etc.), but the Mosaic Law was unique and is not one-dimensional. Parts of the Mosaic Law, particularly the ceremonial aspects and the penalties assigned to certain offenses, were temporary and applicable only to the Hebrew nation. 

This is particularly clear with the addition of the New Testament, which separates the Kingdom of God from the realm of Caesar and which elevates grace over law. Christians in the New Testament and post-New Testament era are not called upon to use the arm of government to enforce specific religious orthodoxy, and the penalties of sin (whatever the sin may be) are in God’s purview. It’s the role of Christians today to reach out with love and compassion, not hatred or vengeance.

And few Christians have reached out with more love and compassion than Rick Warren. He and his wife have become global leaders in the fight against AIDS and poverty. To say now that Rick Warren is homophobic or hateful, because he takes a public position against same-sex marriage is unfair and quite extreme. 

I hold a strong position against polygamy. As does Warren, I’m sure. Does that mean we hate those who practice polygamy??? 

To disagree with someone is NOT the same as hating him or her. Disagreement – even public disagreement – is not hatred. And opposing part of the gay rights agenda doesn’t mean one is homophobic. 

For crying out loud, I voted against a referendum in Ohio that would’ve allowed casino gambling in Clinton County. But I surely don’t hate people who gamble. My wife’s parents gamble – and do so in casinos. And I love and respect them. 

It’s utterly outrageous to say that Rick Warren is a bigoted homophobe, because he opposes same-sex marriage. He has every right to oppose it — and to do so publicly. And his biblical convictions dictate that he oppose it!

And this is where the rubber meets the road. The choice that many (if not most) gay rights activists are giving people of faith (especially people of evangelical Christian faith) is this…

Support the gay rights agenda and, in doing so, jettison or change your religious beliefs….OR….be branded a hateful bigot! 

Many evangelicals will cave to this pressure, because no one (least of all a true Christian) wants to be associated with bigotry or hate. But an honest Christian can’t simply jettison the Bible or change its meaning to suit his or her needs at the moment. The Bible is either the Word of God or it’s not. And if it is the Word of God, then it carries authority with it. 

It is not for Rick Warren to decide whether the Bible is right about homosexuality. If Rick Warren is to be true to his Christian convictions and true to the Bible for what it is, then he has no choice but to support traditional marriage.

Brian Tubbs is a pastor, educator, writer, and speaker living in Clinton County, Ohio. 

UFI: Success in 2008

As we come to the end of another year, we at United Families International wish to thank all of you for your support during our 30th Anniversary year!  What a year it has been!  We have been successful on many fronts thanks to your willingness to support our efforts.

We hope we can count on your support again in 2009.  It is crucial that we receive your donation before the end of the year so we can finalize our plans for 2009.  Our ability to continue this work on behalf of families throughout the world depends on you! Your donations in 2008 provided us with critical resources.  We accomplished so much because of you!

Here are a few of the highlights your support helped us achieve:

• In March, while lobbying at the United Nations at the Commission on the Status of Women, UFI was able to work with other pro-family organizations and split the European Union in order to defeat pro-abortion language. http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=138

• In April, as part of the pro-family international coalition leadership, we worked with Kosovo’s parliament leaders to craft language for their new constitution that would protect the rights of families, religion, marriage, and life. http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=134

• From May through November, United Families played an important role as a integral component of the ProtectMarriage coalition in California.  Through the educational tools and speakers we provided, we were able to help secure the passage of Proposition 8.  http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=243

• In May, we announced two new partners for our abstinence-based HIV/AIDS prevention program – Stay Alive.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Catholic Church, both announced that they would begin pilot programs to implement Stay Alive in Kenya and Tanzania.http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=131

• In October, we celebrated our 30th Anniversary and announced that Giff and Wendy Nielsen would be honored as our Champions of the Family Award recipients.  http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=249

• In November, we joined with other ProtectMarriage coalition leaders to denounce the attacks the opposition was making on individuals, churches and businesses who contributed time and money to support Proposition 8 in California. http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=244

• In December, we joined with other pro-family organizations and presented thousands of your signatures to the United Nations General Assembly to show support for the original intent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=244

Thanks to your support we were able to make significant inroads in the protection of families, religious liberty, and sanctity of life.  As you consider your year-end giving, please make a significant contribution to United Families so that at the end of 2009 we will have many more wonderful successes to report.

Happy New Year!

Beverly Rice, UFI President

Baby Born at 23 weeks Challenges UK Abortion Laws

The UK news service, Mail Online reports the following story:

When Lexie Slater-Folksman was born at 23 weeks  -  an age at which babies can still be aborted  -  she weighed just 1lb 8oz.

She was put on a life support machine and her parents were warned their daughter might not pull through.  She was so premature her eyes hadn’t even developed properly. At a month old she underwent laser surgery on her eyes and then spent week after week on ventilator machines after she suffered collapsed lungs.

But Lexie defied the odds and gradually gained strength.

Now, six months after her birth, she weighs a healthy 8lb and has finally been allowed home, to the joy and relief of her parents, 20-year-old Sarah Slater and her fiance Richard Folksman, 25.

They say Lexie’s case proves that the abortion laws are outdated and should be changed. At 23 weeks, Lexie was born a week before the time limit for termination.

The Telegraph, another UK news outlet, continues:

Last May, two months before she was born, MPs voted for the upper time limit for abortions to remain at 24 weeks after rejecting proposals to reduce the time limit to as little as 12 weeks.

Anti abortion campaigners had argued the time limit for termination was too long saying a baby’s rights should be considered at the point it had the “chance of life”.

Her mother Miss Slater, from Wigan, Greater Manchester said, “We’re so glad to have Lexie home with us at last and it just shows how outmoded our laws on abortion are.

“Some mothers-to-be would be able to legaly terminate their pregnancy at 23 weeks – yet my Lexie is living proof babies can survive being born so prematurely.

“I never realised a baby would be so well developed at 23 weeks and they do have a chance life. My Lexie is living proof the abortion limit should be lowered.

“I’m so grateful to everyone at the hospital who helped to keep our daughter alive.”

Planned Parenthood Fears Outside Scrutiny – Chooses Closely Linked Group to Implement ‘Reform’

December 30th, LOS ANGELES – Lila Rose, 20-year old president of Live Action, responds to a public statement made by Planned Parenthood of Indiana President Betty Cockrum in defense of her organization after investigative videos shot in Bloomington and Indianapolis clinics showed the criminal cover up of statutory rape. Rose calls for Planned Parenthood of Indiana to publicly release the number of reports Planned Parenthood of Indiana has made to Child Protective Services in conjunction with the number of minors to whom they have provided STD testing, abortion counseling, pregnancy testing, and birth control.

In an open letter to Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Rose says that comparing these two statistics will begin to give the public a more accurate picture of the extent to which Planned Parenthood fails to report adult-child sexual relationships. The letter outlines the two paths Rose believes Cockrum can choose. “Planned Parenthood of Indiana may either opt for transparency in service to the rule of law, or choose to continue in the same secrecy that has already caused deep public distrust and summoned a state investigation.”

Rose questions the abortion provider’s commitment to reform in light of new information uncovered by Live Action. Live Action revealed today that Prevent Child Abuse Indiana, the group selected by Planned Parenthood for internal reforms, has close ties with Planned Parenthood. Prevent Child Abuse of Indiana’s lead “prevention specialist,” Carol Pool, worked for Planned Parenthood of Indiana for thirteen years as an “educator” who gave sex education workshops. Planned Parenthood of Indiana’s website says, “PCAI is a great organization,” and states, “Family planning services go hand-in-hand with the prevention of child abuse.”

“For Planned Parenthood to enlist the help of its friends and former employees at PCAI in the name of reform is like a predator saying he will babysit his victim,” said Rose.

She calls the promise of “staff re-training” by Planned Parenthood a public relations ploy. “All employees in the videos expressed knowledge of their legal obligation to report the rape,” said Rose. “This is not a matter of knowing the laws. When Planned Parenthood doesn’t like a law, they break it.”

Actual cases of Planned Parenthood covering up adult-child sexual relationships have been reported in Arizona, California, Ohio, and Washington D.C.

“These incidents, and our undercover work, reveal a disturbing pattern of lawlessness,” Rose explains. “Planned Parenthood needs to release all applicable statistical data on the number of minors it treats in sexual abuse situations and the number of these cases it reports to law enforcement.”

The open letter can be found on Live Action’s website, www.liveactionfilms.org. The second investigative video, released last week, can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTxsWZz9whg

NEWS: Spain: Big Pro-Family Rally in Madrid

MADRID, Spain (AP) — Hundreds of thousands of people attended a Mass in central Madrid on Sunday designed to promote traditional family values in a predominantly Roman Catholic country that has legalized gay marriage and made it easier for people to divorce.

The service started with a message from Pope Benedict XVI, who urged Spanish Catholics to keep their families strong.

“Dear families, do not let love, openness to life and the incomparable links that join your homes weaken,” the pope said in a message read out in Madrid. “The pope is by your side,” the pontiff added.

The archbishop of Madrid, Antonio Maria Rouco Varela, added: “the future of humanity depends on the family, the Christian family.”

“It is possible to conceive, organize and live marriage and family in a very different way from what is in fashion in so many areas of our society,” he said in a homily.

Neither police nor city officials would give an estimate of how many people attended, but the crowd appeared to number in the hundreds of thousands. In chilly, overcast weather, the faithful packed downtown Plaza de Colon and spilled out into streets running off from it in four directions.

Maria Rosa de la Cierva, leader of a church association representing Catholics in Madrid province, predicted before the Mass began that up to a million people would attend.

Spain’s Socialist government has angered the church by legalizing gay marriage, making it easy for people to divorce and instituting a public school course in which children learn about homosexuality and same-sex marriages. It is also considering easing Spain’s restrictive abortion law.

Rouco Varela called abortion one of the worst “scourges” of modern times.

He concelebrated the Mass along with five other archbishops, 22 bishops and more than 300 priests.

A similar Mass and rally were held at this time last year in the same square, and organizers put attendance at well over a million. Then, bishops criticized the Spanish government over its social policies but this time there were no such remarks.

The Fight FOCA Petition

In 2004, for the first time, California Senator Barbara Boxer introduced The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).  To date, the Bill has not been signed in to law but if passed, it would override every piece of Pro-Life legislation that has been made on a local, state, or national level.  Sen. Boxer herself said that this radical Pro-Abortion legislation would ”supercede any law, regulation or local ordinance that impinges on a woman’s right to choose.”  

Last year Barack Obama told the now famously corrupt Pro-Abortion organization, Planned Parenthood, that the first thing he would do as president of the United States is sign FOCA into law.  As the legislative and  executive branches of the U.S. government are controlled by the party that traditionally supports abortion, FOCA may be close to becoming law.  

As defenders of the unborn, we must do all we can to ensure that their rights are protected.  The Pro-Life group, Americans United for Life has taken part in a project called FightFOCA.com.  FightFOCA.com is a great resource for all Americans to educate themselves on FOCA and sign the Fight FOCA Petition.  For 30 years, United Families International has been devoted to maintaining and strengthening the family as the fundamental unit of society.  We have fought on all levels of government to support the sanctity of human life, including unborn children.  We are happy to join with Americans United for Life and voice our opposition to abortion.

FOCA would eradicate state and federal laws that the majority of Americans support, such as:

Bans on Partial Birth Abortion
Requirements that women be given information about the risks of getting an abortion
Only licensed physicians can perform abortions
Parents must be informed and give consent to their minor daughter’s abortion

FOCA would erase these laws and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future.

The Fight FOCA Petition:

I oppose the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), because:

• FOCA is a radical attempt to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law;
• FOCA seeks to sweep aside existing, protective laws that I and the majority of Americans support;
• FOCA will prevent states from enacting protective measures in the future.

The FightFOCA petition will be sent to key Members of Congress upon the re-introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act in the 111th Congress, and to President-Elect Obama.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION

 

Opinion Essay: Adoption, Abortion, and Solutions

We all probably know someone who has been adopted.  In my case, my brother, 8 months my elder is adopted.  I also have dear friends who are adopted.  I can hardly imagine my life without them.  I think about the times I have spent with them, I have participated with them in their success, and seen the things that bring them joy.  These people have made me who I am and I am ever grateful to them.  The thought that their birth mothers may have been so close to abortion and the idea that these people way not be in my life is enough to make me cringe.  I marvel at the love of these birth mothers who so unselfishly carried these precious people to full term to put them into a better situation. 

My desire is that each  may come to a better understanding of the dangers of abortion, and the positive aspects of adoption.  I will discuss the effects on the aborting mother and the anguish that she passes through emotionally and physically.  I will touch on proposed methods to educate people about pregnancy and safe sex, and provide information about an organization dedicated to making the adoption process smooth.

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform states that 52% of abortions are performed on women younger than 25 years old.  Teens account for 20% of all abortions.  To stunt the problem of teenage pregnancy parents must take responsibility for teaching their kids about sex.  Families must discuss the risks of becoming sexually active and the dangers that are associated with having multiple partners.  Our schools must also tastefully teach sex-ed and students should be informed on the topics of contraceptives.  Teens must understand the power of procreation and the problems that can arise in if this power is misused.

We must also teach the public about the dangerous reality of abortions.  Many studies have revealed some startling facts about the after effects of an abortion.  The British Medical Journal published that physically, women who have an abortion run the risk of becoming sterile, never able to have a natural child.  Those who are not sterile face a greater chance of having complications in their future pregnancies.  Many other health concerns arise after an abortion operation such as hemorrhage, convulsions, and severe infection. 

Worse than the physical effects are the potential emotional damages to an aborting mother.  According to The British Journal of OBGYN, in the weeks after the abortion 50% of women admit to feelings of intense guilt and one-third regret their decision to abort.  According to studies by Dr. David Reardon, a leader in the study of post-abortion research tells that the most frequent reactions to an abortion include: depression, loss of self-esteem, self-destructive behavior, sleep disorders, memory loss, sexual dysfunction, chronic problems with relationships, dramatic personality changes, anxiety attacks, guilt and remorse, difficulty grieving, increased tendency toward violence, chronic crying, difficulty concentrating, flashbacks, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities and people, and difficulty bonding with later children.  The most devastating findings from research say that 80% of women who have abortions later express feelings of “self-hatred” with 60% entertaining the thought of suicide with 30% of them actually attempting suicide.  These stats are depressing and hopefully they awaken us to a need for an alternative to abortion that avoids the physical and emotional damage.

One organization with the cause of helping women make the decision between adoption and abortion is LDS Family Services.  LDS Family Services is an organization run by and paid for by the LDS Church.  Although the organization is run by the church, it’s services are available to people of all faiths, religions, races, economic standing, and sexual orientation.  According to the LDS Church website, LDS Family Services is a non-profit organization that offers individual, marital, and family counseling.  Their unwed parent services include counseling, medical, and educational assistance, along with the adoption services if the parents so chose.

If a mother chooses to give her child up for adoption, LDS Family Services will guide her through the entire process.  The mother can choose the couple who will receive her child and the mother and couple may even discuss if the adoption is an open or closed adoption.  Although adoption may normally be expensive, this organization is able cut cost thanks to donations from members of the church and donations from members of the community.          

This is a topic that is very real and close to me.  A lot of the happiness in my life has come from the close interactions I have had with adopted people in my life.  On the other hand, I have had the opportunity of meeting with several women who have had abortions.  I have looked into their eyes and felt their pain.  I have gained a personal knowledge of adoption and abortion and I wish that each of us could gain our own understanding so that when it comes time for us or someone we know to make a decision we will be ready.

I hope that the right to life is always respected.  I hope that when a decision is being made about an “un”expectant pregnancy all factors are taken into consideration, especially the factor of potential for both mother and child. I call to each of you who have been informed, to share these dangers of abortion and spread the good news of adoption.  In truth, LDS Family Services does not need your money, but they do need you to tell others about their many services, especially those who will benefit as they make the difficult choice as to what steps to take as they deal with an unexpected pregnancy.  As we support adoption, we support the life of a mother or an adopted individual who will come into our lives and change us for the better.

Prop. 8 UPDATE: CA Attorney General Changes Position

The U.S. News and World Report wrote on Dec. 22:

“Supporters of Proposition 8, the California initiative that eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry last month, reacted with surprise and dismay this weekend to the announcement by the state’s attorney general that he had reversed his position and would ask California’s high court to invalidate the measure.

Jerry Brown, the state’s attorney general—and a leading candidate to replace Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor in two years—filed papers on Friday asking the state Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, which amends the state’s Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The decision is a major reversal for Brown, whose office argued against same-sex marriage in the spring, only to see the Supreme Court find a law banning gay marriage unconstitutional. After last month’s election, in which 52 percent of voters effectively reinstated that law by supporting Proposition 8, Brown again said he would support the will of the people.

In a brief filed on Friday, Brown abruptly changed sides, saying he had looked closely at state precedent and had concluded that he couldn’t defend the new law. “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Brown’s brief says. The state Supreme Court, in its decision earlier this year, found that gay couples enjoy the same fundamental right to marry that straight people do.”

National Review Online added:

“On Friday, California attorney general Jerry Brown decided not to honor an earlier promise to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the state marriage amendment approved by voters on November 4. California voters were denied even a pro forma defense of the measure by the government official constitutionally charged to enforce state law — because he just changed his mind.

Opponents of the measure, including the city and county of San Francisco, then filed suit saying that Proposition 8’s single-sentence amendment was such a major change to the state constitution that it should have been approved by the legislature before going to voters and was thereby invalid. (This same legislature had twice voted to overturn California’s marriage law, enacted by voter initiative, despite a clear constitutional provision saying that a voter initiative could not be overturned by a legislative vote.) This is the case in which the attorney general has now decided that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is beyond the pale.

Ken Starr will be part of the legal team defending Proposition 8 on behalf of its proponents. It should be remembered that these proponents were granted the right to defend the marriage law only because the California supreme court gave them special permission to be part of the case. Without that permission, Proposition 8 would have gone without a voice in court.

All of this serves to confirm the worst fears of Proposition 8’s supporters. The political and legal elites of the state have done all within their power to endorse the idea that support for traditional marriage is the rankest kind of bigotry that does not deserve even a nominal word in its favor by government officials.

If Proposition 8 does not hold, this new dogma will be the official state policy — and this in spite of a clear legal mandate of the voters of the state to the contrary.

A court order invalidating Proposition 8 would also give the supreme court a super-constitutional power, above the amendment process provided for in the text of the constitution, to determine what subjects are germane to constitutional lawmaking by the people of the state. There is no other way to understand this new theory that a manufactured and unenumerated “right” can become so “fundamental” that it can no longer be the subject of a simple amendment. And, of course, who will decide whether a right has attained this stature? The California supreme court. 

The question now appears to be whether the California supreme court will step away from the brink of legal chaos and affirm the principle that the government of California will be a government of laws and not of men and women.”

Kenneth Starr to Defend Prop. 8 Before CA. Supreme Court

The LA Times reports:

 

Kenneth W. Starr, the former U.S. Solicitor General who led the inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica L. Lewinsky, will argue the case in favor of upholding a ban on gay marriage before the California Supreme Court.

Starr was today named lead counsel for the official proponents of Proposition 8. This afternoon, the group filed court briefs defending the legality of the proposition, which was approved by 52% of California voters last month throwing into question thousands of marriages performed during the five months the practice was legal in the state.

UFI President, Beverly Rice had good things to say about the addition to the Yes-On-8 team, “Ken Starr’s expertise in arguing cases before the U.S. Supreme Court will give us a strong voice in our efforts to persuade the CA Supreme Court.  He is a brilliant legal thinker and will be a great asset to our team.” 

UN UPDATE: UFI Helps Gather Signatures Defending The Family

On December 18 Reuters reported the following UN news:

The U.N. General Assembly split over the issue of gay rights on Thursday after a European-drafted statement calling for decriminalization of homosexuality prompted an Arab-backed one opposing it.

Diplomats said a joint statement initiated by France and the Netherlands gathered 66 signatures in the 192-nation assembly after it was read out by Argentina at a plenary session. A rival statement, read out by Syria, gathered some 60.

The two statements remained open for further signatures, the diplomats said. No resolution was drafted on the issue and there was no voting, they added.

The division in the General Assembly reflected conflicting laws in the world at large. According to sponsors of the Franco-Dutch text, homosexuality is illegal in 77 countries, seven of which punish it by death.

The European Union-backed document, noting that the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was marked this month, said those rights applied equally to all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

But the opposing document said the statement “delves into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states” and could lead to “the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts including pedophilia.”

“We note with concern the attempts to create ‘new rights’ or ‘new standards,’ by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration and international treaties to include such notions that were never articulated nor agreed by the general membership,” it added.

This, it said, could “seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework.”

Muslim countries have for years opposed international attempts to legalize homosexuality.

U.S. officials said the United States had not signed either document. They said the broad framing of the language in the statement supporting decriminalization created conflicts with U.S. law, but gave no further details.

Last week United Families International spent the week at the UN with a Pro-Family Pro-Life coalition.  During their stay at the UN, UFI, along with the Pro-Family coalition, presented a petition to the UN General Assembly in favor of the family and the rights of the unborn.  In addition to the presentation of the petition, UFI held meetings with several UN Ambassadors that helped get signatures on the opposing document that Reuters cites.

“United Families International is proud to have been instrumental in helping garner additional support for the Pro-Family statement.  Our coalition was happy to have worked specifically with the nation of Egypt on this particular document.”  UFI President, Beverly Rice told the UFI Blog.      

For the past 30 years UFI has worked at the UN to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.  UFI maintains non-government organization (NGO) status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) and works to educate UN ambassadors and delegates on root policies affecting the family. UFI sends representatives, including experts on family issues, to UN conferences to provide legal analysis and peer-reviewed scholarly research in support of UN delegates working to preserve the family. UFI has been successful in affecting the outcome of numerous UN conference documents and in promoting respect for the family, marriage, life, religion, parents and national sovereignty.

Gary Bauer Reports Anti-Family News: 12.17.08

Note: This News Alert was sent by Gary Bauer, click here to subscribe.

Standing For Life 

The Wall Street Journal reports today that the Bush Administration will announce new regulations Friday expanding the “right of conscience” protections for health care providers so that hospitals, doctors, nurses and other workers cannot be forced to participate in abortions or other practices that may violate their religious beliefs. We believe conscience clause protections are extraordinarily important. Whether it’s a Catholic hospital or an evangelical doctor, no one should be forced to participate in a practice they find morally reprehensible. 

Regrettably, however, the Journal also reports that the Obama transition team is already laying out plans to repeal these new rules and force taxpayers to pay for abortions. 

Educating Or Indoctrinating? 

If you thought segregation in education was a thing of the past, think again. Barack Obama’s announced nominee for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who currently heads Chicago’s public school system, was promoting segregation in the schools as recently as October. But in this case, Duncan’s issue wasn’t race but sexual orientation. At an October press conference announcing 20 new schools, Duncan unveiled plans for Chicago’s first “gay, lesbian and transgender” high school. The so-called “School for Social Justice Pride Campus” would “seek to foster a violence-free atmosphere for students who are often targeted for their sexual identities.” Shouldn’t all schools have “violence-free atmospheres”? 

According to the Chicago Tribune, Duncan hailed the “gay high school” concept, saying that he expected “half of its students would be gay while the other half would be straight students with an interest in the social justice focus school officials want to foster.” When I served as Under Secretary of Education in the Reagan Administration, we did our best to keep the focus on reading, writing and arithmetic. But today our kids leave high school knowing precious little about our nation’s founding principles, basic grammar, math and science, and way too much about “social justice” and radical environmentalism. 

Education has given way to indoctrination. And the fact that the head of the Chicago Public School system would be championing the cause of “sexual identity segregation” in the public schools is a sad testimony to the radicalization of education in America today and the agenda of the incoming administration. If Duncan was pushing the creation of homosexual high schools in Chicago, what will his agenda be in Washington?

United Families Arizona Claims Success in 2008, Makes Big Plans for ‘09

Successes of 2008:

Our greatest victory this year has been the passage of Proposition 102 that  defines marriage as between one man and one woman!  It simply would not have passed without you.  There was an undeniable commitment to stand up for traditional family values and to protect the future of our great state.

Not only was the passage of Prop 102 a great success, Arizona has something else to celebrate.  Going against national trends, Arizona voters elected a majority of conservative, pro-family candidates to both the State House and Senate.  Elections always have consequences and with your vote, we can be hopeful that our Arizona legislature will be protecting and defending the family.

Plans for 2009:

We at UFAZ pledge to continue the pro-family momentum in 2009 by continuing to stand and be counted as those who champion the family.  Our 2009 goals include:

- Upholding the five respects of United Families: family, marriage, life, parental rights and sovereignty.

- Sending regular, timely UFAZ correspondence to our Arizona readership.

- Increasing our associations statewide. 

- Sponsoring community-based educational programs throughout the state. 

- Promoting family policy through the state legislative process, in our communities and in our public schools.

Visit United Families Arizona

Media and Governments Seek to Curtail Religious Liberty

Note: This message was sent via the UFI Alert E-Mail Program.  Click here to be included in future UFI Alerts.

Merry Christmas!!  Happy Hanukkah!  Isn’t it wonderful to be able to say that to each other?  As much as we enjoy hearing and saying those phrases, we must realize that right now, during this holiday season, there are those who are working to take it away.  In this season of religious holidays, it is important for us to stop and consider what must be done to preserve our religious freedom.  We must be more cognizant of the forces that seek to strip us of our religious liberty.

Voices in the media and governments are trying desperately to convince us that giving up this freedom will, in fact, make us happier.  Many have tried to suggest that we are living in the past, relying on old books that have no meaning in today’s world.  Governments and world bodies are also trying to convince us to shed our religious beliefs.

Recently, we have seen what happens when people of faith choose to exercise their religious liberty.  With the passage of Proposition 8, a flood of protests have shown that what the opposition really wants is to limit religious freedom to include only those ideas they see as relevant to today’s world.

The December 5, Newsweek  article, “Our Mutual Joy” by religion editor, Lisa Miller, seeks to convince readers that “The Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history.  In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be  (civilly and religiously) married – and a number of excellent reasons why they should.”

The author also tells us that “No matter what one thinks about gay rights – for, against or somewhere in between – this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism.”

She continues by saying, “Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history.”

It is this type of rhetoric that allows us a window into what others really think of those who believe in God.  They believe that we embrace the “worst kind of fundamentalism”.  They think that the Holy Scriptures which are the basis of religious beliefs for millions around the world “give us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be married“.
 
Last week United Families International was in New York for the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  We were there to call upon the General Assembly of the United Nations to reinforce the original intent of the document.  

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

This week, France is collecting more signatures for its own declaration that calls for recognition of “sexual orientation or gender identity” as a protected human rights category on par with race and sex.

If the United Nations begins using sexual orientation or gender identity as protected categories we will see our religious liberties severely curtailed.  Once those categories become protected human rights, governments and courts around the world will begin enacting laws to protect those human rights.  Those laws will have severe consequences for people of faith and their religious freedom.

This is a season of gratitude.  It is a season when we give pause in our busy lives to stop, remember, and worship according to our religious beliefs.  This year, it is also a season to remember that freedom is not won by standing still.  Freedom – religious freedom – is won and will be maintained by recognizing the enemy and choosing to engage in the battle.

United Families International has been engaged in the battle for 30 years.  We urge you to join us today.  Make a contribution so that we can continue fighting for what we all believe in.  Help us keep this season a season where we can wish each other “Merry Christmas!” and “Happy Hanukkah!”

Beverly Rice, UFI President

AGAIN!!: Planned Parenthood Covers Up

On Dec. 3, 2008 the UFI blog reported on Live Action Film’s ‘Mona Lisa Project.’  The Mona Lisa Project is a series of hidden camera investigations, collected summer 2008, documenting the real behavior of the abortion industry across the nation. Despite a consistent pattern of lawlessness and abuse, Planned Parenthood receives over $300 million from taxpayers. The  tax-exempt “nonprofit” netted $100 million in profits last year including revenue in excess of $100 million from performing 250,000 abortions.

“The Mona Lisa Project demonstrates how quickly the abortion industry’s disrespect for unborn children becomes disregard for all humans,” Lila Rose, President of Live Action Films explained. “Planned Parenthood offers no solutions for the victim of statutory rape—they give her an abortion and a bag of condoms and send her straight back into the arms of the abuser.”

The first video of The Mona Lisa Project was released on Dec. 3 and may be viewed by clicking here.  The second Mona Lisa Project video was released today and may be viewed by clicking here.

Why Marriage Matters

Last night, during a discussion over the absurd Newsweek cover story, A Religious Case for Gay Marriage, this comment was made, “If gays are legally able to wed, it will not really affect my marriage, nor your marriage.”  I was pretty surprised to hear that comment and I fear that others may believe this lie.  In truth, if same-sex marriage is legalized it will not only have a tremendous impact on my marriage, but on all current and future marriages.  Families would lose important aspects of religious freedom and the freedoms and rights that are given to parents would be under attack if gays and lesbians are legally allowed to marry.     

One argument that I have made before is that as gay marriage is legal the freedom of religion is lost.  As the marriages of gays and lesbians are legalized around the world, those who are free to practice religion lose aspects of that precious freedom.  Sexual freedom trumps religious freedom, this is a pattern that has happened and will continue to happen as long as states and countries ignore that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The various religions that view homosexuality as a sin would, through the legal process, be forced to change their doctrine or face punishment such as the loss of tax-exempt status or other legal ramifications.  Sexual orientation would be viewed in the same light as race or eye color, characteristics that are by no means controllable, a notion that the teachings of many religious institutions fully oppose.

Take these 3 cases for example:

•  February 24, 2000: A professional printer refused to print material for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives because he felt doing so would violate his religious beliefs. He was fined and ordered to print the material anyway. He took his case to the Ontario Supreme Court and then to the Ontario Court of Appeal and lost both times. His total legal bills exceed $170,000.
• March 10, 2006: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts is forced out of the adoption business for the first time in 100 years because it will not place children with homosexual couples.
• January 28, 2008: Jon and Elaine Huguenin, a young Christian couple from Albuquerque, N.M, were tried before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission after they declined a request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, citing their religious beliefs. The same-sex couple filed a discrimination complaint with the commission, which scheduled the hearing. In the hearing, the Huguenins cited their First Amendment rights, but the commission sided with the same-sex couple. The Huguenins were fined $6,600.

Marriage matters because of the effect on education and the parent’s right to teach and rear their children in the manner they see fit.  It is widely documented that once same-sex marriage becomes legal, it will be taught that it is just as acceptable as heterosexual marriage in public schools.  The schools that will be forced to teach about homosexual marriage and parents will be unable to withdraw their students from these teaching sessions.  Public schools will, by law, be required to teach about gay marriage.  Students will, by law, be required to listen as teachers teach the mandated material.  Parents will, by law, be required to stand by as principles that they disagree with are taught to their children.  I do not wish to practice “fear-mongering,” the scenarios that I have laid out are real and have already happened in some states.   

As a society grows lax in its defense of the traditional family, the goals of the anti-family movement draw closer to fulfillment.  Their desire is to create a genderless society that is run by the state – void of religion, marriage and parents.  They hope for a pleasure-filled culture with no responsibilities and zero accountability.

Archbishop George Niederauer said in a post-Prop. 8 editorial, “Members of churches who supported Proposition 8 sincerely believe that defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is one such issue. They see marriage and the family as the basic building blocks of human society, existing before government and not created by it. Marriage is for us the ideal relationship between a man and woman, in which, through their unique sexual complementarity, the spouses offer themselves to God as co-creators of new human persons, a father and mother giving them life and enabling them to thrive in the family setting.”

MUST READ: The Gay Marriage Mess in Mass.

True Colors of the Rainbow

 

I saw a video clip of a rally protesting California’s Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment that established marriage as between one man and one woman in California. In the video clip there were people waving rainbow flags as a symbol of their protest.

I remember in a eighth grade science class an acronym for the colors of the rainbow. Roy G. Biv - standing for Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet. In honor of my science teacher, Mr. Hauser, I’ve decided to take the acronym and provide my own words to describe the ‘rainbow’ as it relates to these rallies in opposition to Proposition 8. Perhaps, this better describes their true colors.

Rage – those opposed to Prop 8 have sunk to unthinkable lows in their exhibition of anger.
Ostracism - a well defined coalition worked to pass Prop 8. Opponents are simply attempting to break up that coalition by singling out individuals or groups in attempts to have them ostracized by the rest of the coalition.
Yell – If your argument isn’t convincing, simply yell louder. Adopt the mantra of teenage rock bands – If your music stinks, just turn up the volume and maybe someone will notice you.
Government by the people – what they don’t believe in. They want government to just grant unwarranted special treatment to groups that really have no legal standing for such treatment.
Bigotry - No other way to describe the hatred and venom spit at people who’s religious beliefs led them to vote for Prop 8.
Intolerance & intimidation – They speak of tolerance, but redefine it to mean ‘if you don’t agree with me you are intolerant, but if I spit, scream and curse at you, that is within the bounds of tolerance.’
Violence - If all else fails, vandalize property, deface churches or threaten women and children.

People have the right to peaceful assembly and protest. Those protesting the passage of Prop 8 have gone well outsidethe lines of decency in this case. Opponents to Prop 8 speak of hate, but the only hatred in this campaign has been exhibited by them.

By Curtis Anderson, United Families California

Every Choice Has an Attached Consequence

Every Choice Has an Attached Consequence

Every choice has an attached consequence.  CHOICE => CONSEQUENCE  
 
The choice of sexual intercourse carries an attached consequence of a high probability of a baby.  SEX => BABY
 
The trend for many Americans is to enjoy the “pleasure” of their choices:  robbery, murder, laziness, sex,… and do away with the consequences.  As Americans, we must stop facilitating this trend by holding ourselves and others accountable for individual choices.

choose accountability.  choose life.

By Linda Hollist, United Families Georgia

Gary Bauer Reports Anti-Family News

Note: This News Alert was sent by Gary Bauer, click here to subscribe.

The pro-abortion lobby, led by Planned Parenthood and NARAL, have put together a 55-page “strategy memo” outlining their demands on the next administration and Congress. Unbelievably, the Obama transition team posted the document on its website, which gives us a glimpse, an early warning, of the pro-abortion movement’s plan of attack.

It is developing a broad, sweeping assault on the right to life. It is demanding the repeal of all restrictions on abortion at every level. That means repealing the federal ban on the gruesome procedure of partial-birth abortion. That means repealing state parental notification laws. It means gutting abstinence education, while providing more of your hard-earned tax dollars to pay for condoms and birth control pills in the schools and more abortions at Planned Parenthood centers. We must fight this radical anti-life, anti-parent agent!

Unfortunately, that’s not all. The militant homosexual rights movement has also compiled its list of demands. Officials at the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force are saying publicly that they want hate crimes laws and special employment rights for homosexuals passed next year. We also anticipate a legislative assault in Congress against the Defense of Marriage Act and more efforts in the states to redefine marriage. Believe it or not, last week the Iowa Supreme Court heard arguments in a case seeking to force same-sex “marriage” in the American heartland. Just one month after the people of three states, including California, voted to protect the traditional meaning of marriage, the militant homosexual movement is still trying to get the courts to undo the will of the people!

UFI President calls week at UN “A Huge Success”

 

Press Conference to Present Unborn Child Petition

Representatives of United Families International, including President Beverly Rice, arrived in New York on Monday night with a busy agenda and a list of objectives to accomplish:

 

1. Celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) by the UN General Assembly.

2. Present the UN General Assembly with a petition containing over 340,000 names in favor of the rights of the unborn and in defense of the family.

3. Participate in meetings with several UN Ambassadors from around the world.

It was on December 10, 1948 that the UN General Assembly adopted the UNDHR.  The UNDHR’s intention was to protect the right to life, liberty and safety of all groups of people, as well as recognize the importance of societies’ most treasured unit…the family, in enabling those rights.  United Families International agrees that each individual, born or unborn has the right to life. We also agree that the family is the foundation of society.  And, that the principles set forth in The UNDHR of justice, fairness and equality means respect for life, family, cultures and religion.  And, that these rights come not from government or nations, but from a higher source and are taught by the good families of the world.  

Unfortunately for the Pro-Life movement, two International Pro-Abortion groups, International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International, planned their own celebration of the UNDHR: A presentation of a petition that demands that the right to an abortion be given to all people around the world.  This pro-abortion petition was signed by a mere 651 individuals.  

UFI, along with a Pro-Family Pro-Life coalition including the Pro-Life Federation of Poland, the Institute of Family Policy of Spain, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, and US-based Concerned Women for America countered the petition with their own containing the names of more than 340,000 Pro-Life supporters.

The Pro-Life Pro-Family group shared at a press conference “the petition presented today urged States to recall the original words — and understanding — of the Universal Declaration.  It was organized around six points:  the right to life (article 16); the right of men and women alone to marry and found a family (article 16); the concept of family as the fundamental unit of society (article 16); the entitlement of motherhood and childhood to special care and assistance (article 25); and the prior right of parents to educate their children (article 26).”

They went on to say that the petition, launched 60 days ago in response to another drive calling for the recognition of abortion in United Nations documents, had gathered more than 500,000 signatures from 168 countries thus far.  Some 300,000 had been added since last Friday and the goal was to have 1 million names by the convening of the next General Assembly session, at which time the petitioners would request that it take action.”  

Said UFI President Beverly Rice, “the Declaration’s reference to a family’s entitlement to State protection acknowledged it as the building block of any successful society.  It also meant that Member States should support the family through policies that would protect it. United Families International stands with others in asserting that those principles remained valid and relevant, and that they should not be reinterpreted.  We will not be deterred from fighting to defend the Declaration and its original intent.”

UFI and the coalition that met with UN Ambassadors from the Philippines, Fiji, Uganda and the US missions. UFI separately met with Belize, the Czech Republic and the Republic of Iran.

PRESS CONFERENCE ON PRESENTATION OF ‘PETITION FOR THE UNBORN CHILD’

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights had been “sullied” by the addition of “supposed” new rights — notably the right to abortion — and United Nations treaty monitoring bodies were at the forefront in causing harm by “ordering” Governments to change their laws, Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute said at Headquarters today.

At a press conference sponsored by the Permanent Mission of the United States, Mr. Ruse described the actions of those entities as an “assault on human rights, national sovereignty and international law”.  He was accompanied by panellists Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America; Noelia García Ayuele of the Institute for Family Policy; Beverly Rice of United Families International; Lech Bosek of the Polish Federation of Pro-Life Groups; and Martha de Casco, a Member of Parliament from Honduras.  They were in New York to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and present a petition on the rights of the unborn child.

Mr. Ruse said the petition presented today urged States to recall the original words — and understanding — of the Universal Declaration.  It was organized around six points:  the right to life (article 16); the right of men and women alone to marry and found a family (article 16); the concept of family as the fundamental unit of society (article 16); the entitlement of motherhood and childhood to special care and assistance (article 25); and the prior right of parents to educate their children (article 26).

He went on to say that the petition, launched 60 days ago in response to another drive calling for the recognition of abortion in United Nations documents, had gathered more than 500,000 signatures from 168 countries thus far.  Some 300,000 had been added since last Friday and the goal was to have 1 million names by the convening of the next General Assembly session, at which time the petitioners would request that it take action.

Taking the floor next, Ms. De Casco said article 16 of the Declaration established that men and women had a right to marry and found a family, and thus, were entitled to protection by society and the State.  As such, it was no surprise that the word family was mentioned six times throughout the Declaration.  Family based on marriage was not an “accidental social construction”; marriage and family had their own inalienable rights.  When the family was broken, serious individual issues arose which weakened the State as it had to provide for the family one way or another.  There was a need to promote family through political, socio-economic and legal measures.

Also speaking about article 16, Ms. Rice said the Declaration’s reference to a family’s entitlement to State protection acknowledged it as the building block of any successful society.  It also meant that Member States should support the family through policies that would protect it.  United Families International stood with others in asserting that those principles remained valid and relevant, and that they should not be reinterpreted.  The group would not be deterred from fighting to defend the Declaration and its original intent.

Ms. García Ayuele highlighted the importance of parents’ right to choose their children’s education, including in matters concerning human sexuality and religion, citing the example of Spain, where ore than 50,000 parents had objected to a proposal to introduce children’s citizenship as a school subject on the grounds that it would affect their moral education.

Speaking about the right to life, Mr. Bosek said the Polish people, Parliament and Supreme Court all recognized that phrases such as “everyone has the right to life” meant the unborn child could not be excluded from the scope of regulation.  Article 2 outlined that no one, for any reason — particularly birth — could be excluded from the guarantees set forth in the Declaration, and it was important to bear that language in mind.

He said the Polish Constitutional Court provided the clear position that human life should be protected from conception, as there was no scientific proof that it began any later.  Sceptics should refer to articles 1 and 2, which contained guarantees for the protection of inherent human dignity.  Indeed, unconsciousness, age and birth were irrelevant to the consideration of being human.  Many binding instruments referred to unborn human life, including the European Convention on [Human Rights and] Biomedicine, which protected human dignity before birth.  For those reasons, the Declaration could not be reinterpreted.

Speaking about the role of mothers, Ms. Wright said they formed their children’s identities in a way that influenced every other relationship, and denigrating their role created disharmony in various ways.  The Universal Declaration recognized the profound role of mothers and the innocence of childhood.  Policies that would deny the noble role of motherhood or exploit the innocence of children did so at the peril of the world community.  On the sixtieth anniversary, United Nations officials should recommit themselves to the simple truth that motherhood and childhood deserved special care.

To round out the panel, Mr. Ruse spoke on behalf of Carlo Casini, a Member of the European Parliament and President of the Italian pro-life movement, saying that the Universal Declaration’s adoption had been a sign of change that had ended an age of racism and violence.  Sixty years on, the Declaration had not been implemented in all its parts anywhere in the world.  In several countries, the law distinguished between “more” and “less” worthy lives.  The petition presented today was of utmost importance, not only to stop the pressure to substitute human rights with “anti-human” projects, but also to advance ideas for improving the Declaration.

Taking questions, Mr. Ruse said the unborn child indeed had legal status in many legal systems, including that of the United States, where it could be represented in court.  The Universal Declaration did not require the child’s protection from abortion, but it would allow for that kind of interpretation.  Some “in the system” argued that the Declaration required the right to abortion.  For example, the Committee monitoring the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights interpreted the “right to life” clause in that instrument as the right to abortion, which was wrong.  Governments should interpret the Universal Declaration, among other documents, as protecting the unborn child from abortion.

Mr. Ruse responded to a question about how many United States citizens had signed the petition, by saying he did not have the data at hand but he would be able to provide it later.

Asked how concerned the panel was about the incoming United States Administration, Ms. Wright responded that she was quite concerned about President-elect Barack Obama’s “disturbing” campaign promises.  Concerned Women for America was working to educate people about those promises, and educate Congress about the kind of “devastating effect” they would have on domestic and foreign policy.

Mr. Ruse added that he was concerned about the possibility of the United States ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which Mr. Obama and Vice-President-elect [Joe] Biden supported.  The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women had reinterpreted the document to include the right to abortion, and regularly asked Governments to change their laws.  For example, Colombia’s High Court had changed its laws on the basis of the Committee’s statements.  The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute was concerned that Mr. Obama would appoint judges and justices with a “broad” understanding of the sources they should look into when interpreting the Constitution, including those of the United Nations and European Union.

Ms. De Casco, recounting how she had come under direct pressure from State Department officials at United Nations conferences, said it was a “great worry” that United States policies affected the Organization’s programmes.  Her opinions were based on her country’s Constitution, and it was morally correct to hold the same position at the United Nations.  Latin Americans were very concerned about the incoming Administration’s views on life and abortion.

In response to a query about the petition, Mr. Ruse said it had been presented to several delegations this week and would be sent to the Secretary-General.  Next fall, it would be sent to the General Assembly.  However, attempts to reach out to the General Assembly President had been unsuccessful.

Asked about France’s pending submission to the European Union urging the decriminalization of homosexuality, Mr. Ruse said he was following the issue closely.  While 40 to 50 nations had signed on, it would not be a negotiated document and would have no force except in terms of public relations.

France had gone beyond decriminalizing homosexuality and was reading sexual orientation into all human rights instruments, which would profoundly affect marriage and adoption, he warned.  Hopefully there would be another declaration in the coming days that would make plain that it was for nation States to determine their positions on such “highly controversial” issues.  United Nations treaty bodies were monitoring something in which they had no business being involved.

Asked about the position of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) on family planning, Mr. Ruse said it was complicit in China’s one-child policy, adding that “UNFPA is very aggressive, very ideological on the issue of abortion”.

Regarding the handling of the black market consequences of outlawing abortion, Ms. Wright said abortion was dangerous, whether legal or not.  Powerful changes had occurred in the pro-life movement when women had come forward to admit their regret over having had an abortion.  Making it legal only gave it an appearance of legitimacy.  Among the worst things for women in developing countries was telling them that they should undergo an invasive procedure that harmed those with even the best medical care.  When in crisis pregnancies, women needed to be sure they did not feel as if their only choice was to have an abortion.

United Families California Defends Prop. 8

“…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”  ~Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address.

What would President Lincoln think if he saw the state of California’s politics?  Do our elected officials represent the people any longer?   Consider their record with regard to family law.

In 2000, the people of California petitioned to put Proposition 22 on the ballot that affirmed that marriage would continue to be defined in traditional terms, as being between one man and one woman.   The people voted and by a margin of 61/39% passed this proposition.  In political terms that is an overwhelming mandate.

First, our State Supreme Court ignored our voice and by May of 2008 overstepped their governing limits and created a new law – homosexual marriage.

Next, the people answered that insult and petitioned to vote on the issue of marriage law.  This November after an expensive and tiring campaign the majority of the people of California again voted and passed Prop 8, a State Constitutional Amendment that reaffirms traditional marriage.  The voice of the people has clearly stated, twice, that we want marriage to be defined as the union of a man and a woman.

However, this has not stopped our governing officials from speaking out and trying to impose their own will on the people.  Since the passage of Prop 8 our Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger has gone on record calling for the State Supreme Court to overturn that vote.

And now, our state senate and assembly have drafted resolutions blatantly fighting against Prop 8.  “On Tuesday, the second day of the 2009-10 legislative session, Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (both D-San Francisco) launched senate resolution 7 and HR 5 in the Assembly. If approved, the bills would place both houses of the California Legislature on record as opposing the controversial initiative and declaring it an illegal revision to the state constitution.”  Politicker CA, December 2, 2008

Opponents of Proposition 8 are working hard to overturn Proposition 8 in our legislature before the case is heard in the Supreme Court.   This weekend picketers were on street corners asking for support for SR7 and HR 5.   Petitions are being circulated in hopes of gaining 1,000,000 signatures to show support of this attempt to overrule our vote.

PLEASE SIGN THE PRO-PROP. 8 PETITION – CLICK HERE

Opinion Essay: Why We Must Promote A Cultire of Life

This blog post has been used with permission of the author.

I think the time has come to discuss why our nation should promote a culture of life.  It is a stance that in time has grown closer and closer to my heart.  With almost one week to go before Election Day I think it is more important than ever to discuss this issue.

Let me start with a fact that may blow your mind – A year ago I would not even think of writing the following editorial.  I was apathetic and sat on the fence between pro-choice and pro-life not wanting to stray onto either side.  For years I had read advocate after advocate from both sides bicker and battle with each other. I saw abortion as a divisive issue.  With a major political influence being Neal Boortz who could blame me?  Then stepped in Governor Mike Huckabee.

No one on any side had been able to communicate in a way that made sense and was compassionate towards the issue until Governor Mike Huckabee came onto the national scene.  Granted he did not win me over right away.  It took a lot of praying and thinking but the process began while Mike was speaking to the throng gathered in Ames at the Iowa Straw Poll.  Fresh in our minds that day were the trapped miners in Utah.

While making his case, Governor Huckabee cited those poor miners.  Also important was that not only did Governor Huckabee say that we must protect the unborn and the sanctity of human life but he took his case one step further and said that we should honor, cherish, and nurture all human life from “conception until death.”  As with his stance on other issues it was definitely Vertical and unifying compared to the zealous views of other people and politicians who have sparked violence between factions at times.

With that said I can now say that I am definitely pro-life.  Governor Huckabee made the view seem compassionate and quite logical.  Going back to his speech in Ames, “Why should we care about lost boy scouts or the trapped miners in Utah if we don’t protect the unborn and the sanctity of human life from conception until death?”I think I must have heard that same message about a few hundred times while watching him speak on the stump on TV and in video.  Each time he said it, he made more and more sense.  Then I began to look into my heart and look back at the very unique story that is my life when it hit me like the broad side of a barn.

I was born physically challenged with many birth defects.  The most prominent of these is my lack of sight.  I am legally blind.  Yes, I can see some but that is with the help of the very thick glasses I wear.  Along with being legally blind I was born with a bilateral cleft lip and palate and was born without a nose (just holes where it should be).  I was tested for every disease and disorder known to man in 1982.  All the tests came out negative.  Despite that I faced long odds and a grim prognosis.  My doctors gave me six weeks tops.  If for some reason I would survive that long, they said I’d be a mere “Vegetable.”

Despite beating those odds, at two months-old, pneumonia set in and after only a few weeks home I was back in the hospital.  Then things went from bad to worse and my heart began to fail.  My skin started turning blue turning blue and I was rushed into intensive care.  On Thanksgiving of 1982 I underwent emergency surgery and through the skill of my doctors, the love of my family, and the blessings from our Lord, Jesus Christ, the operation was a success.  To this very day, 26 years later, I continue to beat the long odds that were placed before me

After looking back at my life story I realized that I have beaten the odds because I was blessed to have parents who chose to love and care for me no matter what.  This can be attested to the culture of life we have had in this Nation.  However it is sad, but true that there are some in this country that would have left me to die.

I can’t imagine to be a source of knowledge of the complexities of the miracle of child birth.  I’m a man, not a woman.  I understand that there are emotions and feelings that I cannot comprehend.  In addition, I realize that there are some women who would like the right to choose.  I’m not heartless.  Has it ever occurred to anyone out there that when a fetus is aborted a woman may be exercising her right to choose but when she does so there is a life that stands in the balance who has no choice in the matter?

While others may disagree the facts are plain as day to me.  Life begins at conception.  God has a plan for each life that is conceived.  Fuliflled an un-born fetus could grow up to be the next Einstein, the next President, or the next Elvis.  The unborn child could go on to find the cure for Cancer, AIDS, maybe Muscular Dystrophy.  Not allowing an unborn fetus to fulfill the plan God has laid in my eyes is murder in the worst degree.  Why?   The life held in the balance has no choice whatsoever.

There are definitely other options.  What about the couples out there that would like to raise a family but for whatever reason cannot conceive?  One of the birth defects I was “blessed” with was a pituitary dysfunction.  My body cannot produce enough testosterone.  Therefore I cannot conceive if I wanted to.  Adoption would be my only option and the process seems so convoluted and complex that it doesn’t seem worth it.  If the process was streamlined and made more simple child bearers who cannot afford their baby or don’t want a child could easily put them up for adoption for parents who do want them.

Please note that I do recognize that there are some cases where an abortion is absolutely necessary and required. That is when the life of the mother lays in the balance as well.

So why must we promote a culture of life in our Nation?  It is very simple.  It does not take a lot of effort to research the alternative.  Let’s go in the wayback machine to the 1930’s in Europe.  The Nazi culture of death led to the Holocaust.  There is a lot made of the many brutal and senseless murders of millions of Jewish people.  However I want you to know that the Nazis didn’t stop there.  Also murdered were people of other races, creeds, colors, sexual orientations, and the handicapped.

I’m not trying to say that a culture of death is going to result in a 2nd Holocaust in the same manner.  There is nothing that can compare to the tactics of the brutal Nazi’s led by Adolph Hitler.  It is meant as a lesson that we should take to heart.  A culture of life will cause people to prevent even a remote similarity from occurring.  Due to the technology today, mothers have access to many tests to get a glimpse at what their children may turn out to become right out of the womb and how healthy he/she will be.   Living in a culture of life, the chances are better that parents will continue with the process, even if the tests come out with results that are sobering.  A culture of death will result in more abortions and children being killed off without a choice once they are born with severe handicaps and birth defects.

The handicapped are born as they are for a reason.  It’s part of His plan in some way.  While, yes, my parents have questioned why I was born the way I was I have never questioned it.  My life is not easy but it is mine that was set out for me.  The same goes for the many who are handicapped and disabled.

I volunteer for a school for special needs children here in my hometown.  I am very blessed to serve the Lord, my community, and the world in this fashion.  I feel a special bond with the children because while we may be different we are alike more than we are different.  What if we had a culture of death and these little angels didn’t exist?  If fills my heart with sadness just thinking about it.

Whether you agreed with me before reading or you agree after reading my opineI urge everyone to sign Governor Huckabee’s Pro-Life petition and get as many people as you can to sign it as well.  Thanks & God bless you!

- Brian

Meet UFI: Laura Bunker

Laura Bunker, United Families Utah Chapter President

My Family:

The family is dear to me, partly because mine did not come easily.  I’ve been married 29 years, and my husband Steve and I have two beautiful daughters—both adopted.  Our youngest, Mary is in high school, and our oldest, Rebecca was recently married.

Why protect the family?

Watching my married daughter begin her new life has underscored to me the importance of the family in sharing values, responsibilities, and practical support.  It’s how our society passes the baton from one generation to the next.  It’s how our civilization keeps going.   Family is not just about the needs and wants of adults. It’s about preparing the way for the next generation, and the next. Maintaining the definition of marriage, the sanctity of life, and the obligation of parents, is critical for the success of future generations.

How can everyday people get involved in the fight for family values?

There is something everyone can do to help strengthen the family.  It may start with something as simple as hugging your children every day.  You can study the issues, and discuss them with your family and friends. Help them find answers to their questions. (unitedfamilies.org is a great resource) Sign up for United Families’ free newsletters and forward them on.  Let people know where you stand and why.  Write to your state Representative and Senator, and urge them to uphold the traditional family.  You can even join United Families with a $30.00 membership, or contribute more if you can.

Sometimes people feel hesitant to join in this effort because they feel their own family life is less than perfect. You don’t have to havean ideal family to fight for the “ideal of the family”.  The noun “ideal” means a principle, model, pattern, or goal.  The “ideal of the family” is worth every effort in our homes, and in our nation.  

UFI Celebrates The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

“…in a world still reeling from the horrors of the Second World War, the Declaration was the first global statement of what we now take for granted — the inherent dignity and equality of all human beings.“
~UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

December 10th, 2008 is the 60th anniversary of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The UDHR has been widely celebrated since its inception in 1948 as the foundation of international human rights. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 and is known as the first universal statement on the basic principles of inalienable human rights for all nations and all people.

Acknowledged as the most translated document in the world, The UDHR binds the human family together with a common standard litmus test for the treatment all. Born from the aftermath of World War II, the UDHR became the standard bearer to be used as a template for other international human rights treaties laws, and constitutions.

John Peters Humphrey, the first director of the Human Rights Division in the United Nations and Eleanor Roosevelt, chair of the executive group of the drafting commission, are recognized as two of the leaders behind the passage of The UDHR. Upon the unanimous approval of the UN General Assembly, with some countries abstaining from the vote, Mrs. Roosevelt was quoted as saying that the UDHR was “the international Magna Carta of all mankind”.

But it was Charles Habib Malik, a Lebanese scholar, who was instrumental in shaping and securing the passage of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the full General Assembly.

Malik introduced the declaration to the General Assembly with these words: 

“Thousands of minds and hands have helped in its formation. Every member of the United Nations has solemnly pledged itself to achieve respect for and observance of human rights. But, precisely what these rights are we were never told before, either in the Charter or in any other national instrument. This is the first time the principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms are spelled out authoritatively and in precise detail. I now know what my government pledged itself to promote, achieve, and observe. … I can agitate against my government, and if she does not fulfill her pledge, I shall have and feel the moral support of the entire world.” 

You will note that The UDHR’s intention was to protect the right to life, liberty and safety of all groups of people, as well as recognize the importance of societies’ most treasured unit…the family, in enabling those rights. 

The document has been criticized on many different levels – too intrusive, not intrusive enough, etc. However, all can agree that its basic tenet of promoting the well-being of the human family warrants success – if its principles are followed.

In the first paragraph of the Preamble it states that “The UDHR recognizes the equal and inalienable right of all members of the human family” and that this recognition “is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

United Families International agrees that each individual, born or unborn has the right to life. We also agree that the family is the foundation of society. And, that the principles set forth in The UDHS of justice, fairness and equality means respect for life, family, cultures and religion. And, that these rights come not from government or nations, but from a higher source and are taught by the good families of the world.

There are others that would re-interpret The UDHS to enable the destruction of life and the family. This movement is not only destructive to individuals, but to whole nations and the world.

Join United Families International in celebrating The UDHS by signing the Universal Right to Life and Recognition of the Family as the Fundamental Unit of Society now.

If you believe in the fundamental human rights of the human family, help UFI defend the unborn today. Join us by signing the petition and by contributing financially. Your gift will help us fight at the UN and around the world to protect each member of the family.

Tomorrow

Note: This message was sent via the UFI Alert E-Mail Program.  Click here to be included in future UFI Alerts.

Tomorrow is the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR).  As we sit comfortably in our homes throughout the world, we may wonder “Why should I care about that?  What effect does this have on me? “

Sixty years ago, after the conclusion of World War II, the world came together and recognized the atrocities that had been committed against mankind.  A world body was established, the United Nations, which wholeheartedly accepted the wording in this document as the governing principles by which all governments and people should live by.

This document stated that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”  It states that marriage between a man and a woman is a protected human right.  It states that freedom of religion and the opportunity to practice that religion is a human right.

Tomorrow United Families will stand with others in the pro-family coalition to announce to the world that these principles are still valid, relevant and should NOT be changed.  Tomorrow we will tell the world that despite the loud voices of the opposition, we will not be deterred in fighting to defend this document and its original intent.  
 
Tomorrow International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International will also be speaking to the world.  They will be demanding that the UNDHR be interpreted to include the right to abortion.  They will say that access to abortion is a human right and the UNDHR should be interpreted as such.

Tomorrow the delegation from France will introduce a declaration at the UN General Assembly that will attempt to legitimize all homosexual activities as a fundamental human right.  They will be demanding that sexual orientation and gender identity be protected as a human right.

Tomorrow is an important day.  Tomorrow should be a celebration of the family, freedom of religion, and marriage between a man and a woman.  Tomorrow should be a declaration that 60 years ago the United Nations stood up for what is most important.  Tomorrow should be a time to remember the hope, goodwill and triumph that can come when the world stands and says that there are human rights everyone should be guaranteed.  Tomorrow we should all feel safe that our families, marriages and religions will be protected because of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But, instead, tomorrow will just be another day on the battlefield.  Tomorrow will be another day when those who wish to destroy the family will make another attempt.  They will use deception as their weapon.  Their desire is to create a genderless society that is run by the state – void of religion, marriage and parents.

In order for the tomorrows of the future to provide hope for families around the world you must care about what happens at the United Nations! When you are going through your day tomorrow, please take a moment to consider how this document has affected your life and what might be changed if the opposing forces are successful.  Please take a moment to consider why what happens at the United Nations does matter and does impact your life.

Please stand with United Families International and make a donation today to help us as we continue the battle on behalf of you, your family, your religion, the sanctity of life and marriage between a man and a woman.

Beverly Rice, UFI President

UNITED FAMILIES INTERNATIONAL TO CELEBRATE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, SUBMIT 300,000 NAMES TO UN IN FAVOR OF LIFE AND FAMILIES

 

UN Headquarters, New York – Tomorrow, December 10^th, on the 60^th Anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) by the UN General Assembly, United Families International (UFI), along with a coalition of social conservative groups from around the world, will present a petition of 340,000 names requesting that all member nations and states interpret the UNDHR to mean that:

The right to life, liberty and security is for every person; that each child born or unborn, has the right to birth and a full, natural life. That a child has the right to a mother and a father, of full age, within the bonds of marriage defined as between a man and a woman.  And, that the parents have the right to raise and educate their children without any limitation due to race, religion, culture or nationality.  

The petition is a response to opposition petition efforts by pro-abortion groups International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International that demand that the UNDHR be interpreted to include that access to abortion is a human right and the UNDHR should be interpreted as such.

“During a time when family values are under attack in nations and states across the globe, tomorrow should be a celebration of the family, freedom of religion, and marriage between a man and a woman.  Tomorrow should be a declaration that 60 years ago the United Nations stood up for what is most important.  Tomorrow we should all feel safe that life, our families, marriages and religions will be protected because of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”  Said Beverly Rice, President of UFI, a non-profit organization that has been fighting to protect the family at the UN since 1978. “But, instead, we fear tomorrow will just be another day on the battlefield, another day when those who wish to destroy the family will make another attempt.  They will use deception as their weapon.  Their desire is to create a genderless society that is run by the state – void of religion, marriage and parents.”

UFI, along with a Pro-Family Pro-Life coalition including the Pro-Life Federation of Poland, the Institute of Family Policy of Spain, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, and US-based Concerned Women for America will present the petition at UN headquarters and in private meetings with Ambassadors from several UN missions.

Those who wish to join the celebration of the family as the fundamental unit of society and of the right to life may continue to sign the petition after tomorrow at unitedfamilies.org.

Meet UFI: Linda Hollist

Linda Hollist, United Families Georgia Chapter President

My Family: 

I was married 17 years ago last April, and we have been blessed with 7 beautiful brilliant healthy respectful children.  Blayne, at 16, is finishing high school and attending the local university while preparing to continue his education at West Point.  Mariah, 15, maintains her 4.0, plays lead roles at the state theatre of Georgia, and was chosen for governors honors in vocal performance at the high school.  Cutler, 13, is enrolled in all honors classes as well as a design Engineering class as a freshman.  J Penton, 11, involved in soccer and band, and Talia, 10, chosen for All-state chorus, both excel academically at the middle school.  Hunter, 8, is known by his coach as the baseball player with the most heart and the strongest boy he has ever met; and Talmage, 6, comes home with prizes in phonics achievement almost daily.  They all never cease to delight us.  But more than that, they are growing up to be honorable productive contributors to all around them.

Why Protect the Family?

Having invested most of the last 17 years in the success of my children, I know that raising good children does not happen without fighting for their interest via traditional family values.  These values are not only valid but absolutely requisite to raising successful children who become successful adults insuring the solidarity of our nation and civilization.  I live the success of these family values daily.  Academics and special interest groups use power and influence to lobby for  theoretical agendas. These theoretical agendas are designed to remove family values and replace them with devastatingly flawed laws.  The failure of the family, thus society, is directly tied to their implementation.  I do not know of any more important issue to be involved in than that of the protection and success of our precious children through promotion of family values.

How can everyday people get involved in the fight for family values?

We greatly need your support.  Start by integrating traditional family values into your own families.  Let the schools hear from you regarding specific needs for improvement, take time to write letters to the editor, television stations and legislators, and talk with friends.  An easy way to get involved is to combine your efforts with UFI.  We welcome your time, talents or financial support to protect and promote family values.  Combined small efforts yield great results.  Please join us in our quest for a greater future for our children and our world.

Meet UFI: Lina F. Hatch

Lina F. Hatch, United Families Arizona Chapter Director

My Family:
My  husband, Lorin and I have been married 37 years.  We have 7 children and 7 grandchildren.  Presently, all of us live in Arizona.  Lorin & I have lived in Gilbert (greater Phoenix area) for 32 years and obviously we think Arizona is a great place to raise a family!

Why Protect the Family?
My family is one of the greatest sources of joy, satisfaction and rewards in my life.  I am convinced that the family is the basic unit of society and the necessary environment for children to learn to become responsible adults.  I recognize the threats in today’s society that would undermine and even destroy the traditional family as we know it. With the desire to protect my family and all future generations, I join with other like minded individuals and organizations seeking to promote and maintain the family as the fundamental unit of society.

How can everyday people get involved in the fight for family values?
To get involved in preserving the family in our society, I suggest joining with other like minded individuals in your sphere of influence, sharing your values and concerns, and reaching out to an organization the upholds the same.  Volunteer your time and talents. Support legislation and candidates that uphold pro-family values. Be aware of what is going on in your town council and schools.

 

UFI to present UN General Assembly with signatures

UFI will present the following petition to the General Assembly of the UN on Tuesday, December 9th at UN Headquarters.  The presentation of the signatures comes on the 60th Anniversery of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The petition reads: 

We, the undersigned citizens of the member nations of the world recognize the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on its 60th anniversary adopted and proclaimed by the UN General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) on 10 December 1948. We respectfully request that all member nations and states interpret this document to mean that:

The right to life, liberty and security is for every person; that each child born or unborn, has the right to birth and a full, natural life. That a child has the right to a mother and a father, of full age, within the bonds of marriage defined as between a man and a woman.  And, that the parents have the right to raise and educate their children without any limitation due to race, religion, culture or nationality.

And, that the United Nations General Assembly will promote this interpretation so that the rights of a human being are truly respected as declared in the Preamble of the Declaration,

• We reaffirm “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”, (Preamble)
• We reaffirm “the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women…” (Preamble) 
• We reaffirm, “a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge”, (Preamble)

And, reaffirmed by the following Articles,

Article 3:  Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 16:

          1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. 
          2. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 
          3. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 
          4. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. 

Article 25: Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.

Article 26: Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION BEFORE DEC. 9, 2008

United Families Utah Counters Equality Utah

In the wake of California’s proposition 8, Equality Utah has the ear of some of Utah’s most influential policy makers.  According to the Deseret news, “A group of Utah lawmakers unveiled five pieces of proposed legislation aimed at securing rights for gay couples”.  If you thought this could only happen in California or on the East Coast, think again. 

The first of these five bills, the Wrongful Death Amendments Bill, passed the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee on Nov. 19 with flying colors. The vote was (10-4).  Although the committee membership includes two of three openly gay state legislators, the amount of support on this committee calls for great concern. The bill is now eligible to be heard during the regular legislative session that begins on Jan 26, 2009.

Equality Utah, Utah’s gay rights organization is the impetus behind this bill. Senator Scott McCoy, one of the three openly gay Utah legislators, is the sponsor of the seemingly harmless bill. It appears harmless because it makes no explicit mention of marriage in the bill, and appeals to those living together who have no sexual relationship worthy of wrongful death benefits to make the bill palatable. The bill is simply a cover for an obvious agenda to circumvent the Constitution, and achieve, statute by statute, step by step, the rights denied by the Utah State Constitution. 

United Families Utah Statement on WDAB:

United Families International, a non-profit organization devoted to the preservation of the traditional family on a local, national, and international level.
While we have compassion for those represented today by the Equality Utah Coalition, we stand in firm opposition to the proposed Wrongful Death Amendments Bill for what it both ‘includes,’ ‘excludes” and “infers” in its attempt to rewrite Utah law and negotiate the definition of marriage.

1. WDAB INCLUDES:
The WDAB “includes” a provision for “heirs” to consign a designated same-sex or cohabiting partner as heir in suing for wrongful death.
While this may seem an innocuous request, we don’t believe it is. Extending through the Wrongful Death Amendments Bill benefits and provisions designed for and due married couples and their children to non-marital, cohabiting partnerships is commensurate with elevating homosexual or consensual cohabiting relationships to legally recognized status. Once sanctioned legally, through affording benefits reserved for married couples, a precedent is set for the acquisition of additional and ultimately all benefits due married couples. That is a precedent we do not wish to set in Utah.  Marriage and consensual cohabiting relationships are not equal. Marriage is an unequivocal institution not created by law but that is upheld by it, since it is singular in its benefits to society “indissolubly linked to the procreation of our race and childrearing.”  

Unwin’s study is a monumental reminder: In Sex and Culture, he chronicles the decline of 86 cultures.  He revealed that strict marital monogamy is central to social energy and growth, and stated, “In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and post nuptial continence.”(Sex and Culture, 1934).
Preserving these rights properly due marriage for marriage is not a civil rights issue nor would it deny homosexuals their basic civil rights accorded other citizens, including the right to establish and order their private lives by contract.

2. WDAB  EXCLUDES:
By removing the marriage protection clause this bill reveals a larger agenda.  It is not only a first attempt to establish legal legitimacy equivalent to marriage for future claims to marriage benefits, it is an overt attempt to subvert marriage by virtue of what it excludes.  

This bill excludes the following statement:  Neither a grant of standing under this section, nor anything else in this section, nor any finding by the court under this section may be construed as recognizing or treating a mutually supportive and dependent relationship as a marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or any other legal or relationship status that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage as defined in Article I, Section 29 of the Utah Constitution.

This is a significant exclusion.  It indicates to us, that while the knock on the front door of marriage rights is the redefinition of heirs and a step onto the Utah ladder of legal recognition—the even louder knock on the back door is indicative of a bigger overarching agenda, to subvert the definition of marriage.  As one homosexual writer and activist, Michelangelo Signorile, admits, the goals of homosexuals is “to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then once granted redefine the institution of marriage to demand the right to marry [and, I would add, or rights of marriage] not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution” (“Bridal Wave,” Out, Dec. 1994).  Clearly, the intent of this bill veers in this direction. The agenda of the sponsors, Equality Utah is quite clear on their website.

In summary, Utah voters overwhelmingly supported a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, indicating their desire to uphold traditional heterosexual marriage with its respective legal privileges and benefits. By including marriage benefits packages, we dismantle the institution and permit a reconstruction of family and family law. This cannot be sanctioned.

Watch Out Elton John!

Elton John, the openly gay musician, has joined many other gay rights activist and denounced gay marriage.  From New York Elton John and his partner, David Furnish told the USAToday:

“We’re not married. Let’s get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.”

“I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,” John says. “The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off.

“You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

As Elton John has voiced his opinion, I would advise him to watch his back.  For as many have found, there are some tough repercussions that come with publicly supporting traditional marriage.  Just ask the people of California who spoke, whose votes were counted, and who now, in defiance of democracy, are being persecuted for their opinions.

Let us hope that the Militant Gay Marriage Movement does not blacklist Elton John nor boycott his business.  Let us pray that they do not send mysterious white powder to the office of his record label, or that they do not disturb the religious practises of those who enjoy his music. Elton John and his partner ought to be prepared the disturbing slurs that will come out of the mouths of those who disagree with him. Disgusting are the actions of the No-On-8 movement.

Through all the calamity and scare tactics we will press on, protect the family, and defend marriage.  The majority has spoken, and we will ensure that their vote counts.

 

New Pro-Life Video from Live Action Films

Live Action Films is a youth led human rights movement dedicated to the respect and protection of all human life including the unborn. We use new media and educational presentations to share the truth about life and the threats to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness posed against the born and unborn.

BLOOMINGTON, December 3 – New footage released today from an undercover camera inside an abortion clinic in Bloomington shows Planned Parenthood staff deliberately violating the state’s mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse.

The footage shows Lila Rose, a UCLA student reporter and president of right-to-life advocacy group Live Action, posing as a 13-year-old girl. In an appointment with a Planned Parenthood nurse, Rose says she has been impregnated by a 31-year-old man, a clear case of child molestation under Indiana state law.

On tape, the nurse acknowledges her responsibility to report the incident, but assures Rose she will not. The nurse says, “I am supposed to report to Child Protective Services,” but tells Rose, “Okay, I didn’t hear the age [of the 31-year-old]. I don’t want to know the age.”

She then instructs Rose how to obtain a secret abortion by crossing state lines in order to avoid Indiana’s parental consent law. The nurse also coaches Rose to cover for the 31-year-old man by saying he is only 14. She says, “You’ve seen him around, you know he’s 14, he’s in your grade and whatever. You know what I mean.”

Rose said she and other students in Live Action recorded the video over the summer in a multi-state investigation of the abortion industry. Rose described the undercover audit, called The Mona Lisa Project, as “demonstrating the routine lawlessness of abortion providers at Planned Parenthood.” Rose noted, “Today’s video release is only a sample from many hours of similarly disturbing footage.”

Planned Parenthood, a tax-exempt nonprofit, made over $100 million in profits last year and has a billion-dollar budget, nearly a third of which comes from taxpayers through government funding.

Jackie Stollar, student president of a Live Action chapter in Oregon, accompanied Rose on the investigation. “In a repeated pattern, Planned Parenthood has violated the public trust. It should have its government funding revoked,” she said. “During an economic crisis, can the government really spare $300 million to support such an unethical organization?”

“The Mona Lisa Project demonstrates how quickly the abortion industry’s disrespect for unborn children becomes disregard for all humans,” Rose explained. “Planned Parenthood offers no solutions for the victim of statutory rape—they give her an abortion and a bag of condoms and send her straight back into the arms of the abuser.”

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO

LISTEN TO INTERVIEW WITH LILA ROSE

Solving the Economic Crisis by Strengthening the Family

Note: This message was sent via the UFI Alert E-Mail Program.  Click here to be included in future UFI Alerts.

The economic crisis is affecting families all over the world.  Governments are struggling to find ways to solve the problems. Each day’s headlines detail a new attempt to boost the struggling economies. The plans have included:  bailouts, stimulus packages, mortgage buy-backs, etc.  Despite their best efforts there is one significant plan that has not been promoted.  In all of the plans the economists and world leaders have suggested, none have suggested using the family to solve the world’s economic crisis.

How can the family be the answer?  In the outstanding documentary, Demographic Winter, researchers discuss how the decline in population has caused a severe crisis for the nations of the world.  For all of the economic solutions that have been suggested, the one component that is being forgotten is that if you do not have enough people to work in the factories, buy the goods, and purchase the homes, there will be no improvement.

What would happen if the world economies required growth but their countries were shrinking instead?  This is a question posed by the documentary.  A reduction in population does not equal economic prosperity.  Just ask Russia.  In Russia, with its population of just 145 million, the government is providing incentives to families to have children.  

For every family who has more than one child, they receive the equivalent of $9,200.  Why is the government paying people to have more children?  With their declining population, Russian officials know that in a few years they will not have the manpower to defend their borders, run their hospitals, or work their shipyards.

The answer to solving our economic crisis is not found in paying people to have more children.  The answer is found in changing government policies to strengthen families.  Parents will only want to have more children if they know that the government will support those efforts with policies that make childrearing a top priority.  Governments need to look for ways to help families provide stable, loving two-parent homes for children.

Today’s world is obsessively focused on the individual.  That focus needs to be redirected to the family.  As Demographic Winter points out, the women’s rights movement, the gay rights movement, and the environmental movement are all based on the misleading 1970’s theory of the population bomb.  They are focused on the needs of the individual.  

The reality of today’s world is that rather than having a population explosion, we are, instead, in the middle of a population implosion!  We need to focus on families – not individuals.  We need to have a family rights movement!  We need our leaders to improve the economies of their countries by improving the stability of the family.

We need to understand that the safety and stability of countries in today’s world depend primarily on whether families in those countries feel stable and secure. 
 
Join with United Families International as we work with families all over the world to find ways to strengthen their countries by strengthening their families first.

Beverly Rice, President

Gay Marriage: Sexual Freedom Trumps Religious Freedom

Over the past couple of months I have engaged in the gay marriage debate several times with a handful of people. I have drawn the same conclusion every time, this is not a debate about gay rights, this is a debate about religious freedom.

As the marriages of gays and lesbians are legalized around the world, those who are free to practice religion lose aspects of that precious freedom.  Sexual freedom trumps religious freedom, this is a pattern that has happened and will continue to happen as long as states and countries ignore that marriage is between a man and a woman.

A perfect illustration of my argument took place in March of 2006 in the liberal state of Massachusetts.  Catholic Charities of Boston began in 1903 as an adoption agency primarily serving Catholic children left by parents who died or abandoned them.  For more than 100 years this respectful organization placed children in homes with goodly parents who would watch over and nurture them as they grew.  Catholic Charities was the most successful private adoption agency in the state, handling more adoptions than any other.  They were a beacon of hope to displaced children, a group of individuals who worked unselfishly for the advancement of the helpless.

In 2006 Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down their adoption department and get out of the business of finding homes for children.  This decision was made after the organization was given an ultimatum from the state government: Comply with state law and adopt to gay couples, or close your doors.  The Catholic church condemns homosexuality, it is a practise that is against the Catholic religion, for this they morally could not place a child in to the home of a gay or lesbian couple.  The governor at the time, Mitt Romney, attempted to pass legislation that would have allowed religious organizations an exemption from the adopting to gays law, but was shut down by his state legislature.  Thus, rather than defy their religious beliefs, Catholic Charities of Boston voluntarily stopped their adoptive services.

I could go on with more examples.  

My religion is very dear to me, and my religious freedom is one that I take very seriously.  That may not mean anything to the State of Massachusetts or the Supreme Court of California, but to me it means everything.  What will happen in the day that my church is sued and crippled because gay marriages are against our beliefs?  How will religious organizations cope with laws that equalize sexual orientation with race?

We must protect traditional marriage and define it as a union between man and woman.  We must ensure that nothing ever trumps religious freedom.