Constitutional amendment defining marriage filed in New Mexico

New Mexico State Senator William Sharer has officially filed a proposal for a constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. The amendment, Senate Joint Resolution  01, would alter Article 20 of the New Mexico constitution to state, “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.”

The amendment will need to be approved by both the state House and Senate and then ratified by popular vote before going into effect.

This is no small feat. Similar proposals have been filed in New Mexico before with no success.

In  2009, Sen. Sharer introduced a bill that would have legally defined marriage in the state as a civil contract “between a man and a woman.” It never made it to the Senate floor.

In 2008, two similar bills were also introduced. The first, supported by Rep. Nora Espinoza, would have defined marriage as a civil contract between a man and woman. The second, introduced by Rep. Gloria Vaughn, would have created a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Both bills died in committee.

It appears this newest proposal has a long way to go to make it through both the House and Senate and to the public for a vote.

Once given to the public, however, there is every hope that the amendment would be successful. In 2008, voters approved similar constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man and one woman in Arizona, California, and Florida.

Mother Not Charged for Murder of Newborn Due to Abortion “Loophole”

A woman in Virginia will not be charged with the murder of her newborn son due to a legal “loophole” related to abortion. According to reports police responded to a 911 call from a woman reporting she was in labor. When the police arrived they found the baby had been born 10 hours earlier and was suffocated beneath the bed sheets. The baby was still attached to the mother by the umbilical cord.

Due to the umbilical cord still being attached, the newborn is not considered a separate life under current state law in Virginia, and the mother will not be charged with murder.

The public is rightly outraged and politicians are rushing to fix what the media continues to call a “legal loophole.” However, this tragic event is less a legal mistake, than an explicit and painful example of the mental gymnastics and flawed logic necessary to defend the abortion of unborn children.

If the child had been aborted while still in the womb rather than murdered under the sheets, would that have been more acceptable? Is there a moral difference between saying a baby is not a separate life while still in the womb and saying a baby is not a separate life while still attached by the umbilical cord?When we have given society the power to determine when life does and does not begin, aren’t all such decisions arbitrary anyway?

It is for this reason that the abortion argument of Princeton ethicist Peter Singer is one of the most compelling available. Although he is pro-abortion, he breaks down the abortion debate with alarming clarity.

His argument is essentially this: One cannot defend abortion on the grounds that a fetus is not a baby. That line is far too arbitrary and riddled with contradiction for humans to logically navigate. The only way to truly defend abortion is to argue against the very premise that it is wrong to murder innocent life. Unfortunately, that argument does not sell as well as a woman’s right to choose.

Until we can honestly debate the actual foundational premise of abortion—women have a right to murder innocent life—we as a society have very little room to be outraged by such “legal loopholes.”

Argentina Performs First Same-Sex Marriage in Latin America and Mexico City Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

The first same-sex marriage in South America was finalized in Argentina on Monday. Jose Maria Di Bello and Alex Freyre were officially married in Ushuaia, Argentina by both federal and state officials.

The couple originally intended to marry in Buenos Aires but was stopped by a court injunction. The marriage was ultimately possible due to a legal loophole: Argentina’s constitution does not specifically define marriage as between one man and one woman and is therefore up to the interpretation of local officials.The couple simply side-stepped the courts by traveling to a location where officials would allow the marriage.

Argentina’s Congress is also currently considering a bill, introduced in October, to legalize same-sex marriage nationally. A vote should take place in 2010.

In another first for the dismantlement of traditional marriage, Mexico City became the first Latin American city to officially legalize same-sex marriage. The city assembly voted 39 to 20 last Monday to approve the new legislation.

The bill changes the definition of marriage from the union of one man and one woman to ‘the free uniting of two people.’ The new definition provides married same-sex couples with all the rights of married heterosexual couples, including adoption, inheritance, and insurance rights previously secured for traditional marriage.

Update: Senate Passes Health Care Bill

Due to our break for the Christmas holiday, we failed to report on the final Senate vote for the pro-abortion health care bill a little earlier. Sorry for the delay.

But the Senate bill did indeed pass the Christmas Eve vote, with a 60-39 margin. The vote fell straight down party lines.

The Senate’s bill must now be reconciled with the House bill, which includes the pro-life Stupak Amendment that truly prevents taxpayer dollars from funding abortion insurance. It is anyone’s guess which amendment will be included in the final bill.

When Congress returns in January, we will keep you updated as the debates develop.

Quebec Announces Attack Against Homophobia

If anyone still doubts that the advancement of LGBT “rights” will always come in direct conflict with religious rights, they need only read Quebec’s new policy against homophobia to be fully convinced.

The new policy, released earlier this month, outlines a broad new policy and a series of measures designed to completely eradicate “homophobia” from Quebec. The policies leave absolutely no place for religious or conscious objection to homosexual behavior and amount to full-scale, government-enforced normalization, acceptance, and even promotion of the behavior in its multiple forms.

Jean Charest, Premier of Quebec, explains in his introduction to the new policy:

“The policy sets out the government’s goal of removing all the obstacles to full recognition of the social equality of the sexual minorities, at all levels of society. The message is clear: our society has everything to gain from accepting sexual diversity and fighting intolerance.”

This policy goes well beyond simply ensuring adults the freedom to do as they please in their own bedrooms, constituting an explicit push for complete societal approval of any form of sexual behavior or practice. The key phrase here is “accepting sexual diversity.” This means that society must accept and approve of any form of sexual deviance promoted under the guise of sexual diversity. This includes “full and complete recognition of the sexual minorities, institutional and community support for the sexual minorities, and improved knowledge about sexual diversity.”

There is absolutely no room for religious or moral opposition to deviant sexual behavior in any form in this policy. In fact, the new policy does not even allow for a positive affirmation of heterosexuality as a social norm—that would be “Heterosexism,” an alternative form of homophobia.

If you are wondering what heterosexism is, here is the policy’s definition:

“Affirmation of heterosexuality as a social norm or the highest form of sexual orientation; social practice that conceals the diversity of sexual orientations and identities in everyday representations, social relations and social institutions, in particular by taking for granted that all people are heterosexual.”

The policy also defines the broader issue of homophobia as “[a]ll negative attitudes leading to the rejection of and direct or indirect discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgenders.”

Top among these “negative attitudes” towards homosexuality to be eradicated is the belief that such behavior is morally wrong. The policy notes, for example, in a disapproving and disappointed tone, “it is still possible to hear people say that homosexuality is an illness, morally wrong or a form of deviant behaviour, and that people choose their sexual orientation. These beliefs, often instilled in the past, tend to marginalize sexual minority groups and prevent full recognition of their social equality.”

Therefore, when the title of the new policy proclaims “Moving together towards equality,” what it truly is saying is that Quebec is moving together towards sexual liberation and oppression of religion. Quebec is moving towards a society that elevates “sexual “rights” and “sexual diversity” above the right to morally oppose any sexual behavior.

New Ad Starts Push for Same-Sex Marriage in Ireland

As we reported a few weeks ago, the Irish Parliament is on its way to approving same-sex civil unions in Ireland. Those supporting the legislation see it as a first step on the way to legalizing same-sex marriage. The LGBT group Marriage Equality is working right now to set the groundwork for such legislation.

Check out this new PSA they have released as part of their campaign.

The ad is incredibly well made and carries a powerful emotional punch, but the logic is flawed. Anyone is free to marry at anytime without asking permission from any other citizen. The law simply stipulates that the person one marries is of the opposite sex. This distinction is made not to discriminate but to support the best interest of both children and society.

LGBT Activists Boycotting Salvation Army

The LGBT community is pushing for a boycott of the Salvation Army. Despite the enormous good the organization does—providing food, shelter, foster care, disaster relief and HIV programs for 33 million people every year—many loud voices in the LGBT community view the Salvation Army’s position on homosexuality to be homophobic and discriminatory, rendering SA unworthy of donations.

Lisa Neff, a columnist for 354gay.com explained the boycott best:

“I do not donate to the Salvation Army, because the Salvation Army discriminates against gays and lesbians in employment, works to defeat civil rights measures that protect gays and lesbians and promotes position that gay relationships ‘do not conform to God’s will for society.’”

All of the above is true, except for the classification as “discrimination.”

Yes, it is discrimination in the traditional sense of the word—to make a distinction and act accordingly—but not in the current usage of the word which is loaded with connotations of hatred and ignorance.

The Salvation Army is very clear about its position on homosexuality. Their website reads:

“The Army regards the origins of a homosexual orientation as a mystery and does not regard a homosexual disposition as blameworthy in and of itself or rectifiable at will. Nevertheless, while we are not responsible for what we are, we are accountable for what we do; and homosexual conduct, like heterosexual conduct, is controllable and may be morally evaluated therefore in light of scriptural teaching.

“For this reason, such practices, if unrenounced, render a person ineligible for Salvation Army soldiership.”

The Salvation Army believes homosexual behavior is wrong and therefore chooses not to employ individuals participating in that behavior. They oppose legislation that threatens their ability to maintain this freedom to choose whom they will employ. There is not hatred involved in such a position. They have made a moral distinction and act according to it. Simply because one does not agree with the distinction, it does not make it “discriminatory.”

Furthermore, the Salvation Army does not discriminate according to sexual orientation in the distribution of any of their services. Heterosexual or homosexual, you are still welcomed to benefit from their incredible generosity.

Not enough.

Much of LGBT community is still outraged and pushing a boycott on the basis of homophobia. According to one article, supporting the Salvation Army is even morally wrong:

“And while there are dozens and dozens of organizations deserving of similar grand funding, the situation remains: Sal’s still helps feed and cloth millions of Americans in desperate need of help.

“For which they should be commended. But to excuse Sal’s faith-based homophobia, or to make the argument that they are somehow morally permitted to do wrong because they do so much right, is both a failed logic exercise and a failed moral one.”

This is just further evidence that the advancement of the LGBT agenda will always be accompanied by a reduction in the rights of those morally or religiously opposed to such behavior.

So if you have a little extra cash in your pocket this Christmas, think about throwing it in the red bucket to counteract the work of LGBT discrimination against the belief of others.

U.S. Senate Readies to Pass Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally found the right abortion language to get pro-life Senator Ben Nelson on board with the new health care legislation Sunday. Unfortunately, the protections in the new language are good enough to get Nelson’s vote but not strong enough to actually stop taxpayer funds from financing and promoting abortion.

The 383-page manager’s amendment, filed by Sen. Reid, superficially does three things:

1. Requires women using federal subsidies to purchase health care to pay for abortion coverage with a separate check. Insurers are required to keep the money covering abortion and federal subsidies in separate accounts. The original bill only required insurers to keep federal subsidies from paying for abortion coverage without the separation of checks.
2. Requires insurance companies sold in the government-run insurance exchanges that provide plans including abortion coverage to also provide parallel plans without abortion coverage.
3. Allows individual states to disallow plans covering abortion to be sold on the state run insurance exchanges set up by the bill.

These adaptations to the original bill are an attempt to please both pro-life and pro-abortion lobbies by enforcing the Hyde Amendment while not preventing poorer women who would like to purchase abortion coverage from doing so. Judging by the response from both lobbies, it fails to do either.

We won’t go into the inadequate logic pro-abortion lobbyists use to attack the measure right now. Rather here are the reasons the manager’s amendment is completely unacceptable in its efforts to defend the rights of those who support life.

1. The new amendment still violates the Hyde Amendment. Federal money will still be used to pay for abortion coverage even though the payment is obscured in a convoluted accounting scheme. The funds between the abortion coverage accounts and other insurer accounts are completely fungible and the distinction entirely meaningless.
2. If the Hyde Amendment is removed at any future date by congress or the President, the distinctions between private and public funds for abortion coverage will disappear entirely. In the Stupak Amendment to the health care bill recently passed by the House, the separation between federal subsidies and abortion coverage were permanently written into law.
3. The amendment does nothing to prevent the Mikulski Amendment from allowing the Executive Branch to require private insurers to provide abortion coverage. The Mikulski amendment, also known as the Women’s Health Amendment, allows U.S. Health and Human Services to define and dictate the women’s “preventive care” measures a health insurer must provide. Pro-abortion groups have already begun to define abortion as preventive care.
4. The manager’s amendment does not include the “conscience” protection for health care providers that was included in the House bill. Thus, health care providers are likely to be required to perform anti-life procedures they are morally opposed to.

Due to these fatal errors, the Senate health care bill is unacceptable. Despite the manager’s amendment the Senate health care bill is still decidedly pro-abortion.

A final vote on the bill is scheduled for Christmas Eve. Therefore, time is short to stop this pro-abortion health care bill from passing the Senate.

You can telephone the Washington offices of your Senators through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.  Or you can find your Senators’ contact information here.

President Signs Omnibus Spending Bill Funding Abortion

As all eyes were watching the debate over federally funded abortion in the Senate health care bill, President Obama signed into law Thursday an omnibus spending bill that opens the door for taxpayer funded abortion in the nation’s capital.

Known as the FY 2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill, the new legislation repeals the Dornan Amendment, which banned both federal and local funding for elective abortions in D.C., except in the case of rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life. The repeal technically only lifts the ban on local D.C. funds from funding abortion, but as federal and local funds are combined in the district, the distinction is meaningless.

The new bill also increases federal funding for “family planning” programs—which almost always include abortion services—in the U.S. and internationally. It allocates another $10 million to the current $300 million already directed towards U.S. family planning programs, much of which is directed towards Planned Parenthood, the nation’s top abortion provider.

It also provides another $5 million for the United Nations Population Fund, an organization implicated in coercive “family planning” programs in several countries, and another $103 million for other international family planning programs that may provide abortions, as Pres. Obama repealed the Mexico City Policy earlier this year. The policy prohibited federal funding for any international family planning that provided abortions.

The bill also eliminates funding for abstinence-only sex-ed programs, while allocating another $114.5 million for comprehensive sex-ed.

British Prime Minister Promises to Push Same-Sex Civil Unions Across EU

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced in an interview with homosexual magazine Attitude Wednesday that he will push for same-sex civil unions to be recognized in all EU countries, particularly in Eastern Europe.

“I’m fighting to get all the countries in Europe to recognize civil partnerships carried out in Britain,” he said.

“We want countries where that hasn’t been the case – especially in eastern Europe – to recognize them.”

EU countries France, Germany and Austria, come January 1, already have civil partnership laws, while same-sex marriage is legal in Belgium, Sweden, Spain and the Netherlands. Brown’s task may be more difficult in eastern European countries; they still defend traditional views of marriage and the family and have been largely resistant to advancements of the LGBT agenda.

“Of course it will be tough,” Brown said, “and will take many years, but that has never ever been a good reason not to fight.”

This just means that those who understand the importance of traditional families and marriage will have to work even harder to protect marriage.