Proselytizing compared to rape? Really?

Rachel Allison

There are bombs going off on more fronts than I can name.  The attacks are relentless and escalating.

Abortion—Now the truth is coming out about the “safety” and “compassion” of abortion clinics.  And we thought the supposed “back-alley abortions” were bad?

Euthanasia—being legalized and accepted as “killing with compassion.”

Marriage—If the Supreme Court redefines marriage, marriage, completely severed from its original purpose, might never pull out of its death spiral.  Religious freedom and rights of conscience will be severely compromised.

Educational decline—we have all witnessed its decline, and with Common Core being rammed through at break-neck speed, it will continue to be an agenda driven program run by non-elected federal agencies.

And there’s so much more…

What’s most alarming, a majority of the people seem to be totally unaware and even apathetic to the bombardment.

The most recent bombshell: Court marshals for those who proselyte  in the military.

I quote Bethany Monk from CitizenLink

The Pentagon has released a statement, confirming its policy that would punish service members who share their religious beliefs.

That follows a private meeting last week between Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and the Pentagon. Weinstein said military personnel who proselytize are guilty of sedition and “treason.” He said they should be punished to quell a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.”  

“If this policy goes forward, Christians within the military who speak their faith could now be prosecuted as enemies of the states,” according to the Family Research Council. “This has potential to destroy military recruiting across the services as Americans realize that their faith will be suppressed by joining the military. Our brave troops deserve better. If chaplains and other personnel are censored from offering the full solace of the Gospel, there is not religious freedom in the military.”

As I have studied this and other relevant reporting it looks like the Department of Defense has had this particular regulation in place prior to Weinstein’s demands.

“Air Force Culture, Air Force Standards,” published on Aug. 7, 2012.

Section 2.11 requires “government neutrality regarding religion.”

“Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion,” the regulation states.

Military leaders were admonished not to use their position to “promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council has said Weinstein’s hands are all over this work.  I wish I understood better whether MRFF could actually have had imput into the writing of the militaries’ regulations. Weinstein, an avid atheist is now demanding that the DOD start implementing it.

I quote Todd Starnes from Fox News

President Mikey Weinstein and others from his organization met privately with Pentagon officials on April 23. He said U.S. troops who proselytize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished – by the hundreds if necessary – to stave off what he called a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.”

“Someone needs to be punished for this,” Weinstein demanded to Fox News.  “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.” He compared the act of proselytizing to rape.

“It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators,” he told Fox News.

He said there is a time and a place for those in uniform to share their faith – but he took issues with fundamentalism that he says is causing widespread problems in the military.

Perkins and members of the Family Research Council were stunned that the Pentagon would be taking counsel and advice from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

“Why would military leadership be meeting with one of the most rabid atheists in America to discuss religious freedom in the military,” Perkins said. “That’s like consulting with China on how to improve human rights.”

If Weinstein has his way, and apparently he has the attention of military leaders “it threatens to treat service members caught witnessing as enemies of the state.”  “Non-compliance,” the Pentagon suggests, “even from ordained chaplains could result in court-martialing on a case-by-case basis.”

Does this sound like something that should be happening in the United States of America…or Hitler’s Germany?

With all the social, moral, and religious bombardment taking place we need to choose our battles wisely…but for America’s sake let us choose to fight! Apathy is a killer.

The FRC has launched a petition drive urging Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel to protect the religious freedom of troops “and not to proceed with the purge of religion within the ranks called for by anti-Christian activists.”

Ever wonder what things would be like if same-sex marriage were legalized?

Ann Bailey

Ever wonder what things would be like if same-sex marriage were legalized throughout the U.S.?   Gallaudet University’s recent suspension of their chief diversity officer gives us a clue.  Why was Angela McCaskill – the first deaf African American Woman to earn a Ph.D. from Gallaudet -suspended from her job?  She signed a ballot petition giving Maryland citizens the opportunity, in November, to vote on recently passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage.  She and about 80,000 other Marylanders signed the petition.

Dr. McCaskill thought it was a good idea to let the people of Maryland decide the definition of marriage.  Now the university is “making her pay.”  So much for the tolerance and diversity crowd!  Once again we see that for gay advocates and people on the left of the political spectrum, tolerance runs only one way.  The University’s President, T. Alan Hurwitz, confirms this observation by stating:  “Dr. McCaskill has participated in a legislative initiative that some feel is inappropriate for an individual serving as Chief Diversity Officer.”  Wow…. And he said that with a straight face!

If these open-minded, diverse, and tolerant individuals behave this way when same-sex marriage is not the law of the land – or the state – one can only imagine what their attitude (and their actions!) will be were they ever to have the force of law behind them.

That brings me to some other examples of what might occur if same-sex marriage became the law of the land.  These examples come to us from Canada where same sex marriage was legalized in 2005. The state of Minnesota has a constitutional amendment defining marriage on their ballot for November and the group Minnesota for Marriage have put together an interesting video on consequences of same-sex marriage in Canada.  You might say “Well, Canada has different laws than the U.S. and that won’t happen here.”

All I can say to that is “it already is.”

 

 

 

Fall Preview: Same-Sex “Marriage”

Diane Robertson

The United States Supreme court convenes soon. This season, the court will look at several cases concerning family law. On September 24th, the Supreme Court will begin its first review of Hollingworth v. Perry, commonly known as Proposition 8. On this same day, the court will review Windsor v. United States, one of the four court cases challenging DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

Every year, the Court receives approximately 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari.  The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 75-80 cases. With so many cases concerning gay-marriage appealing to the Supreme Court this year, it is almost certain that 2013 will be the year that gay-marriage is argued in front of the nine justices of the Supreme Court.

Of the four DOMA cases and the proposition 8 case, none require the court to address the constitutionality of gay-marriage on a national level. In all four DOMA cases, section 3 of the law is the main portion being challenged. DOMA’s Section 3 — affecting more than 1,000 federal laws — restricts provisions in any federal statute to marriages between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court only needs to take up the issue of whether or not the federal government is required to validate the marriages of homosexual couples from states where gay marriage is legal.

In the proposition 8 case, the ninth circuit court of appeals ruled in such a way that affects only the state of California—ruling that if a state once grants a right to same-sex marriage it is unconstitutional to remove that right when it serves no other purpose than to “lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians.” The Supreme Court need only to decide if Proposition 8 is unconstitutional for removing a right already given.

These cases, however, do grant the court opportunity to decide whether or not gay marriage is a “right” under the Constitution. If the justices decide to rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage, then the legalization of gay marriage for the entire United States will be decided by nine non-elected persons.

Where gay marriage is legal, abundant changes in law, education, and society occur—religious freedom and the right to act on one’s conscience is threatened. With so much social change that gay marriage brings, one would think that the Supreme Court would do better to leave this sort of legislation up to the elected officials in Congress. If gay marriage is to be legalized throughout the United States, shouldn’t it be decided by the hundreds of law makers the people have chosen rather than nine appointed judges?

Today is “Chick-fil-A Appreciate Day” Take a Stand!

Ann Bailey

Gather up your family and friends, today, and head for your local Chick-fil-A.  Here’s your chance to stand up for free speech, religious freedom and traditional marriage.  It is important that politicians, media, and gay advocates not be allowed to bully and discriminate against individuals because of their viewpoint.  Go to the business and purchase something big or small, but at the very least, stop in and say “Thank You!”

A few minutes ago I received a text from my husband that read like this:

Today is Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.  Please, please, please, take the kids and go there today.  What the left is doing to people who have a different viewpoint is wrong and very frightening.  We need to support good people who have the courage to take a stand.

My husband is out-of-town on business and not in an area that has a Chick-fil-A.  He was considering driving 150 miles to find one!  I told him that was probably a little much, but I’d be sure to encourage people to get involved.

So I will add my plea to his:  “Please, please, please take your family and friends with you to Chick-fil-A today.”  Show up at school or your place of work carrying your Chick-fil-A bag.   Or, go into the business and just say “thank you,” but show up.

After my husband’s first text, I responded that I was “already on it.”  He texted back:  “Good!  The support needs to be unbelievably over the top.”

He’s right.   This is one time that you can help send a very clear and important message. 

If you’ve been on vacation and not aware of what’s been happening to Chick-fil-A, you can catch up with these articles:

Legal eagles cry fowl over politicians’ plans to block Chick-fil-A

Chick-fil-A meets a first amendment buzzsaw

Chick-fil-A supporters plan nationwide appreciation day after furor over marriage comments

Chick-fil-A Day sign-ups top 200,000

 

 

DOMA Ruling and How Gay Marriage Affects my Family

Diane Robertson

The First District court of appeals in Boston today, May 31, ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. The three panel judge based their decision on the idea that the federal law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and therefore denies married homosexual couples federal benefits given to married heterosexual couples.

The ruling will be stayed while the case is appealed. Like the California Proposition 8 case, the appeal will most likely be heard en banc before the full panel of judges of the First Circuit Court before heading to the Supreme Court.

William Duncan, from the National Organization for Marriage interpreted the court’s decision thus:

Three judges on a federal appeals court purported to apply two amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Tenth and Fourteenth, to Congress’ definition of marriage which forecloses same-sex marriage for federal-law purposes. The panel said the law did not exceed Congress’ power and would be valid under any analysis used between the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) and 1973. The panel said, however, that since 1973 the implications of a handful of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have newly invested the federal courts with a power to second-guess Congress’s purposes. In this case, these three judges decided Congress’s rationales for preserving in law what has been the overwhelming norm of marriage (probably unanimous) for millennia just didn’t measure up.

It is clear from both the DOMA rulings and the Proposition 8 rulings that the Supreme Court will have to take up the issue of gay marriage.

I have been asked why I care about the legalization of gay marriage when it does not affect my heterosexual marriage and my family, and isn’t that just discrimination against a minority group?

I lived in Toronto, Ontario when gay marriage became legal in 2003. This did not have any effect on my individual marriage. It did have an immediate effect on my family and how I taught my children. With the change in the law my young children saw a number of homosexual couples being overtly intimate on the streets. My children asked questions. I had to answer, even though my 6, 4 and 2 year old children did not know anything about sexual intercourse and sexuality. As time has passed, the affect that gay marriage has on individuals and families is becoming more and more clear.

Gay marriage in Canada, and gay marriage and civil unions in the United States and other nations has a huge effect on future laws, children’s education, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and decency. It changes society, and as Canada and other nations are proving it sexualizes children, promotes early promiscuity and sexual experimentation while silencing parents, families, and religions.

This last winter in Laramie, Wyoming, my 16 year old niece took a high school course on diversity.  Instead of the course being about different races and cultures, the course was mainly about homosexuality. In this class students were encouraged to experiment with homosexuality. Any voices against the gay agenda were immediately silenced and counted as bigoted.

In Ottawa, Ontario there is a “Sex: a Tell-All Exhibition” at the Ottawa’s Museum of Science and Technology created for teens by the Montreal Science Centre with the help of “sexologists.” Among other things, it praises multiple partners and includes a “climax room” with depictions of aroused genitals as a recording describes the sensation of orgasm. This has been in other museums in Canada, and until there was enough outrage in the community, the exhibit displayed an animated video of teens masturbating and allowed children as young as 12 to enter the exhibit without an adult.

Last winter in Alberta, Canada, Bill 2, the Alberta Education Act, originally stated that even home schooled families would not be allowed to teach their children religious-based beliefs on homosexuality.  The bill passed with an amendment stating that, “the government of Alberta recognizes that parents have a right to choose the religious and ethical traditions in which their children are raised”. The amendment doesn’t change that public and private schooled children will be taught a comprehensive sexual education course that must “honour and respect” the controversial Alberta Human Rights Act that has been used to target Christians with traditional beliefs on homosexuality.

Right now in the UK, A draft of new guidelines titled “Personal beliefs and medical practice” issued by the UK’s General Medical Council warns doctors that exercising their conscience rights to not prescribe the abortifacient morning after pill, not referring for abortions or performing gender reassignment surgery, could endanger their license to practice, and psychologists are not allowed to offer any therapy for unwanted same sex attraction.

A bill is currently going through the California legislature that would ban all therapies used to treat unwanted homosexual feelings regardless of patient consent and desire.

There are numerous cases where business owners, hotel owners, and doctors have been sued for denying services because of religious beliefs or moral objections.  I repeat: legalized gay marriage has a huge effect on future laws, children’s education, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and decency.

 

Broken Laws…Broken Hearts

Rachel Allison

What a pounding the time-honored institution of marriage is getting these days.  We could blame the gay movement, and have justification for doing so.  But there have been some high-profile reminders these last few days of just how far the disregard for marriage vows and personal integrity have plunged.

If only those caught up with the excitement of the lustful moment could fast forward to see the heartbreak and humiliation that always accompany such selfish and reckless lack of personal responsibility…Surely the decision would be to flee the temptation and think more seriously about the ramifications of infidelity.

On May 8 North Carolina voters are going to the polls to vote for or against Amendment One, which would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in their state.  In the next seven days we’ll read and hear a lot about this amendment and its potentially harmful impact, legal and otherwise.  We who strongly advocate marriage between one man and one woman will be listening and watching all the news coming from North Carolina.

Have we been as attentive over the past seven days as the damning testimony in the John Edward’s trial has come to light? We are quick to cry “foul” and promote legislation to stop homosexuals and, in our minds, their disregard for the sanctity of marriage.  But where is the vocal outrage when infidelity between a husband and wife undermines the sacredness of the institution we hold dear.

We have heard repeatedly the moral arguments against homosexuality, including the label of “abomination.” Doesn’t infidelity deserve such a label?

I wonder what ridicule and contempt a legislator would receive if he tried to introduce a bill that would ban betrayal, disloyalty, lies, selfishness and deceit?

Most don’t want to have government that deeply involved in legislating our behaviors. And I agree.

What I don’t agree with is the banning of the Ten Commandments that remind us of how we can live lives free from selfishness and misplaced priorities. When the government chooses to ban the Ten Commandments, it then has to deal with legislation that tries to pick up the pieces of broken lives. It has become a vicious cycle that will get larger and more destructive as the values that our forefathers believed in become more and more “outdated.”

Seriously…look around at the real heartbreak and broken lives all around us.  How many are a result of the breaking of one or more of the Ten Commandments? You can dismiss them if you want…but seriously…

 

 

The Summer Soldier and the Sunshine Patriot

Rachel Allison

Do you remember the term “sunshine soldier and summer patriot?”

The term was found in Thomas Paine’s series of pamphlets published  during the American Revolution.  He wrote them because the colonists needed hope…they needed inspiration.  For any of you who have read the Pulitzer prize winning“1776” by David McCullough you will understand more fully the dire situation the colonists were facing.

“These are the times that try men’s souls” wrote Paine. “The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

Mr. Paine was describing those men, who, when the snow started falling, and a bad situation became harsh, left their ranks to return to their hearths, leaving the battles for others to wage.

This morning the thought, “It was the best of times; it was the worst of times” (“A Tale of Two Cities” by Dickens) has come to my mind repeatedly.

I am so grateful for a warm home, food, grocery stores within walking distance, clean running water at the turn of a handle, a reliable car, modern technology that allows me to have world news and instant access to communication. What comfort and convenience! It is the best of times! It would be easy to relax on a couch with a good book and ignore the world around me.

And yet…we read and see another reality portrayed as the headlines inform us of …”murders,” “desertion,” “abortion promoted,” “same-sex marriage legalized,” “child abuse rampant,” “fraud discovered,” “lies uncovered,” “pornography,” “rape,” “drug addiction”…and we see that these can also be considered “the worst of times.”

I believe that 2012 for us is as critical as our Founding Father’s 1776. And Paine’s words ring in our ears, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” His pamphlets clarified the issues at stake in the war being waged.

We at United Families, are doing our “darnedest” to clarify the battles being fought in our society. Future generations will look at us…you and me, as having been “winter warriors” or “sunshine soldiers.” Just like the men and women of 1776, who, during MANY of the battles, saw no way out…we also, at times, see “no way to win.”  And yet we are winning.  We are given hope when we read that more and more of the rising generation see abortion for what it is…the killing of unborn babies. It has been a battle that started before the Supreme Court heard Roe vs. Wade in 1973.  A long battle, and it’s not over, but the pro-life contingent is expanding.

How long will it take for society to recognize the absolute importance and truth that marriage is between a man and a woman? Thirty years?  Hopefully if the “winter warriors,” you and I, get involved in the battle we can shorten the war.  It may be fierce, but in Paine’s words:

“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

Paine’s writings helped the colonists understand that the British were trying to assume powers that only God should have. Paine saw the British political and military maneuvers in America as “impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”

Are there those today who can be compared with the British Empire of that day?  Some rights and powers belong to God alone.  Two of those powers are the giving and taking of life.  Who are we to assume we know better than God?

Paine states “that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupported to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent”.

Should we not be so worthy of God’s alliance? Obviously, we need to be more involved than just “wishing and hoping.” Every “decent method which wisdom could invent” needs to be in play. Think! Act! Write! Speak up! Get involved!

“The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” And may I add generations to come?

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 

UFI Reader Poll: If Coke was involved in pressuring the law firm King and Spaulding to decline to defend DOMA, would you participate in a boycott?

Here’s the question:

“If it is determined that Coca Cola was involved in pressuring the law firm King and Spaulding to decline to defend DOMA, would you participate in a boycott?”

Here’s what UFI readers had to say:

96 Percent                   Yes

 2 Percent                    No

 2 Percent                    Not sure

Looks like UFI readers agree, Coke should be added to everyone’s “I’m boycotting” list.   As one pundit put it:  “Maybe they can change their slogan to ‘Have a Coke and a smile, but not an attorney.”

Individuals familiar with the situation seem to agree:   Coke was involved in pressuring the law firm.

Did Coke Pressure King and Spaulding?

Here’s another

Coke reportedly intervened to pressure King & Spalding to drop DOMA case

 

Congress to Defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

House Speaker John A. Boehner announced on Friday that the chamber will take action to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.  On February 23, President Obama and the Justice Department announced that they would no longer be defending the federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman and protects states from being forced to acknowledge same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Convening a meeting of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group is the first step that Congress must take to defend DOMA.  The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group is comprised of the top three House Republicans and the top two House Democrats.  That ought to be interesting gathering! Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as come out squarely against the defense of DOMA stating:  “I oppose Speaker Boehner’s effort to put the House in the position of defending this indefensible statute.”

While House Speaker Boehner’s statement included:  “It is regrettable that the Obama administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy…  The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts – not by the president unilaterally – and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution.”

Thank you to all of you who have kept the defense of DOMA at the forefront and contacted your representatives to tell them to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.  United Families International encourages the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to move quickly and provide the support necessary to protect this crucial statute that was passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support.