Mothers for Freedom

Diane Robertson

I wanted to write about mothers and motherhood and the blessing and joys that come from being a mother. I wanted to tell mothers that they are doing a great work and to hang in there. Mothers change the world. Mothers are in charge. But alas, as each day passes getting us closer to mother’s day, legislation is being written that will destroy religious freedom.

This week, Delaware legalized gay marriage, and Minnesota is on the fast track to legalizing it too. That makes three states forming laws that give sexual preferences rights over religion, speech, and parental rights just this month.

I am worried. I believe these states are ramming this legislation through purposely at this time for good reason. The Supreme Court is reviewing two cases about marriage, either one could be used to legalize gay marriage for the nation. I believe these state legislatures are trying to show the Supreme Court justices that the United States is ready for gay marriage.

The United States will never be ready for gay marriage. It goes against the first freedom James Madison sealed for coming generations in America– religious freedom. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  Gay marriage laws prohibit the free exercise of religion. If gay marriage were to be legalized throughout the nation, the constitution, the bill of rights and all the sacrifices of our founding fathers will be damaged.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Freedom of religion and gay marriage cannot stand together in the law. They are opposites.  Mothers remember this Mother’s Day that it is you who have the power to change the world. You cradle the next generation in your arms. Your influence goes beyond the media and the liberal universities. Please, take your role seriously and teach your children like the mothers of our Founding Fathers must have taught their children—to love freedom, life, and liberty above all. Happy Mother’s Day.

Why is Gay Marriage Progressing Across the Globe?

Diane Robertson

Legalized same-sex marriage is making progress around the globe.  Since the New Year, New Zealand, France, and Uruguay have legalized gay marriage. Great Britain is currently working on a law that would legalize gay marriage, and marriage is on trial in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The nations in the world that have legalized gay marriage are as follows:

The Netherlands 2001

Belgium 2003

Spain 2005

Canada 2005

South Africa 2005

Norway 2009

Sweden 2009

Portugal 2010

Iceland 2010

Argentina 2010

Denmark 2012

New Zealand 2013

France 2013

Uruguay 2013

1/5^th of states in the US  as of April 2013

And one state and Mexico City in Mexico

Just one year ago, only six states in the US had legalized same sex marriage and none of those states had voted to legalize it. Now there are 10 states. Washington, Maryland, and Maine made history last fall by obtaining a majority vote of the people to legalize gay marriage in their states. Rhode Island became the 10^th state this April as the State Governor signed a law that easily passed the state legislature.  The tide has turned from a year ago.  The tide began turning more than 50 years ago.

From a purely secular standpoint, traditional marriage is hard to defend against the moving tide. The main secular argument in favor of traditional marriage is: marriage is a conjugal union between two biologically compatible people that would produce offspring and raise the next generation responsibly. Governments had an interest in this union because it produced a healthy new generation. People got married to form a new family—to produce children.

The rise of birth control use and the sexual revolution in the Western world began changing the connection between sex and children, and ultimately between marriage and families.  No longer does the general population get married to form a new family; the general population gets married to legalize an emotional attachment. Commitment is still involved, but not all couples consider that commitment permanent.

The original argument in favor of birth control was very convincing. If married women could reduce the number of unwanted births, poverty would end.

And then what happened? Pregnancy was removed from the sexual act. Having sex with no consequences became the new powerful idea. Single people wanted on board too. Free love, free sex, and no consequences became the talk of the day in the 1960’s.

When pregnancy no longer had to be a consequence of sex, the idea of getting married to have sex disconnected in the minds of the people. Men and women quit feeling the need to get married to have children.  Births to single mother’s sky rocketed.  Abortion became legal. Couples began co-habitating and forming families without bonds. With so many people engaging in sex before marriage, it seemed unreasonable to ask them to give up the idea of free sex after marriage. Divorce rates sky rocketed.  Marriage broke.

It is hard to fight for something already broken. Most couples who get married, do so with the idea that if in a couple of years they do not like this arrangement, they can move on. While many couples want children, most marriages are based on emotional attachment.

Isn’t it discrimination to limit committed emotional attachments to couples of the opposite gender?  Those who believe marriage is just an emotional attachment do.

How can supporters of traditional marriage argue against gay marriage? Gay marriage is currently a social experiment. There isn’t much data on the effects of gay marriage on child rearing and society in general. However, there is a lot of data on problems fatherlessness causes children. Fortunately, most women have not abandoned their children and there isn’t much data on problems motherlessness causes children. If the problems caused by fathers abandoning children can be used as an indicator for what motherlessness will do to children, we should start building more jails now.

Gay marriage doesn’t just break marriage in the way free heterosexual practices broke marriage. Gay marriage changes the laws. In the countries and states where gay marriage has been legal for some time, laws have changed from the support of religious and conscientious freedom to the support of sexual freedom. Gay marriage laws punish free speech and conscientious religious objections.

If the western world wants to maintain the conscience, religious and speech freedoms that have allowed them to prosper for hundreds of years, individuals need to change.  Adults need to remember that marriage is really about forming a new biological family and that remaining faithful in your marriage is important to health, happiness, and freedom.  Parents need to teach those values to their children. Things can still turn around in favor of man and woman marriage if men and women break away from the ideas brought by the sexual revolution and once more encourage abstinence before marriage and complete fidelity afterwards.

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.”

Unpopular Opinions

Diane Robertson

To have the opinion that the definition of marriage should not be changed to include same sex couples is very unpopular this spring.

Dr. Ben Carson, renowned, pediatric neurosurgeon at John Hopkins has stepped down as Hopkins Commencement Speaker.  Some Hopkins students and faculty petitioned against Carson as the commencement speaker after his comments at the National Prayer breakfast and his comments about gay marriage while on the Sean Hannity show.  When asked about the Supreme Court cases regarding gay marriage Carson said:

“Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society, and no group — be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are — they don’t get to change the definition.”

Rotham, the dean of John Hopkins medical school, criticized Carson’s comments as being “hurtful”.

Carson apologized for his comments, but still opted not to speak. In an email to Rotham, Carson said:

“Someday in the future, it is my hope and prayer that the emphasis on political correctness will decrease and we will start emphasizing rational discussion of differences so we can actually resolve problems and chart a course that is inclusive of everyone.”

Dr. Carson is a great man who with hard work moved from a childhood of severe poverty to world renowned surgeon. It is a shame the John Hopkins’ students will not get the opportunity to learn from a man who has lived the American Dream to its fullest potential.

In a similar story in Grosse Point, MI, the student club, “Young Americans for Freedom,” raised the $18,000 and secured school approval to have former Senator Rick Santorum come to South Point High to speak to the students about “Leadership”. When the school superintendent, Dr. Thomas Harwood, got word of the event, he cancelled it.  After enough student and parent outrage the superintendent decided to allow the event to occur.

The student group claims that the Superintendent cancelled the event based on Santorum’s views on  gay marriage and education. The Superintendent is now denying this and saying that it was cancelled because Santorum had not sent in a copy of his speech. Santorum never received a request for his speech. The students who organized the event as well as parents complained about the cancellation. Under pressure, the superintendent compromised to allow the event to continue if students attending have a signed permission slip.

Langston Bowens, an 18-year-old senior at South Point High School, said some teachers became angry when Santorum’s appearance was announced. He said they sent video clips from Santorum’s speeches to the principal and the district superintendent, demanding the event be canceled.

“The teachers called Santorum a bigot and a racist,” Bowens said. “They said he is controversial and shouldn’t speak in front of students.”

Santorum has said:

“This issue has always been about our First Amendment rights to freely share our views. Sadly, it wasn’t until the superintendent faced tremendous pressure from parents, students, the media and even a few of his colleagues at the school that he relented. It is unfortunate that students are required to get permission slips from their parents to hear a speech on leadership and public service.”

I find it difficult to believe that educators deem it educational to bring in planned parenthood and pro-gay groups that teach about explicit sexual practices in the names of “equality”, “anti-bullying”, and “safe sex” without calling for parent permission, yet the same people would require permission slips for students to hear a speech on “leadership” simply because the speaker is a strong enough person to support traditional marriage in the face of tremendous opposition.

 

 

Help Fight the Cultural War

Diane Robertson

In 1938 when Hitler began taking over Czechoslovakia, The Czech’s sought help from the English Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain. In response,  Chamberlain set up a personal visit with Hitler, Mussolini, and French Premier Daladier in Munich. Czech President Benes was not invited. In this meeting, Chamberlain gave Hitler what he wanted. On his return to England, Chamberlain declared to a cheering crowd, “There will be peace in our time!”

In response in a private meeting with the House of Commons, Winston Churchill stated, “They should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war…the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have…been pronounced against the Western democracies: ‘Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting’.”

In 1939, Time magazine made Hitler their 1938 “Man of the Year”.

The world was not long after pulled into a fierce war where millions were slaughtered.

I’d like to submit that we are in another war: a cultural war– a war over the families and children. This war is being fought in the legislatures, the court rooms, the newsrooms, and the classrooms. Like Chamberlain, many leaders are throwing in their hats, giving the opposition exactly what they want and declaring, “There will be peace in our time!”

We know how well that worked for the Western Democracies more than 70 years ago.

The media and school classes and liberal colleges have spent the past 50 years training today’s population to believe “that what people do with their bodies sexually (because we care if someone is smoking or drinking more than 16 oz of soda) is their own business, so long as no one is harmed.” We’ve been taught that the justification of the sexual act is located in the desire itself, and the direction of that desire is taken as fact.

Harm is relative. Anthony Elosen, writer for the Witherspoon institute said, “It is a plain fact that what two people do in a bedroom is not confined to the bedroom. The most obvious evidence for this fact can be seen around us everywhere, walking on two legs. They are the creatures known as children.” Children are harmed by this premise. They are harmed when they are taught that the justification and direction of any sexual act is located in the desire. They are harmed when as a result of this belief they are born to a single parent or cohabitating parents, or parents that divorce or abandon them. They are harmed when they are denied a mother or a father from a same sex household.

Do not throw in your hats and hastily declare, “There will be peace in our time.” There will not be peace where families are breaking apart. We cannot compromise the highest standard in social policy. Laws need to support the best place for children and that is in a family with a mother and father that honor marital vows. Hitler never compromised, he only took more. The liberal sexual-lites never compromise. Until the religious voice is completely silenced, they will not stop trying to rid all mankind of virtue. We need people willing to speak out, and willing to sacrifice their time for the safety of families and children around the world.

What can you do:

Today you can put up on Facebook a picture of your family and boldly declare:

I believe in traditional marriage. I believe children are entitled to be born to a father and mother who honor their marriage vows faithfully. I know that redefining marriage may seem like the compassionate thing to do, but I truly believe that it will ultimately hurt the coming generations and our society as a whole.

You can turn off the television when liberal sex is promoted.

You can write blogs and editorials against gay marriage, abortion, and no fault divorce.

You can contact your legislature telling them to vote in favor of family values.

You can donate money to organizations like United Families International.

You can join organizations like United Families International and learn to lobby and teach about the family.

You can stand firm in your belief that family is important and children do best when raised by a married mother and father no matter how loud and cool and compassionate the opposing voice sounds.

Stand Up and March

Now is the time to stand up and march. It could be that Americans are losing the chance to speak on the importance of traditional marriage. Arrogant laws are tampering with the inalienable  right of children to have both a mother and a father.  Religious freedom may be in trouble.

Kathryn Skaggs at a Well Behaved Mormon Woman Blog wrote:

“It’s almost unimaginable that a single, coherent, and reasonably mature individual in the country, could possibly be unaware that MARRIAGE has made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and from this point going forward, what can no longer be ignored by anyone is this: marriage in America is changing and if you’ve got something to say about it, and you’ve been holding out for whatever reason, now would be the time to say it…”

On March 26th and 27th the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear oral arguments for and against California’s Proposition 8—Perry case. This will determine if citizen’s initiative to protect marriage is lawful in California with the possibility of a decision affecting the lawfulness of marriage initiatives across the nation. The Supreme Court may also take this as an opportunity (like Roe vs Wade) to legalize gay marriage for every state in the nation. It is imperative that political leaders, the media, and the culture see that we care about protecting marriage enough to stand up and march for it.

Now is the time to Stand up and be counted! There are organized events on March 26^th to help the people to stand up for marriage.

In Washington D.C.

There will be a March for Marriage.  The March is being organized by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) alongside a broad coalition of pro-family organizations, state partners, African-American, Latino, Catholic and Protestant leaders. You can check the Sponsors page for an up-to-date list of co-sponsoring organizations and the Speakers page for a list of confirmed speakers.

Schedule of Events for March 26, 2013

• 08:30 AM: Gather at National Mall location between 10th Street and 12th Street NW and between Madison Drive NW and Jefferson Drive SW [BOX]
• 09:30 AM: March to the Supreme Court [ARROWS] and then return to the National Mall location [BOX]
• 11:00 AM: Rally begins at National Mall location (live music, speakers and more)
• 01:00 PM: March for Marriage concludes

 In California

There will be a Marriage Rally/ News Conference on March 26^th beginning at 11:30 am at the San Diego Court House. (303 West Broadway – between State and Union Street, San Diego 92101) This will be a historic, peaceful and family-friendly rally and news conference.

In Utah 

There will be a Celebration of Marriage at the Utah State Capitol on March 26^th at 7pm. This will be an exciting community event, with Alan and Suzanne Osmond as the MC’s, musical performances by Nathan Osmond and various Utah community groups, and speakers from several different religious faiths, members of the Utah State Legislature, and from the community.

In Arizona 

There will be a Candlelight and Prayer Vigil on Monday, March 25th, from 7 to 8 pm. at the Sandra Day O’Connor Federal District Court House, 401 W. Washington, Phoenix.  To see the details and a map for this event, go here.

It is important that as many people as possible attend these events.

Don’t let the French outdo you!

On January 13th in France, hundreds of thousands of French Citizens marched through Paris in support of traditional marriage. Americans, stand up like the French did, and support marriage. Let’s show the Supreme Court how we feel. Please make these events a priority and Stand and March for Marriage!

Gay Marriage: What’s Happening?

Diane Robertson

The last few years I have been concerned about the changes society will see from legalized gay marriage. After researching court cases, judicial rulings, and laws made as a result of legalizing gay marriage, I concluded that gay marriage has a chilling effect on free speech and is destructive to freedom of religion.

Canada

Gay marriage became legal in Canada in 2005. This week, the Supreme Court in Canada released a unanimous decision that strikes a monumental blow against freedom of speech and religion confirming my fears about legalizing gay marriage.

This week’s ruling in the case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott reads:

“A prohibition is not overbroad for capturing expression targeting sexual behaviour. Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself. If expression targeting certain sexual behaviour is framed in such a way as to expose persons of an identifiable sexual orientation to what is objectively viewed as detestation and vilification, it cannot be said that such speech only targets the behaviour. It quite clearly targets the vulnerable group.”

In other words, the religious view that homosexuality is a sin will legally be considered hate speech in Canada, especially if the Canadian Human Rights Commission believes that the speech consists of extreme manifestations of emotions described by the words “detestation” and “vilification”. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are not enshrined in the Canadian constitution like they are in the United States.

England

This week, clause one of the same sex marriage bill passed committee by 13 to 4.  It is being considered by the Public Bills Committee in the House of Commons.

There are 18 clauses in total. Clause one “makes it lawful for same sex couples to marry”.

France

About two weeks ago, France’s lower house of parliament approved a bill that would legalize gay marriage and allow same-sex couples to adopt children. President François Hollande’s Socialists pushed the measure through the national assembly, carrying a vote by 329 to 229. The bill now goes to the senate, which is also controlled by the Socialists and their allies. Thousands of French citizens have marched in protest of gay marriage.

United States

In four more weeks, The Supreme Court of the United States will hear two gay marriage cases: DOMA and California’s Proposition 8.

This week, The Obama Administration filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court asking the court to strike down DOMA and Proposition 8.

In the DOMA brief, the administration placed access to taxpayer-subsidized benefits and tax breaks – as well as its belief that homosexuals deserve a special place as an underprivileged minority group – at the heart of its legal argument. The brief says, “Gay and lesbian people are a minority group with limited political power.”

In the Proposition 8 Brief, the Obama administration declares that homosexual’s deserve the “full benefits” and “social recognition conferred by the institution of marriage”. The brief states that “protecting children from being taught about same-sex marriage” in public schools  is “not a permissible interest insofar as it rests on a moral judgment about gay and lesbian people,” and that, “The weight of the scientific literature strongly supports the view that same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents.”

Both amicus briefs urge the Supreme Court to review the cases under “heightened scrutiny”.

While citing many studies about homosexual families, these briefs ignore the most recent research on homosexual parenting done by Mark Regnerus. His study, published in the journal Social Science Research last July, found that children raised in a family with married heterosexual parents were far less likely to suffer traumatic life events than those raised by homosexuals.

Certainly, with the President of the United States of America backing their cause, gay and lesbian people, while a minority of the population, enjoy unprecedented political power around the world.

The Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers have asked the people to pray for marriage before the cases are heard at the Supreme Court of the United States. Defending marriage as an institution between one man and one woman is not just defending marriage. It is defending freedom.

Incremental and Insidious

Maddi Gillel

You’ve all heard the story of how to cook a frog?  First you put the frog in a pot of room temperature water, then you slowly, slowly turn up the heat, and before the frog figures it out and can jump out, he’s cooked.

Do you remember the uproar years and years ago when Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) said the ‘damn’ word at the end of the movie?  The public was outraged.  This was in 1939.   Now we would love to have the movie in which the only objectional word was ‘damn.’

Let’s review some history on the subjects of abortion, homosexuality, divorce, and euthanasia.

When Roe v. Wade became law in 1973, the abortion fight began in earnest in the U.S.  At that time, abortion was only allowable in the first trimester. Even as citizens who valued the life of the unborn fought valiantly to overturn Roe, the Supreme Court ruled on another case and abortion then became legal, in effect, through the entire nine months of pregnancy.  Not even the horrific procedure known as “partial birth” abortion (killing the baby as it is being born) is illegal in most states.  Abortion has become so common and accepted that many women use it as a form of birth control.  Incremental and Insidious.

Homosexuality has probably always existed to some degree.  In our modern times, however, it has evolved from something that occurred among a small, discreet, minority of the population to a behavior that is increasing accepted, normalized, validated and even given the stamp of approval by those who wish to alter the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships.  Those who participate in the behavior have commandeered the word “gay” (instead of the word “queer”) to describe their “lifestyle.”  Now the “gay” lifestyle is glamorized and promoted by TV shows, movies, and media with prominent Hollywood types, musicians, politicians and business rallying to the cause of “gay rights.”  While NAMBLA (North America Man/Boy Love Association) along with those who promote all types of “inter-generational sex” continue to gain respectability and endorsement inside the ivy halls of high-end academic institution.  Incremental and Insidious.

Divorce began to be more common than ever around World War ll, but that was just the beginning.  There had to be some serious accusations against a spouse to have a divorce granted.  The Catholic Church was openly against divorce and forbade it.  Many couples stayed together until the children were raised only then would they divorce. But then came the push for divorce Laws to be relaxed with the legal world claiming that strict divorce laws served no purpose.  In 1970, California instituted ‘No Fault Divorce’ and by 1973 most states had followed suit.  This ushered in “unilateral divorce” where one party in the marriage (against the wishes of the other spouse) can ask for a divorce – no questions asked.   This opened the flood gate for disposable marriages.  You “fall out of love” you get a divorce – no matter what is does to your children or to the still-committed spouse.   No-Fault divorce makes it clear that adults needs supersede the needs of children.  Some 40 years later, the havoc that this has wreaked on society is still being analyzed and calculated, but one thing is clear – no one came out further ahead.  Incremental and Insidious. 

In all of these topics, would any of us who have seen the progression of these movements have realized how far it would go?  In fact, if someone would have told us where it was going, we would not have believed them and considered them to be  an alarmist.

INCREMENTAL – gradual, phased, piecemeal, step-by-step

INSIDIOUS – 1- awaiting a chance to entrap- treacherous 2- harmful but enticing  3- having a gradual and cumulative effect – subtle   4- developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent

Now, euthanasia is more and more raising its ‘ugly’ head along with its many euphemisms: quality of life, compassion, death with dignity, right to die, choice.  All of this is based, of course, on the premise that it is the patient’s wish.  At what point, however, will it cross over into being against the patient’s wish?

In Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington (decided Mar 6, 1996) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a decision written by Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt:

“Known as a slippery slope argument or what one commentator has called the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ argument, the opponents of assisted-suicide conjure up a parade of horribles  and insist that the only way to halt the downward spiral is to stop it before it starts . . .

The same nihilistic argument can be offered against any constitutionally-projected right or interest.  Both before and after women were found to have a right to have an abortion, critics contended than legalizing that medical procedure would lead to its widespread use as a substitute for other forms of birth control or as a means of racial genocide [blacks have more abortions than any other group]. Inflammatory contentions regarding ways in which the recognition of the right  would  lead to the ruination of the country did not, however, deter the Supreme Court from first recognizing and then two decades later reaffirming a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in terminating an unwanted pregnancy.  In fact, the Court has never refused to recognize a substantive due process liberty right or interest merely because there were difficulties in determining when and how to limit its exercise or because others might someday attempt to use it improperly.

Recognition of any right creates the possibility of abuse.  The slippery slope fears of Roe’s (Roe v Wade) opponents have, of course, not materialized.  The legalization of abortion has not undermined our commitment to life generally;       nor, as some predicted, has it led to widespread infanticide.  Similarly, there is no reason to believe that legalizing assisted suicide will lead to the horrific consequences its opponents suggest.”

INCREMENTAL AND INSIDIOUS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just So You Know

Diane Robertson

Over 30 organizations have filed amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in support of Proposition 8 and DOMA, with more briefs being filed.

Amicus brief literally means “friends to the court.”  Filing a brief is a way for organizations to be heard by the court without being a party to the case.

The briefs have been filed by varying organizations, 19 state district attorneys, churches  and religious coalitions, scholars and researchers, lawyers and legal groups, racial groups, and most recently groups from Europe and Canada.

Some of the prominent groups and individuals filing briefs are:

• Mark Regnerus
• Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays
• Frederick Douglas Foundation
• Concerned Women for America
• National Association of Evangelicals
• Family Research Counsel
• United States conference of Catholic Bishops
• Liberty Counsel

A complete list of briefs and arguments submitted to the court by February 1^st can be found here.

Among the individuals, organizations, and churches that filed briefs, at least four argue threats to religious freedom accompany a judicial decision striking down marriage laws.  Three African American groups argue that preserving marriage as a union between one man and one woman union is nothing like racist laws banning interracial marriage. Thirty-seven legal scholars contend that states should remain free to determine marriage laws for their state.  Seventeen international judges and scholars argue that international law does not support the redefinition of marriage.  Gay and bisexual authors explain the importance of protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and scholars discuss the harm to family structure.

ProtectMarriage.com is the group that led the proposition 8 campaign in 2008. Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers led by lead counsel Charles J. Cooper of Cooper & Kirk PLLC, filed its opening brief with the Supreme Court on Jan. 22.   The final brief will be filed on Mar. 20. Oral argument will take place on March 26.

Just so you know, traditional marriage is in capable hands and has support from organizations around the world.

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.