Is It Inevitable?

Diane Robertson

Many people have said to me, “It is inevitable. Why do you care?”

Former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, said to American conservatives, “It is in every family. It is in every community. The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to … accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states — and it will be more after 2014 — gay relationships will be legal, period.”

Is legalized gay marriage inevitable? In the western world, many countries and states have acquiesced to the same-sex marriage lobby. Does that mean it is something to embrace?

In January 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is a constitutional right for women and required every state to legalize abortion. This ruling did not end the abortion fight. A change in law did not convince every person that abortion is good. The fight continued. In fact, in 2012, 39 years after Roe vs. Wade, more state laws were passed to limit abortions than in any year previous. The war to save the lives of the unborn did not end with Roe vs. Wade. Everyone did not embrace and except abortion as a cultural norm.

Three liberal states legalized gay marriage by a small majority vote during the 2012 elections. The Supreme Court is going to hear cases on gay marriage in just two more months. They may decide that gay marriage is a constitutional right. Like Roe vs. Wade didn’t end the abortion battle, Hollingsworth vs. Perry or Windsor vs. the United States will not end the marriage debate.

The abortion battle is not solely about women’s right to choose. The battle is bigger than that– it is about human life and protecting and caring for children. The marriage battle is not just about giving every couple equal standing under the tax code and labeling all sexual relationship as “marriage”.  There wouldn’t be a war if it was. The marriage battle exists to change the law to make sexual freedom more important than any other freedom or right—religious freedom, parental rights, the right to conscience, freedom of speech and of the press, children’s right to a stable family with a mother and a father. The stakes are high in the marriage battle.

Many people still stand strong in their religious beliefs and traditional values. They will fight for their religious freedom. Many people do not like their children being taught about homosexuality in schools. Many people do not like being forced into business that goes against their religion and conscience. Many people strongly believe in the importance of stable families with a mother and a father and how they form society. The war will go on. Gay marriage may be legalized, but just like legalizing abortion did not end the abortion fight, legalizing gay marriage will not end the marriage fight.

 

 

Education: Third Cycle, Is there Hope?

Maddi Gillel

Editor’s note:  This is the third in a series on education.  To see “The High Water Mark,” go here, the second article, “The Nose Dive,” is here.

The value of the second cycle is that many have learned the hard way what works to make a country strong, healthy, prosperous, safe, and independent  in every way.

In his book Back to Basics: The Traditionalist Movement That is Sweeping Grassroots America, Burton Yale Pines expressed the yearning of the vast majority of Americans to get America back on track.  There is a call for reform in many areas:

1-     A revival of quality education by the national  commission (A Nation at Risk: The  Imperative for Educational Reform)

2-     A return to the free- market system with less intervention by government so that millions of new jobs can be created.

3-     A restoration of moral and spiritual values in both private and public life.

4-     A reduction in taxes; federal, state, and local.

5-     Paying off the national debt.

6-     Turning public welfare programs into workfare, education, and job-creating opportunities instead of allowing millions of Americans to become permanently trapped on the poverty level.

( Burton Yale Pines)

There are many in our  society who are doing what they can to resist that which weakens our country and encourage that which makes our country strong and free once again.  There are websites that are forwarded  to thousands to keep others aware of the news of the day; there are blogs such as this one, to encourage strong families, financial responsibility, and a return to values;  many more of our representatives understand and uphold the constitution and know how this country should be governed; many families have remained sufficiently intact that they have been raised by parents and grandparents who lived during the high water mark of our society; technological knowledge is at an all- time high, which has its downside, but the upside is that more can stay abreast of advancements in every aspect of our society –law, medicine, marketing, agriculture, retailing, engineering, education, political science, etc.

Many parents recognize the weakness of the education system and choose to home school their children- and this has been going on for quite some time.  Those children are in turn growing up, getting married, and home schooling their own children.

A College/University education was at one time,  thought to be the only way to make a good living, but many are choosing the trades (plumbing, electricity, carpentry, masonry,)  which  is  less expensive, takes less time, and will afford an ability to provide for one’s family ( of course keeping a strong work ethic in mind).  Keep in mind, that one can do a lot of reading and studying about any subject on earth in his own spare time and become an ‘educated’ person – there is formal education and informal education and a truly ‘educated’ person depends on his own volition.

There are an increasing number who are becoming more aware of the democratic process and are staying in contact with their representatives – through technology.  We can even sign petitions ‘on line.’

More reporters and journalists and radio hosts are choosing to be independent of ‘political correctness’ and can thusly keep their readers/listeners  apprised of what the real story is, as opposed to sticking to the talking points-‘ business as usual.’

To sum up, it is no mystery why billions are poured into education.  The ‘powers- that- be’ know that they have got to protect this institution. They can then do as they wish so children are raised to think along the lines of:  indifference to education (reading, writing, and math) socialism, religious and moral apathy, subjection to outrageous behavior from others (bullying, assault, profanity, vulgarity, negative peer pressure, etc.) and a lack of understanding and appreciation of the constitution.

Once again, and as usual, the home is crucial in teaching our children values, reading, math, writing, citizenship, financial responsibility, and family stability.

There is hope.

Education- Phase 2 The Nose Dive

Maddi Gillel

Editor’s note:  This is the second in a series on education.  To see “The High Water Mark,” go here.

The second phase began around 1887.  There were those who wanted to experiment with ideas to make changes in the system:

1-The populist movement demanded that the federal government use income taxes to confiscate some of the property of the rich and redistribute it among the lower economic classes

2-  Industrial and financial leaders  wanted to influence the federal government to forcefully regulate our economy and limit competition at home and abroad.

3-  A group of political leaders and economists wanted to try the theories of socialism (which means government  ownership and control of production and distribution).

4-   Leading intellectuals rejected the spiritual and moral foundation of the American formula and wanted it eliminated from education.

The Founders had pronounced all of these ideas formulas for failure and warned of their destruction to the American system.  These 4 ‘experiments’ began to infiltrate  every aspect of our  society, and serious erosion began.

Five independent studies by leading educators across the country began calling for a return to basics.   A report from the National Commission on Excellence in Education declared: “The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.”  (US Department of Education, “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform”)

The commission found serious danger signals, such as:

“Over 3 million American adults were functionally illiterate by the simplest tests of everyday reading, writing, and comprehension.

About 13 percent of all 17 year olds in the US could be considered functionally illiterate.

Between 1975 and 1980, remedial math in public 4-year colleges increased by 72 percent .

Business and military leaders were required to spend millions of dollars on costly remedial education and training programs  for reading, writing, spelling and computation. “

During the 2^nd cycle, the moral and social quality of our culture was in serious decline. White collar crime skyrocketed;   divorce became far more common; more babies in gestation were destroyed by abortion than were born alive; promiscuous sexuality among the youth created  a wave of unwed mothers and illegitimate children, and the social destabilization which results from these problems; sexual depravity in some of its most bizarre forms began to be widespread; filthy speech was promoted in the name of free speech (4 letter words had become prominent in routine conversations of many); First Amendment rights were used as a license for the sale, distribution and broadcasting of pornography; obscenity was the principal attraction for commercial exploitation in books, magazines, films, and television shows; drugs became a plague on the nation.

A strong drive to completely secularize all phases of public education was begun. The Supreme Court eliminated prayer and Bible reading from the schools. The teaching of morality and spiritual values were eliminated from the schools. Stories with moral lessons (which were so popular in the McGuffey Readers) disappeared from textbooks.

There was much less emphasis on patriotism or any firm commitment to the Constitution or the Founders’ formula for prosperity.  Volumes were written about the Founding Fathers which leveled serious accusations against their reputation and character.  Researchers are now finding these stories to be myths and of recent invention.

A powerful federal government began to replace local government.  The shift of power from the states to the central government involved numerous violations of the Constitution.

There was a shift from a free-market economy (capitalism) to a highly regulated economy (another violation of the Constitution).

During this time – against the Monroe Doctrine –  the U.S. entered into entangling alliances and began meddling in the affairs of nearly every nation on earth. Hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars were spent (and the objectives of this meddling were not even met).

The U.S. went from virtually no national debt, to the biggest national debt in history, and more than all other countries’ debts combined

Our soldiers were ordered to fight in undeclared wars such as Korea and Vietnam (prohibited by Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution).

The Supreme Court began issuing mandates and decrees which unlawfully amended the provisions of the Constitution.

The executive branch began issuing thousands of executive orders each year which were enforced by the courts as federal laws (Article 1 section 1 states that Americans were not to be subject to any laws which had not been approved by Congress).

The nation – without a Constitutional amendment- was taken off the gold and silver standard.

There are too many in our society that believe the way things are now is the way they have always been and should always be.  But, how is it all working for us? I would say – “not too well.”

With all of these negative experiences emerging from  the  second cycle, it was inevitable that the vast majority of Americans would begin calling for reform – which will take us into phase 3 – next week.

LIBERTY, TYRANNY, AND ANARCHY…WHERE ARE WE?

Maddi Gillel

Someone once said, “When the government fears the people there is freedom, when the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Tyranny is also a catch -all phrase for the ‘isms – communism, Nazism, Marxism, fascism, etc.  So with liberty and tyranny loosely defined, what is anarchy?  Anarchy is when there is NO LAW.

Where would you say we were?  I agree – TYRANNY.  The federal government has by-passed the states (in violation of the 10^th amendment) and has now taken over areas that were forbidden to the Federal Government under the Founders’ formula: land, schools, air, water, energy, health, welfare, city finances, city beautification, sewage disposal, electricity, thermal power, intra-state commerce, industrial production, local police problems etc.

Do you fear the government?  Think of the following Federal (or federally condoned) programs: IRS, OSHA, EPA, NEA, ATF, UN, Public Schools (state schools), Medicare, Medicaid, federal judges, federal courts, martial law, government lands, BLM, ACLU etc.etc.etc.

The closer government is to the people, the more we can have a voice in what government does.  The family is the foundation of a society and the place where problems should be solved first.  The federal government is too far away and to unwieldy to try to solve problems, which is why the constitution was designed to keep government close to the people (family, local and state).

What is to be done then, to help bring things back into balance?  Do everything we can to strengthen our families, no matter how difficult, or inconvenient or expensive.  God set up families to be the basic unit of our society and we are to take this blessing seriously.  As we do so, we can more confidently ask God to help our country.

A Cause You Can Believe In

Rachel Allison

There are many causes in the world:  “Save the whales;” “Save the forests;” ”Save our environment;” “Preserve Freedom.;” and, of course, “Save the Family.” It’s important for people to have a cause.  It keeps us focused during our discretionary time on bettering our neighborhoods, community, society, and world.  Because of our potential to make a marked difference we should consider our causes carefully.

I don’t want to rain on anyone’s cause parade, but let’s compare a few causes.

Squirrels or freedom?

Forests or family?

Whales or the birth of a child?

There are many others…and honestly, I’m not trying to discredit anyone’s cause.  I just think we all need to recognize that we have a certain amount of time on this earth, and prioritizing that time is pretty significant. When we meet our Maker, as many believe we will, I can imagine we’ll be making a report of the causes for which we actively advocated.

In my humble opinion Family and Freedom should take precedence on anyone’s list.  However I was just reminded of a cause that I learned about several years ago at the UN.  A film was shown at one of the side events during a major UN Conference.  The film took us to the Brothels of Calcutta where children had been trafficked and sold as sex slaves.  I was appalled!  And the subject of the film literally gave me nightmares.  And then I left NYC and over the months and years I have forgotten that child sex slavery still exists.  Well it does.

This is a cause that every decent man and woman in the world should embrace. Demanding that this type of abuse must stop should be paramount, until pressure is so great that governments have to address the issue and stop the practice.  Information in the film strongly suggests that local governments are compliant with this practice.  Financially there are a lot of people who are benefiting from the trafficking of these young boys and girls… including government leaders and policemen.

If enough people made it their cause, and our voices were united around the world, the lives of these sweet innocent children will be saved.  Go to  LOVE146  to learn more.  Warning:  It’s going to break your heart!

Good News for California’s Prop 8!

Members of the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday, that the proponents of Proposition 8 have the right under state law to defend the 2008 California marriage amendment in federal court.  You will recall that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit threw the case back to the California Supreme Court to render an opinion as to whether or not  Prop 8 sponsors had “standing” to defend the voter approved amendment to California’s constitution.

You can see the text of  the new ruling here.

Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Brian Raum:

“The court was clearly right to conclude that the California marriage amendment should not go undefended just because state officials have refused to defend it…  Otherwise, state officials would have succeeded in indirectly invalidating a measure that they had no power to strike down directly.”

The ruling itself states that allowing the marriage amendment sponsors to become the defenders “assures voters who supported the measure and enacted it into law that any residual hostility or indifference of current public officials to the substance of the initiative measure will not prevent a full and robust defense of the measure to be mounted in court on the people’s behalf.”

The attorneys for the same-sex couples who brought the constitutional challenge in the first place had argued that the sponsors of the Prop 8 ballot measure had no more personal interest in defending it than anyone else in the state who had voted for the amendment and they as a sponsoring group would not be harmed if the amendment was voided.  The California Court didn’t fall for that line of reasoning and stated that they had a “unique relationships to the initiative measure” and were the most obvious and logical persons to defend the measure.

Here’s a timeline for California’s Prop 8:

• February 12, 2004, Mayor of San Francisco illegally begins issuing “same-sex” marriages licenses.  On March 11, 2004, the California Supreme Court ordered officials of San Francisco to stop.
•  May 15, 2008, California Court strikes down two statutory laws that banned same-sex marriage – one from 1977 and California’s DOMA law know as Proposition 22 – passed in the year 2000.
• On June 19, 2008, the California Superior Court ordered magistrates and country clerks to begin allowing same-sex marriage.
• November 5, 2008, the citizens of California pass a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
• On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturns Prop 8 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruling that Prop 8 violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
• August 12, 2010, Judge Walker announces his decision to “lift the stay” and allow same-sex marriages to begin again.  August 16, 2010, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit indefinitely extended the stay pending appeal of the decision of Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
• January 4, 2011, the Ninth Circuit certified a question to the California Supreme Court, asking the state court to decide if the proponents of Prop 8 had “standing” to appeal the case.
• September, 2011, the California Supreme Court heard Oral arguments on the question of “standing.”
• November 17, 2011, the State Court issues opinion that proponents of Prop 8 do have “standing” to defend the measure in federal court.

Where does it go from here?

The case returns to the 9^th Circuit where that body still has to make a formal decision on whether to accept the opinion of the California State Court on the question of “standing.”  It is assumed that they will agree that Prop 8 defenders have standing.  Then Perry v. Schwarzenegger case will proceed with three judges making the decision on whether or not Prop 8 is constitutional.

No matter how they rule, the case is most certainly on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and it matters not just to California, but to the entire country.  To read an analysis of the import and impact of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, go here.

Senate Judiciary Committee votes to strike down DOMA

Voting along partisan lines the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee voted today to end the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act was approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both house of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House).  President Clinton signed the bill into effect in 1996 with this statement:  “I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages, and this legislation is consistent with that position.”

The ridiculously named and disrespectful “Respect for Marriage Act” that passed out of committee today flies in the face of the wishes of 31 states that have codified marriage – either in their constitution or in their statutes or in many cases both -as the union of one man and one woman.

Undermining and eventually destroying the Defense of Marriage Act is the stated goal of the current U.S. administration as they have refused to defend DOMA.  They have abdicated their responsibility leaving the House of Representatives to do the job.  Today’s vote shows how members of the senate do not understand the will of the American people.  The repeal of DOMA would open the door to taxpayers being forced to subsidize homosexual couples by providing them with federal benefits.

There is little chance that this “Dis”Respect for Marriage Act will get much traction elsewhere in Congress, but now is the time to contact your Senators and let them know your opinion on what occurred today.  Tell them to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and to not allow any of its provisions to be overturned.

Senate Dems move to repeal DOMA 

A Key to Preserving the Family: Get out and vote!

I have been involved in the trenches of popular electoral politics for my entire adult life.  Experiences gained in these years led me into involvement with United Families International. And while UFI is a non-partisan organization, I recognized that unless caring, concerned, and committed people involve themselves in the electoral political system of the nation they live in, the radical, anti-family agenda may prevail.  I acted by joining with UFI, I hope you will act also.

In nations where a semblance of democracy allows folks like you and me to express our preferences, it is our duty to ensure we vote for those that will stand for the sanctity of life and the preservation of the institution of the family.  Not every nation where UFI supporters live has open, fair elections.  But in those that do, unless our views are known by our elected leaders, and unless those elected leaders share our commitments to principle, it will remain difficult to protect the institutions we value so highly.

During October, a total of fourteen countries around the world held elections, six nations voted during the past week.  Tomorrow, the United States of America has important congressional midterm elections.  Four more nations are scheduled for elections before the end of 2010.

Active pro-family voter participation in national elections has made a major impact in the outcome of those elections.  In Brazil for example, the leading candidate for President made major concessions to protect the sanctity of life in the face of massive support from the populace after having been forced into a runoff.  If pro-life, pro-family forces can have such an impact in one of the world’s largest democracies, you and other supporters of the family can have a similar impact in your next elections.

Pro-family, pro-life voters in the U.S. can make a statement tomorrow regarding the most anti-family, pro-abortion administration America has ever known.  Yet, to make this statement, UFI supporters in America must make the effort to step forward and exercise their duty by voting.  While not every UFI supporter will agree on every issue across the board, signaling your support of those political leaders that will join UFI in the fight to preserve marriage and family can help to make course corrections that will impact, not just the U.S., but the entire world.

Those of us in the international pro-life, pro-family coalition have long recognized that when the internal policies of the United States are strongly in line with the principles that you and United Families International stand for, the international support for those positions increases.  This means that your vote will not just bring strength to the family in your area or nation alone, but to the entire world as well.

Please take the time to exercise your right and duty.  Be proactive and thoughtful in your vote for those leaders who will commit to preserving the natural family.  Those who disagree with you understand that when you stay home, they benefit. Bad politicians are elected and bad policy is implemented when good people don’t vote.  Make the commitment, encourage your neighbors, take action.  Get out and vote for those issues and candidates who will join with UFI in preserving a safe future for families.

Onward to a better tomorrow,

Michael Duff
President, United Families International

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: The Beginning of the End of Religious Freedom in America

In the days preceding the announcement of District Judge Walker’s overturning of California’s Prop 8, our United Families Utah members and supporters received this excellent explanation of what is at stake for families and religious freedom.  Laura Bunker is a leader of United Families Utah and we thought her explanations, examples, and documentation were important enough that we wanted to share them with all United Families readers.  As Perry v. Schwarzenegger continues to progress through the court system, all Americans are going to find out the answer to Laura’s question:  “Is sexual freedom more important than religious freedom?”

Perry v. Schwarzenegger:  The Beginning of the End of Religious Freedom in America I love “The Golden State.”  I was born in Oakland and raised in Santa Rosa, the all-American town where the movie Pollyanna was filmed.  Like Pollyanna, my family and most of our neighbors attended church every Sunday (albeit different churches) and flew the flag every 4th of July.  My parents and my sister’s family still live in California.  In 2008 they worked to help pass Proposition 8, which established a state constitutional amendment preserving marriage between a man and a woman.  My family walked neighborhood precincts, knocked on doors, called registered voters on the phone, and held “Yes on 8″ signs on street corners.  The measure passed, but this year my family and the other seven million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 have all been on trial. They are essentially being sued for the “improper religious views” that motivated their votes (Eastman). I realize this is a sensitive issue and that there are some who would label my family and me “discriminatory” or “anti-gay”, but we’re not anti-anyone.  We have gay friends and family members whom we love and appreciate. For five years I worked amicably with three gay men in a hospital laboratory–one of whom was also my supervisor.  One of my good friends in high school, who happened to be a lesbian, sang with me at my wedding.  And most recently one of my nieces has just “come out” and announced she is gay.  I value each of these people, their worth and their unique place in my life.  But I also value my religious beliefs and my freedom to exercise them in public even though they may offend some people. Because of this, in May, 2008, when the California Supreme Court overruled existing state law by legalizing same-sex marriage, my family and I–and thousands of other concerned citizens–joined the Proposition 8 campaign to overturn that ruling with a constitutional amendment. We were gratified in November when over seven million people voted in favor of Proposition 8, and it passed with 52% of the vote (Eastman).  But in January 2010, the Prop 8 opponents literally “made a federal case out of it” and took the people of California to court. While the trial first appeared to be about marriage, a larger issue soon began to emerge against religion.  As Mathew Staver, director of the Liberty Center for Law and Policy in Virginia observed, “What has struck me is that the plaintiffs have tried to put Christianity on trial rather than Prop 8″  (Staver qtd in Lindenberger). Perry v. Schwarzenegger, or the Prop 8 trial as it is commonly known, is a huge, landmark trial.  It is the first marriage case in the history of our nation where the “thoughts, motivations, and personal beliefs” of the voters are on trial for “improper intent” (Prentice, Ferriss, Wickman).  Did the seven million voters who voted for Prop 8 have a right to let religious beliefs influence their vote?  Or were their religious motives “irrational,” discriminatory, and unconstitutional?  The stakes are high in this historic case with respect to both religious freedom and traditional marriage.  The Prop 8 trial could change religious freedom as we know it in America.  If California redefines marriage to include same-sex couples, such a ruling would threaten the free exercise of religion throughout the United States. Brief History and Explanation Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of  Proposition 8.  Two gay couples are the plaintiffs, represented by the “legal dream team” of Ted Olson and David Boies–the famous attorneys who opposed each other when they represented George W. Bush and Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election legal battle (Richardson).  The job of defending the California voters would normally have fallen to California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, but “in this case he refused, citing his strong opposition to the initiative” (Richardson).  Therefore, the pro-marriage coalition had to find–and fund–their own legal counsel.  The Prop 8 legal defense team was led by Charles Cooper, former assistant attorney general under President Reagan, and included attorneys from his law firm and the Alliance Defense Fund, as well as Andy Pugno, General Counsel for the “Yes on 8″ campaign(Richardson, Prentice).  The evidence portion of the trial took place between January 11, 2010, and January 28, 2010, and was presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker. Closing arguments were heard on June 16, 2010, and citizens across the nation are anxiously waiting Judge Walker’s ruling.  A ruling to overturn Prop 8 could have huge repercussions. First, it could change the definition of marriage throughout America. “The Perry case’s implications for marriage are enormous. If. . . Judge Walker declares that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, not only will same-sex marriage become law in California, but traditional marriage laws in every state will be vulnerable to federal legal challenges” (Richardson).  In other words, if California’s marriage amendment is overturned, the marriage amendments in other states could be challenged in federal court and overturned as well.   Secondly, if this case is successful, it could undermine every citizen’s fundamental right of “freedom of religion” throughout America. Freedom of Religion:  What it is and What it is not The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (US Constitution).  Dallin Oaks, former Utah Supreme Court Justice, notes that the free exercise of religion is accepted by many legal experts as “a cornerstone of American democracy” (Oaks, section IV).  However, there is a troubling movement going on right now to change this paramount “freedom of religion” into “freedom of worship.”  Many world leaders, including President Obama are starting to use the new phrase “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion” (Samelson). What is the difference?  Freedom of religion includes “both the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to exercise or practice those beliefs” (Oaks, section IV).  Freedom of religion is the right to live according to one’s religious dictates, including the right of Jews to keep kosher, Muslim women to wear headscarves, and LDS missionaries to proselytize (Samelson).  Freedom of religion also includes the right of individuals to exercise their personal religious beliefs in the workplace. For example, because of religious beliefs, a nurse may choose not to participate in an abortion, or the owners of a bed-and-breakfast may decline to have a same-sex couple stay overnight together in their home.  In addition, Francis Cardinal George, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, points out that freedom of religion also means that “religious groups as well as religious individuals have a right to exercise their influence in the public square” (George, p. 4).  Religious freedom “includ[es] the right to engage in the political life of a nation” (Farr) through individual or group effort. On the other hand, “freedom of worship” infers some government control. For instance, “Lenin permitted freedom of worship. . . but not freedom of religion” (George, p. 4). Individuals are still able to privately practice their religious beliefs in their chapels and homes, or as Cardinal George puts it, “as long as you don’t make anybody else unhappy” (George, p. 4), but the government determines how church members exercise those beliefs in public. Specifically, if the government decided that same-sex marriage was a “good” thing worth protecting, then the religious bed-and-breakfast owners mentioned above would have little choice but to comply with the request if they wanted to avoid a lawsuit (Duncan). Religious people would feel social pressure to keep their private values to themselves as they go about their public business. One example of government-controlled “freedom of worship” is already happening in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage became law in 2004. In 2005 and 2006, several Christian parents in Lexington were disturbed when their children were taught about same-sex marriage in their kindergarten and second grade classrooms, without the parents’ knowledge.  When one of the fathers pressed the school principal for the option to remove his child from these lessons, he was arrested and spent a night in jail (McElroy). The parents later filed a lawsuit, but “both the district court and the Court of Appeals ruled against them, stating that parents had no right to be notified of this instruction or to remove their children from class while gay marriage was being taught” (Prentice).  The court declared that “the state’s interest in educating public school children about gay marriage outweighed the religious freedoms and parental rights of parents who object to same-sex marriage on moral grounds” (Prentice).  Essentially, the Massachusetts government determined that gay marriage was a “good thing” to be protected over the religious beliefs that the parents thought were a “good thing.” As a result, currently parents in that state cannot currently opt their children out of classroom instruction regarding gay marriage. In addition to impacting one’s daily affairs, “freedom of worship” would also restrict religious participation in social and political issues.  Members of churches might not be able to fully participate in political dialogue about social or cultural rights (Wickman  p. 5).  Whether or not the church members use religious language in their arguments, just defending traditional marriage could make them “suspect” for being “irrational” or discriminatory (Duncan).  In a way, the Perry v. Shwarzenegger trial has already begun this scenario.  Even though my family and the vast majority of pro-marriage citizens used social science and legal reasons to encourage people to vote for Proposition 8, they are now being sued in federal court simply because many of them were members of churches. The difference between freedom of religion and “freedom of worship” is who determines what we value–the people or the government? Andy Pugno, a defense attorney in the Prop 8 trial pointed out, “The controlling legal issue [here] is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have a right to decide what is best” (Pugno qtd in Prentice).  If Judge Walker rules to overturn Proposition 8, he will essentially be ruling that the government has the right to decide what is best, taking America one step closer to “freedom of worship,” and away from freedom of religion. How the Same-Sex Marriage Debate has Already Impacted Freedom of Religion Even before the Prop 8 trial, the same-sex marriage debate has been gradually chipping away at religious freedoms.  Advocates for same-sex marriage claim that “homosexuality is an immutable characteristic” (Eastman), and that sexual orientation and gender identity should become the new civil right, along with race, color, sex, national origin, disability, age, and religion (Human Rights Campaign).  However, making homosexuality a civil right will ironically create two conflicting protected classes: sexual orientation and religion.  Can the law give “equal” protections to two opposing groups?  Can one class’s rights trump another?  Apparently so.  Even without having official “protected class” status, gay rights are challenging religious rights in courtrooms and classrooms across the nation, “and so far, the religious groups are losing” (Hagerty). For example, when same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, state law required Catholic Charities adoption services to place children with same-sex couples. Catholic Charities tried to exempt themselves from this requirement, but lost the legal battle.  As a result, rather than conform to a law that conflicted with their religious beliefs, in 2006 they decided to close their doors (Hagerty).   A California gynecologist was sued by his patient when he declined to perform an in vitro fertilization on a lesbian patient because of his religious beliefs.  In 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled against the doctor, suggesting that he “take up a different line of business” (Hagerty, Salmon).  A Christian photographer in New Mexico who refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony, was sued and forced to pay $6,637 to cover the lesbian couple’s legal fees (Hagerty, Salmon).  When a New Jersey Methodist group declined to let a gay couple use its beachside pavilion for their civil union ceremony, the church lost its property tax exemption (Hagerty, Salmon).  And in Colorado, a youth minister actually sued her own church for teaching that homosexuality is a sin and incompatible with scripture (Severino).   Although this particular case was dismissed, one is left to wonder how long it will take before a lawsuit against a church’s teachings is upheld. The trend against religion is clear.  In 2007, Roger Severino, Legal Counsel and Chief Operations Officer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty observed, “The movement for gay marriage is on a collision course with religious liberty. . . resulting in pervasive church-state conflict, and a substantial chilling of religious expression.  The chilling effect that either litigation or the threat of litigation would have on religious liberty is real and immediate” (Severino, p. 979).  In other words, more and more religious people will keep quiet and compliant, for fear that anything they say or do will be used against them in a lawsuit. How the Prop 8 Trial Further Threatens Religious Freedom The Prop 8 trial process further threatens religious freedom in at least two ways.  First, the plaintiffs “unfairly attacked religion” (Jones) during the trial, turning the courtroom into a forum to advance their message.  They argued that it wasn’t right for voters to let religious beliefs influence their vote or persuade other votes, and that such religious motives legally qualify as discrimination.  In his opening arguments, Ted Olsen (one of the lead attorneys against Prop 8) asserted, “Proposition 8 enacted an utterly irrational [scheme to control] the fundamental right to marry…. There is no rational justification for this unique pattern of discrimination. (American Foundation, Recent News).  Olsen’s co-counsel David Boies stated that “the religious majority should not be able to use the law to impose their principles on a religious minority” (Raum qtd in Jones). The trial progressed into an “outrageous. . . [and] systematic attack of orthodox religious beliefs” (Raum qtd in Jones). Professor Gary Segura of Stanford University was called to the stand and testified in behalf of the plaintiffs, “I think that religion is the chief obstacle for gay and lesbian political progress” (American Foundation, Hearing Transcripts, p. 1565). Ultimately, whatever the outcome of this trial, biased sound bites such as “utterly irrational…discrimination,” “religious majority imposing their principles,” and “religion is the chief obstacle” are now public record from a high-profile case, and are likely to be quoted in other forums throughout America to discredit religion.  Win or lose, the plaintiffs successfully used the Prop 8 trial to deliver their anti-religion message. Secondly, the plaintiffs are trying to invalidate Proposition 8 by proving that the religious beliefs of the voters were “irrational”, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.  As William C. Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation clarifies, “The plaintiffs are trying to make the link that same-sex discrimination and racial discrimination are the same thing (Duncan).  Elder Lance B. Wickman, General Counsel for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints further explains, “Earlier cases have chased prayer and religious symbols from the square. Now, this case would drive religious opinions off as well. . .  It threatens to eliminate any discussion of religion in the public square when social or cultural rights are at issue” (Wickman, p. 4, 6).  In short, private religious values that conflict with same-sex rights would have to be kept silent in public. Status of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger Trial Closing arguments of the trial took place on June 16, 2010 (US District Court).  Judge Walker’s final ruling is expected sometime this summer.  All sides agree that no matter how Judge Walker rules, the decision is expected to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court, and eventually come before the U.S. Supreme Court (Prentice, Dolan, Lindenberger).  A Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage would overrule state marriage laws similar to the way Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion throughout the nation in 1973 (Richardson). An interesting development in the Prop 8 trial process occurred on Feb 7, 2010, when a San Francisco newspaper unveiled the fact that Judge Walker is himself gay (Matier).  Although some people called for Judge Walker to recuse himself from the case (Whelan),  to their credit, the Prop 8 defense team did not join the battle cry.  They simply stated that they would not make a public issue of the judge’s sexual orientation, but they also frankly acknowledged that “in many ways the sponsors of Prop. 8 have been put at a significant disadvantage throughout the case. . . regardless of the reason for it” (Matier). (Two such disadvantages included the Prop 8 team being ordered to turn over thousands of pages of internal memos to the plaintiffs, and Judge Walker’s effort to televise the trial, which was overturned by the Supreme Court.) Summary and Conclusion Perry v. Schwarzenegger is the culmination of a long-standing debate of gay-rights versus freedom of religion.  If this trial reaches the Supreme Court and is ruled favorably, homosexuality and same-sex marriage will become the new protected class or civil right in America.  However, the “equal rights” demanded by the gay-rights movement translate into “more equal” than the religious rights of other citizens. Religious citizens across the nation are already feeling the pain of losing their freedoms, their parental rights, their jobs, and their savings, and if same-sex marriage becomes law these legal battles will increase. This ruling would also stigmatize religious citizens as discriminatory, undermining their legitimate voice in public debate and potentially restricting public religious practices including proselytizing. In essence our government would be forcing a new government-imposed value on all Americans–that sexual freedom is more important than religious freedom. This would limit citizens’ free exercise of religion in the public square, conflicting with the First Amendment and turning our freedom of religion into government-controlled “freedom of worship.”  In this sense, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger would quite literally be the beginning of the end of religious freedom as we know it in America. I still love California.  But now my family and I worry that it has started a legal process that threatens the things that mean the most to us: our definition of family and our freedom to fully exercise our faith.  Even Pollyanna would have been appalled.  When one powerful person in her town was controlling her community, even the local minister, Pollyanna reminded them that “No one can own a church.”  Not even a government.    Do you appreciate UnitedFamilies.org’s consistent and articulate weekly alerts to keep you informed on the family issues around the world? If so, please do your part by helping us spread around more truth. United Families needs your financial help. You can donate online or donate by mail. Thank you for your serious consideration. Works Cited American Foundation for Equal Rights. Hearing Transcripts. Perry Trial Day 7. US District  Court Northern District of California. 20 Jan. 2010. Web. 9 Jun. 2010.  American Foundation for Equal Rights. Recent News. “Text of Ted Olson’s Opening Statement in Prop 8 Trial – As Prepared.” 11 Jan. 2010. Web. 9 Jun. 2010. Dolan, Maura. “Arguments begin in federal Prop. 8 trial.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. 11 Jan. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010. Duncan, William C. Personal Interview. 10 Jun. 2010. Eastman, John C. “Prop 8 trial set up aids gay marriage side.” CNN Opinion. CNN. 12 Jan. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010. Farr, Thomas. “Obama at the crossroads on religious liberty.” The Washington Post. The Washington Post. 6 May 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010. Ferriss, Susan. “At heart of Prop. 8 trial, a clash over motives.” Sacramento Bee. Sacramento Bee. 19 Jan. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010. George, Francis. “Catholics and Latter-day Saints: Partners in the Defense of Religious Freedom.” Brigham Young University. Provo. 23 Feb. 2010. Lecture. Hagerty, Barbara Bradley. “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash.” NPR.org. June 13, 2008. Web. 2 June 2010 Human Rights Campaign. About Us. n.d. Web. 2 Jun. 2010. Jones, Ashby. “Prop. 8 Defenders Say Plaintiffs Attacked ‘Orthodox Religious Beliefs’.” Wall Street Journal Law Blog. Wall Street Journal. 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010. Lindenberger, Michael. “Gay Marriage Trial Rests, and a Key Ruling Awaits.” Time. Time Inc.,29 Jan. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010. Matier, Phillip and Andrew Ross. “Judge being a gay a nonissue during prop 8 trial.” San Francisco Gate. Hearst Corporation. 7 Feb. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010. McElroy, Wendy “Parental Rights vs. Public Schools” Fox News. 10 Aug. 2005 Web. 5 Jun. 2010 Oaks, Dallin H. “Religious Freedom.” Brigham Young University Idaho. Rexburg. 13 Oct. 2009. Lecture. Prentice, Ron. “Testimony Concludes But the Battle is Just Beginning.” ProtectMarriage. ProtectMarriage. 6 Feb. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010 Richardson, Valerie. “Same-Sex Marriage Now on Road to Supreme Court.” Human Events 18 Jan. 2010: 18. Print.

Kenya Passes a Pro-Abortion Constitution

With all of the emotion and commotion surrounding California’s Prop 8 ruling, we neglected to post on the outcome of Kenya’s vote on a new constitution.  As feared, the Kenya constitution passed with the inclusion of the competing language of “every person has a right to life, and that life begins at conception,” and allowing abortion if in the “opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law.” The clause “health of the mother” throws open wide the door for abortion upon demand.

In the U.S. and other countries around the world, it is the same type of wording that has paved the way for legal abortion throughout the 9-months of pregnancy.  Because the pro-abortion supporters of the “yes” vote (U.S. tax-payer funded!) were able to effectively drown out the pro-life voice attempting to educate the citizens of the problems with the proposed language, most Kenyans–who are profoundly pro-life–are not even aware of the dissonance in their new constitution.

Pro-abortion advocates, including Hillary Clinton, are cheering its passage stating that it will end violence and stabilize the political situation in Kenya.  We wonder about that.  They have legalized violence (abortion) to end violence?  We quote Mother Teresa:

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? “

“Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants.”

The Youtube video below has been widely circulated.  It gives you a Kenyan perspective and mentions the U.S.’s “arm twisting:”