A Principled Understanding of Same-Sex Politics

Exerpts from LaVarr Christensen’s A Principled Understanding of Same-Sex Politics:

I remember it well. It was 2003 and the Massachusetts Supreme Court had stunned our country with its own radical and unprecedented ruling. They ordered the State of Massachusetts, based on their state Constitution, to immediately grant full, legal recognition of marriage to same-sex couples. Then, in California, after 4.6 million people sought to define the definition of marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman, because they didn’t have the second sentence that we have now adopted in Amendment 3, the California Legislature circumvented the will of the people. They created a parallel system of “domestic partner” legislation. Even now in California, the City of San Francisco and the opponents of “Proposition 8” are appealing the election outcome back to the same Supreme Court whose radical and unprecedented opinion prompted the overriding vote of the people in the first place. What a dizzy series of events.

We can see both the principle and the potential precedent in all this. We choose to oppose those proposals that seek to classify and treat same-sex couples as virtual equivalents of marriage and then compel the official sanctioning and public recognition of same-sex unions.

Again, we stress that all citizens, including same-sex couples, already have full freedom to make hospital visits, transfer property by deed and through inheritance by will, purchase life insurance policies, buy and sell property, and obtain employment.

California’s Proposition 8 was an important moral issue that directly affects the future of traditional marriage throughout our country. No state legislature, no elected branch of government, no direct or indirect manifestation of “We the People” has yet consciously and knowingly tried to redefine marriage and extend it to same-gender couples. However, if the people of California had chosen to ratify the earlier decision of four judges who claimed authority to set aside and disregard the prior direct vote of 4.6 million citizens of their state, that important constitutional principle and precedent would surely be in jeopardy. I am extremely grateful for the 6.8 million voters and all those who contributed so much to the success of Proposition 8 in California.

Same-sex marriage advocates never mention or acknowledge the weight of compelling judicial opinions that uphold traditional marriage nor the fact that 40 states have now adopted either constitutional amendments or statutes to limit marriage to the legal union of a man and a woman.

The whole concept of same-sex marriage falsely assumes that men and women are interchangeable and children are so adaptable that there is no desired norm in our society anymore other than the personal pleasure of adults involved in whatever relationship they may choose to form. In reality, however, as Maggie Gallagher has stated:

“Men and women are not interchangeable units. Sex has a meaning beyond immediate pleasure. Society needs babies, children need mothers and fathers; marriage is a word for the way we join men and women together to make the future happen.”

David W. Ogden, Another Anti-Family Obama Appointment

President Barrack Obama is at it again. This time, instead of appointing someone who evades paying taxes, his nominee for Deputy Attorney General, David W. Ogden evades moral judgment.

Ogden, a former top aide to Attorney General Janet Reno from the Clinton era, has worked tirelessly to undermine the heart and soul of the family. Ogden has litigated on behalf of anti-life powerhouse Planned Parenthood and top pornography giants, Penthouse and Playboy; supporting the exploitation of women and children in the process. With his inherent anti-family background, it is imperative that we try to stop the Obama nomination train from coming down the track.

Deputy Attorney General Influences Laws and Policy

Taken directly from the U.S. Department of Justice’s website, the Deputy Attorney General holds a vast amount of power and authority:

“The Deputy Attorney General advises and assists the Attorney General in formulating and implementing Departmental policies and programs and in providing overall supervision and direction to all organizational units of the Department. The Deputy Attorney General is authorized to exercise all the power and authority of the Attorney General, except where such power or authority is prohibited by law from delegation or has been delegated to another official. In the absence of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General acts as the Attorney General.”

Being nominated to the position of second command of the Department of Justice means David W. Ogden will not only control the day-to-day operations of the agency, his influence will be felt in policy and rulemaking throughout the agency.

Through review of Ogden’s own written legal briefs, it is clear he has an agenda that opposes parental rights, favors abortion on demand, homosexual rights, and supports the pornography industry over children. Ogden also uses international law to override U.S. policies and believes strongly in a “compassionate and living” interpretation of
the U.S. constitution.

Ogden’s History of Anti-family Briefs

Abortion

• Ogden co-authored a legal brief for the American Psychological Association arguing that parental notification was unconstitutional and limited the rights of 14-year old minors seeking an abortion.
• Ogden wrote the brief for Planned Parenthood on behalf of the American Psychological Association contesting a woman’s right to know policy including the negative effects of abortion and a 24-hour waiting period. His arguments included statements that women who receive abortions have “minimal” emotional and psychological effects and that “potential psychological consequences may result from bearing a raising a child…”

Homosexuality

• Ogden wrote an amicus brief for the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas lawsuit in where he declared that “homosexuality is a normal form of human sexuality” and defended “safe sex” education that teaches grade school children about anal and oral sex in the Bowers v. Hartwick case.

Pornography

• Ogden was council for 15 library directors that opposed the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000. He adamantly contended that Congress was subverting the role of librarians by limiting access to all “information”. Further he represented Playboy Enterprises several times over the years always in favor of access to pornography as a constitutional right.

International Law Over U.S. Law

• Ogden assails the juvenile death penalty law in the Simmons brief using international treaty language pulled directly from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, an international treaty snubbed by the United States Congress, stating that the international community does not support the death penalty for juveniles.

What You Can Do to Stop This Appointment

Call the U.S. Senate today at 202-224-3121.

Let the Senators know that approving a nominee who holds so little regard for families, life, and the well-being of children is in direct conflict to what our nation stands for.
Ask them not to approve a supporter of the pornography industry.
Tell them that under David Ogden’s leadership, our nation’s sovereignty is in jeopardy.
Tell the good Senators to do the right thing and stand for families by voting against David Ogden for U.S. Deputy Attorney General.

Yes on 8 Campaign Asks Legislature To Stop Wasting Time and Resources on Prop 8 Resolutions When Voters Have Already Spoken

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Feb. 17 – Urging the Legislature to stop wasting time and resources on non-binding resolutions concerning voter approved Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com today urged legislative committees to shelve HR 5 and SR 7, resolutions stating that the Supreme Court should overturn Proposition 8 when it hears the matter next month.

“Proposition 8 was adopted with over a 600,000 vote margin, gaining approximately the same vote percentage as Barack Obama did nationally,” said Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, the campaign committee responsible for passage of the measure. “It passed in 42 out of California’s 58 counties, including the five largest counties in California. It is wrong for legislators to disrespect the vote of the people and attempt to substitute their values for the decision of over 7 million voters.”

HR 5 (Ammiano) and SR 7 (Leno) are authored by legislators who have long opposed Prop 8. Their views were well known and rejected by voters when 52.3% of the electorate approved Prop 8. These same legislators have also signed onto amicus briefs before the Court asking that Prop 8 be overturned. Now they are authoring meaningless nonbinding resolutions that take up the time of legislators and legislative staff who should be focused on appropriate legislative priorities such as solving the state deficit.

“Disrespecting the will of voters and wasting taxpayer resources on meaningless legislative resolutions are among the reasons that public approval of the Legislature has fallen to 15%, the lowest in history.” Prentice said. “We urge the Judiciary committees of the Assembly and Senate to shelve these inappropriate resolutions and return the Legislature’s attention to more appropriate work.”

SOURCE The ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8 Campaign

Pro-Family Rally in Sacramento on Tuesday, Feb. 17

The Digital Network Army, United Families International and Capital Resource Institute are joining forces this Tuesday to rally for families at the Capitol Building in Sacramento.  Both state houses are drafting official resolutions condemning the passage of Proposition 8 and urging the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the people AGAIN.

Two statewide elections with the majority voices of millions were not loud enough to turn the heads of our representatives in Sacramento, so we’re bringing the voice of the people to Sacramento.  Come Rally with us for Marriage and Families!  Help remind the Senators and Assemblymen that we are watching…because there’s nothing more important to our nation than its families.

Protect Marriage!  Protect Families!  Protect Democracy!

If our representatives are going to turn their backs on the people who voted for them, let them do it to our faces in the light of the cameras, not in a silent corner.

—Beetle Blogger

Here is the latest update from the DNA:

Team,

Ok, so the most recent word is that the opposition is going to be busing people in from San Francisco for the hearings so seating at the actual hearing may be limited, come early. If you have kids, bring water bottles and a few snacks, comfortable shoes. Security is tight there, so remember, no pocket knives etc.

If we have more people come to the hearing than we can fit in the room, we’ll hold a concurrent rally outside the capitol building with a petition signing.  No body will be wasted!  Kids and families are welcome!  Come and be heard!  Wear your yellow shirt if you like!  If it rains, bring an umbrella, we’ll rally in the hallways!

Proposition 8 Hearings will be held in these rooms:

HR 5
Tuesday, February 17
10:30am
State Capitol
Room 4202

SR 7
Tuesday, February 17
12:30pm
State Capitol
Room 4203

From CCD:

“We anticipate that Proposition 8 opponents will be busing in hundreds of people to speak out against Proposition 8,” said a statement issued by the pro-family lobbying group Capitol Resource Institute. “We must encourage pro-family legislators on the Judiciary Committees by showing up for this hearing. Let’s pack the committee room with traditional marriage supporters! We understand it can be an inconvenience to drive downtown and spend the day at the capitol, but consider this your service as a citizen of our great nation. It’s also an outstanding opportunity to teach your children about their responsibilities as citizens. They can stand up for the truth in the heart of government.” 

Capitol Resource Institute urged those unable to attend the hearings to contact members of each committee by phone, email or fax to ask them to vote no on the resolutions. 

Also encouraging citizens to contact members of the two committees regarding the resolutions was Concerned Women for America of California. In a Feb. 12 “Action Alert,” the CWA said, “While these measures are non-binding, they fly in the face of the voters who passed the marriage amendment last November and are worthy of our concerted opposition. Each resolution concludes that Proposition 8 was ‘an improper revision, not an amendment, of the California Constitution.’ In truth, the proposition was just 14 words defining marriage, a change that does not rise to the level of a constitutional revision. Two much more significant amendments — the taxation changes under Proposition 13 and the modifications in legislative term limits — were reviewed by the California Supreme Court in the past. These were found not to be revisions.”

Sutherland Institute Video: How Does “Gay Marriage” Hurt Your Family?

Nearly 700 people attended Sutherland Institute’s State of the Union II: The Challenge to Family and Freedom at Thanksgiving Point on Thursday evening, February 5, 2009.  Those attending one of the largest events Sutherland has hosted were introduced to the Institute’s Sacred Ground Initiative - a set of five actions for responsible citizens to become informed and involved in protecting traditional marriage in Utah. 
Sutherland President, Paul Mero, first speaker of the night, said that the proper definition of family is critical to our liberty and that responsible citizens need to distinguish between what they ought to do and, in their selfishness, what they want to do. 
 
LaVar Christensen, the primary author of Utah’s Constitutional Amendment in support of traditional marriage, was the second speaker.  Christensen said, “One of the bills in the ["Common Ground Initiative"] package directly seeks to eliminate the second sentence of Amendment 3 and if that doesn’t work, the other measures are designed to invite activist judges to do that for them and thereby overturn the will of the people.”
 
The concluding speaker was Lauralyn B. Swim, Sutherland benefactor and former member of the Young Women General Board.  Mrs. Swim said that the five-part campaign, titled the Sacred Ground Initiative, will help citizens of Utah engage effectively in an effort to reaffirm and strengthen the moral climate of our local communities.  She ended her speech by saying, “Defending marriage and family is an act of love for our children and our children’s children.  May that love be visible as we go forward together.”

Prop. 8 UPDATE: Supreme Court sets March 5 for gay marriage arguments

From the LA Times:

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on the legality of the state’s gay marriage ban on March 5.

The hearing is one of the most anticipated in the court’s history. Supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 will make their case about whether the measure should be invalidated. Pro-gay marriage groups filed a lawsuit after the November election, saying the gay marriage ban violated the state Constitution. Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown at first said he would defend Proposition 8, but then he changed his mind and argued that it was unconstitutional. Backers of the measure have filed briefs supporting the ban.

Other Prop. 8 UPDATES:
Prop. 8 UPDATE: Judge Refuses Anonymity to Donors
Prop. 8 UPDATE: Militant Homosexual Rights Movement Keeps The Pressure On
Prop. 8 UPDATE: Legal Briefs Filed
Prop. 8 UPDATE: CA Attorney General Changes Position

Prop 8. UPDATE: Judge Refuses Anonymity to Donors

A federal judge just refused to grant a preliminary injunction protecting donors to Prop 8 from harassment.

This one judge refused any kind of immediate reasonable, legal protection–not just for big donors, but for every ordinary Californian who gave even a few bucks to protect marriage. He refused not just to protect their names, he refused to prevent the posting of their addresses on the Internet.

“…there is “systematic effort” to seek out Proposition 8 donors and harass them. ” –Ron Prentiss

All this in spite of documented evidence of property damage and threats to people’s livelihoods, even sporadic death threats–and an ongoing, organized, very open and public Internet-based campaign to target the homes and business of ordinary Californians who gave money to NOM California and Protect Marriage this fall.

These kinds of people should never have access to your home, your address, your vote. As Brian Brown of NOM told Fox News yesterday:

“Americans should be free to exercise our core civil rights to speak, to vote, or to donate in support of marriage without facing organized threats of retaliation as a result. We call on leaders of the gay marriage movement to call off their dogs and stop using threats and harassment as a political tactic. It will–and is–backfiring.” 

It goes against the very principles of freedom for the government to subject its citizens to these kinds of reprisals for expressing their constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

—Beetle Blogger

Latin Americans Don’t Want President Obama’s “Aid”

 

The following is a press release sent out by Alianza Latinoamericana para la Familia (Latin American Alliance for the Family, ALAFA) in response to President Obama’s recent action involving the “Mexico City Policy.”

Latin Americans Don’t Want President Obama’s “Aid”

On January 23^rd, U.S. President Barack Obama signed an executive order overturning the policy that prohibited US government funding of foreign organizations which promote abortion in less-developed countries.  As that news began to reach them, Latin American leaders began to speak out against the decision.

Disturbed with President Obama’s undoing of the “Mexico City Policy” which prohibited US funding for groups trying to promote abortion and change pro-life laws in foreign countries, the president of the Caracas-based Latin American Alliance for the Family (ALAFA), Christine Vollmer, commented, “This is a horrible way for President Obama to begin to relate with the United States’ neighbors to the South.  Instead of a positive message of wanting to work to better conditions for every Latin American, President Obama has announced his willingness to fund the enemies of the People of Latin America whose laws generally are very respectful of the right of life before birth.”

Congresswoman Martha Lorena de Casco of Honduras expressed “deep regret and sorrow” that “one of President Obama’s first decisions is to revoke the Mexico City policy.  I interpret this action as a promotion of abortion and a threat to the national legislation of my country.”

Senator Liliana Negre de Alonso, Vicepresident of Argentina’s Senate, and President of the World Action of Parliamentarians and Political Leaders for Life, rejected the Obama action: “We can’t say we defend human rights if we don’t defend the first human right, the Right to Life from conception to natural death.  To use public funds to finance groups that promote abortion is NOT respecting the First Human Right, Life.”

Julia Regina de Cardenal, of the El Salvadoran organization, “Yes to Life” commented, “Our country has total protection in its Constitution and laws for the right to life from the moment of conception.  And our “Yes to Life” organization works on a daily basis to provide practical help in a loving and life-enhancing way to poor women who have difficult pregnancies.  Ours is the ideal situation: Protective legislation and practical, life-enhancing help for people who need it.  The US government should follow our example; we shouldn’t be pressured to repeat their tragic, anti-life experience!” 

President of UFI Addresses Members of TCOT via YouTube

Top Conservatives On Twitter, or TCOT, is a group of conservative voters who interact on the popular social networking site, Twitter. Recently, UFI President Beverly Rice addressed members of TCOT on the topic of the destruction of the family despite the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  

No Room for Families at Obama Table

Expectations from the left are at an all-time high. The new Obama administration, although promising to be bi-partisan, has sullied great favor with those who would stomp on the rights of the family for the right to abortion, sexual orientation and the like. Virtually all of his transition team members come from the abortion-rights side of the ledger where their policies have already begun to come to fruition. What is considered by our opposition as the most “progressive administration in recent memory” is nothing more than a nightmare come to reality by those fighting for the family, parental rights, religious liberty and life.

There is a strong possibility that within a few short months the United States of America will join hands with the European Union and Canada where liberal policy at home and at the United Nations is the norm.

Let’s take a look at what legislation and policies will most likely be introduced and passed this year:

RATIFICATION OF UN TREATIES: Both treaties have been in place for over 20 years and have the signature of a US President. They must be ratified by the US Congress to take effect. If these treaties are ratified, which appears likely with the new Congress and under the Obama administration, all state and federal law will be superseded by UN international law and overseen by UN appointed Boards.

1.CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women)

(United Families has researched CEDAW in the past. Click here to read more.)

2. CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child)

PASSAGE OF RADICAL ABORTION RIGHTS LAW: FOCA – Freedom of Choice Act

REPEAL OF PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE: DOMA – Defense of Marriage Act

PASSAGE OF SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, GAY, AND TRANSGENDERED (LBGT): ENDA – Employer Discrimination Act

REVERSAL OF THE BUSH EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT WILL FUND EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

APPOINTMENT OF LIBERAL JUDGES TO THE SUPREME COURT AND ALL FEDERAL COURTS.

With the domination of liberals in both Houses of Congress, pro-family legislators will find it very difficult to stymie the efforts of this radical agenda.

Almost as importantly, Obama’s leadership picks are under heavy scrutiny by pro-family coalitions, including his new United Nations Ambassador. Dr. Susan E. Rice, former assistant secretary of state and ex-National Security Council member for Bill Clinton, is known as one of Obama’s most liberal appointees. As Ambassador to the UN, Rice will carry the clout needed to push through the radical agenda put on hold by eight years of Bush’s pro-family/pro-life staunch appointees.

In March of this year, the 53rd Comission on the Status of Women will be held in New York. Rice is expected to personally head up the U.S. delegation and open the flood gates of feminism. Some may not take what occurs at the UN too seriously, believing that the UN is short on policy and long on rhetoric. But, the fact is Rice together with the new Secretary of State and darling of women’s rights around the world, Hillary Clinton, know just how to use the UN system to help in promotion of their feminist agenda.

No doubt the US will join ranks with members of the EU to push through LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage, on the EU and the rest of the world through the UN process, treaties and documents. An article from the gay community outlines their agenda.

As you can see, the battle for the family is heating up. After 8 long years of relative calm…the gloves are off and the fight is even costlier. United Families International is currently preparing to send a team of policy experts to the UN Conference of the Status of Women (CSW). Join us in the battle by donating today to offset the costs of our travel.

We cannot afford to give up and cave in. Your support will allow our voice to be heard. We will not be at the table, but we can still be in the room joining in on the debate.

Here is what you can do:

- Forward this email on to your friends and family and ask them to sign up for our email alerts.

- Join a United Families Chapter in your area or inquire on starting one.

- Donate today to help us defend the family on the home front and at the United Nations

It Is A Solemn Day

The air is crisp and cold. Flags are waving. People are cheering. The military salutes. Another President is inaugurated. And people who care about families, marriage between a man and a woman, the sanctity of life and religious liberty stand by the side and wait with baited breath.

Is he really going to abolish all abortion restrictions?  Will he repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?  Will he appoint judges who will strip churches of their right to preach their beliefs?  Will he ask Congress to ratify the most terrifying treaty to come from the UN?

It is a solemn day when a President is inaugurated who promises to oppose the values that this country was founded on.

It is a solemn day when the strident voices of feminism at the United Nations are cheering.

It is a solemn day when those who feel the State has more say over the education of a child than the parents are giddy with enthusiasm.

It is a solemn day when those who promote the taking of the lives of unborn children are counting how many more abortions will now be able to take place.

It is a solemn day.

Those of us who have fought so hard to achieve the victories of the DOMA, Proposition 8, the defeat of the ratification CEDAW treaty, the rights of doctors to refuse abortions, and the ban on partial-birth abortions are saying, “We will not give up!” We will not allow the family to be destroyed! We will not allow our children to be raised by the State! We will not allow the gay-agenda to define the environment in which our children will be raised!

The battlefield is being readied. The forces are assembling. Choose to become engaged. Decide that you will be a part of the fight. United Families International will help you. We will be the voice of thousands around the world who want to be successful in this battle. Together we will fight for the values we hold most dear. Together we will defend families, sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty.

Beverly Rice, UFI President

International News Headlines: January ‘09 Edition

U.N. Treaty Might Weaken Families

One of the issues American families could face this year is the ramifications from a treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

Why should passage of the CRC be of concern? It likely would have a negative impact on domestic law and practice in the United States. Article VI of our Constitution makes treaties—and remember, conventions are viewed as treaties—“the supreme law of the land.” The CRC would be treated as superior to laws in every state regarding the parent-child relationship. This would include issues regarding education, health care, family discipline, the child’s role in family decision-making, and a host of other subjects.

Two central principles of the CRC clearly are contrary to current U.S. laws related to parent-child relationships. The CRC provides that in all matters relating to children, whether private or public, or in courts, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Additionally, nations should ensure that children are capable of expressing their views freely in all matters affecting them, giving due weight to the age and maturity of the child.

This is contrary to traditional American law, which provides that absent proof of harm, courts and social workers simply do not have the authority to intervene in parent-child relationships and decision-making. The importance of this tradition and practice is that the government may not substitute its judgment for that of the parent until there is proof of harm to the child sufficient to justify governmental intervention. It is clear that in two very important areas of the parent-child relationship, religion and education, there will be potential for tremendous conflict.

EU Votes this Week to Push Same-Sex Civil Unions on all Member States

The European Parliament is set to vote this week on a resolution that will promote abortion and same-sex unions throughout the European Union. The resolution, authored by Giusto Catania, an Italian Communist MEP, calls upon EU member-states to guarantee access to “sexual and reproductive health and rights” and represents the next step in the work of European homosexualist activists.

Cameroon Tells Pro-Abortion UN Committee “Abortion is Murder”

The committee that monitors state compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) will begin a new session in Geneva next week, but even prior to the meeting six of the eight states who will be reviewed have already been questioned on abortion. In a stinging written response to the CEDAW committee’s advance questions, Cameroon fired back that “abortion is murder.”

In article 75, the resolution, which bases its arguments on the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, calls for Member States that have already recognized same-sex civil unions in law to also recognize similar unions contracted by homosexual couples in other Member States.

Mexican president warns breakdown in family values increases crime

The Sixth World Meeting of Families opened Jan. 14 with a warning from the Mexican president that a breakdown in family values is leading to increased social problems and crime.

“Many of those that die in confrontations are young people that are detached from a nuclear family, something that results in an absolute lack of values,” President Felipe Calderon told attendees while opening the five-day meeting.

Third “Window of Life” for Unwanted Babies Inaugurated in Poland

The “Window of Life of Blessed Edmund Bojanowski” was inaugurated in the city of Czestochowa during the Feast of the Holy Family of Nazareth last week, by Archbishop Stanislaw Nowak.

The “Window of Life” is a place where mothers who do not want to or cannot provide for their children, can anonymously and safely bring newborns in order for them to be cared for and placed for adoption.

Equality Utah Works to Overturn Constitutional Protection of Marriage

At the beginning of a new year, January 2009 brings renewed goals, and hope for prosperity and peace, but it also brings with it five new bills designed by Equality Utah, a group actively pursuing political support in “securing rights and equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community” to create public confusion while usurping Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3 that passed in 2004 – with the help of a powerful ally.

As reported in Salt Lake Tribune and stated on Equality Utah’s, the five pieces of legislation create a public relations nightmare for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Utah’s most influential church. Equality Utah hopes that the church, whose members make up a large percentage of the electorate, will coalesce to what they call “common ground”. In reality their Common Ground Initiative is a political attack on the family and the constitution. 

To better understand why, let’s review Utah Constitutional Amendment 3, and compare it to the bills proposed by gay advocates to see how the bills undermine traditional marriage and families. Utah Constitutional Amendment 3 states:

1. Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
2. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

Here is a summary of Equality Utah’s proposed bills: 
  
1.  Hospitalization and medical care – This bill will mandate that insurance plans, which extend benefits to an employee’s spouse, also cover an employee’s partner.

2.  Fair housing and employment – The Fair Housing and Workplace bills will add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of characteristics employers and landlords may not consider when making employment or housing decisions.

3.  Probate rights - wrongful death amendments — This bill removes barriers to inheritance and insurance. (It allows same sex partners the same financial benefits as married couples in the case of a wrongful death)

4.  Domestic partner rights and responsibilities act – This bill creates a statewide domestic partner registry as exists in California and attaches rights of inheritance, insurance and fair housing.

5.  Repeal of part two of Utah’s Amendment 3 – A registry that covers inheritance, housing and insurance is not the legal equivalent of marriage. This bill will repeal the portion of Amendment 3 which states “no other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as marriage or be given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.”  

Amendment 3 was created as a safeguard to protect the sacred union of marriage between a man and a woman.  It purposely does not include same sex partners in the definition of marriage, and it purposely gives traditional marriage special legal privileges that the second part of Amendment 3 enforces.
 
Each of these five proposed bills puts a disclaimer on the second part of Amendment 3, changing this definition to read in effect, “some other domestic unions may be recognized as marriage or be given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.”  The first four bills basically allow same sex partners to have one or more of the same legal privileges as traditional married spouses, and the fifth bill blatantly changes the Amendment 3 definition of marriage.  This would break down the legal, political, and social strength society has given to traditional marriage, in recognition of how it has held society together for thousands of years.

Those in opposition to traditional marriage and family use diverse means to persuade others to support their agenda, including extending benefits to others who are not in same-sex relationships, such as a grandmother living with a grandchild.  But this is just a smokescreen to hide the real focus explained by Equality Utah executive director Mike Thompson.  “Proposition 8 has created a great divide. Now is the time to look for opportunities to bridge that divide and create the needed protections, rights and responsibilities for Utah’s gay and transgender people. This will be Equality Utah’s focus and we ask the LDS Church to support these efforts.” 

Mr. Thompson was referring to statements from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which have been repeatedly misquoted and misinterpreted, as a tactic to win the support of LDS members.  These statements were made in light of Proposition 8, stating that the Church would not pursue overturning laws already existing in California.  In the Washington Post LDS Church spokesman Michael Otterson clarified that “the church’s statement was based on civil unions in California and that no decision has been made regarding similar rights in Utah. I don’t want to give the impression that the church is saying civil unions in all cases are OK.”  

The complete statement from the LDS Church reads, “The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.”  

United Families Utah believes the passage of the bills proposed by Equality Utah will “infringe on the integrity of the family”, and based on the evidence in other states, will infringe upon “the constitutional rights of churches”.   

As Representative Lorie Fowlke said at the Nov 19 Legislative Judiciary Interim Committee meeting, “it is the beginning of a recognition of some other type of relationship that has the same kind of validity that a marriage was created for.”  

The passage of even one of these bills would give governmental endorsement, approval, and recognition of same sex and non-marital cohabiting relationships.  It would also give them statutory rights of “substantially legal equivalent effect” as married couples, conflicting with Utah Amendment 3.  

The legislative battle begins January 26.  The stakes are high, and the eyes of the nation will be upon Utah. Openly gay legislators are openly adamant about these bills. They didn’t succeed last year in passing gay rights legislation, however, “That could change this January,” said Senator Scott McCoy.  

That which seemed unlikely in California came to a close call, and that which seemed unheard of in Utah has already begun.  An intentional wave of corruption to the definition of traditional marriage and family is emerging here in our state and must be stopped.

Prop. 8 UPDATE: Legal Briefs Filed

From the San Fransico Chronicle:

State Attorney General Jerry Brown was “profoundly wrong” and “invented an entirely new theory” when he urged the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8’s same-sex marriage ban on the basis that voters can’t be allowed to overturn fundamental liberties, attorneys for the measure said Monday.  Brown’s reasoning would confer upon the state Supreme Court power it has never had, attorneys Kenneth Starr and Andrew Pugno said in their response to the attorney general’s December brief.

Brown “is inviting this court to declare a constitutional revolution,” the attorneys argued in the 29-page response. “His extra-constitutional vision is one of unprecedented judicial hegemony, a sweeping power vested in the least-democratic branch that overrides the precious right of the people to determine how they will be governed.”

“The attorney general’s theory would fundamentally alter the role of the California judiciary,” said the attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of Prop. 8.  ”If the (initiative) process is done correctly, once the Constitution is changed, that’s the document the judges work from,” Pugno said in an interview. “This would put the court above the reach of the people when it came to amending the Constitution.”

The LA Times continued:

Gay-marriage opponents filed legal briefs Monday accusing California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown of having “invented an entirely new theory,” one that “fails at every level,” in his quest to find a reason to invalidate Proposition 8, which passed with 52% of the vote in November.

“The people have the final word on what the California Constitution says,” lawyers for the Protect Marriage Coalition wrote. “The practical result of the attorney general’s theory is that the people can never amend the Constitution to overrule judicial interpretations of inalienable rights.”

Legal experts said Starr and the Protect Marriage coalition had made a strong counter-argument in their filing Monday.  Santa Clara University Law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the state high court, said it “hits the nail on the head.”

“If you think of the Constitution as a compact between the people and those who govern us, to say the people have no power to amend a court’s ruling simply because the court . . . says this is an inalienable right — I think that is pretty far out.”

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Abortion

Looks like the U.S. abortion proponents are at it again. This time they have created what appears to be a new, updated version of the U.S. Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was carefully enacted over time and with the ratification of a super-majority of all the states. It recognizes in a legitimate way the basic rights of individual citizens and gives a guarantee that the federal government will not overstep its authority over individual citizens; giving credibility to government and protection to its citizens. 

However, when congressional action sets a new precedence for the creation of a fundamental right, it is time to take note…and take action. 

The United States of America defined the fundamental rights of its citizens through the state ratification process in 1791. These fundamental rights became known as the first 10 amendments to the Bill of Rights. They include: the right of religion and speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right of private property, fair treatment of those accused of crimes, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from self-incrimination, a speedy and impartial jury trial, and representation by counsel. The federal government is also prohibited from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Additional rights are granted to those accused of crimes as well. Other rights followed, although the first 10 are recognized as the fundamental rights of citizens. 

The Freedom of Choice Act introduced in April of 2007 creates a new fundamental right. If passed into law, this legislation will protect the right to abortion just as if ratified as an amendment to the Bill of Rights. 

Practically speaking, this legislation if passed will pre-empt all state and federal law, and case law including the recent Gonzales vs. Carhart ruling that upholds the federal partial birth abortion ban. It will also supersede any and all law defining the viability of the “fetus”. 

Parental notification laws will be void and taxpayers will be expected to pay for all government funded abortions, including late-term abortions.

In essence, any female of any age will be guaranteed an abortion on demand through and up to the birth of the baby. 
FOCA also creates a new “right” to sue, ensuring abortion services from every hospital and health care provider no matter their religious views or right of conscience.

No other piece of legislation has the potential to force widespread abortion access to so many women than FOCA. The harmful negative effects of a coercive federal government will have the founding fathers rolling in their graves. 

Email your Congressmen and US Senators today. Tell them that FOCA is anti-life, anti-family and anti-American. 

You can also join the fight against FOCA by signing up here: www.fightfoca.com

US President-Elect Plans to Revoke All Anti-Abortion Laws

A new year has begun and in a short time the United States will have a new president.  As all new years bring changes, this New Year may bring devastating changes that will affect our families.

One of those devastating changes may be a new abortion law.  The Freedom of Choice Act has been introduced in Congress over and over again since 1989.  Obama has stated, ”The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.”

The purpose of this law is to revoke every other anti-abortion law which has been passed by state and local governments.  It seeks to make abortion a “fundamental right”.  Does this language sound familiar?  It should.  If you have been reading these emails you will recognize that this is the same agenda that is being promoted at the United Nations.  The attempts at the UN to reinterpret the Universal Declaration of Human Rights go hand-in-hand with the Freedom of Choice Act.

The agenda of the abortion activists is to make abortion a fundamental right of all women regardless of age.  It includes removing restrictions such as parental consent, and age of the woman.  It requires all doctors to perform abortions whether or not it violates their religious beliefs.  It removes barriers such as partial-birth abortion laws and requires that all hospitals, religious or not, allow abortions to be performed.

This law violates most of the tenets that United Families International stands for.  It takes away parental rights, revokes laws protecting the sanctity of life, denies individuals the right to religious liberty, and seeks to destroy families by permitting women to make choices that affect all families.

The words, Freedom and Choice are very powerful words.  Freedom is a word that evokes powerful feelings in people throughout the world.  It is a word that can bring people to the defense of country, homes and families while also bringing tears at the thought of the sacrifices made in defense of freedom.  Choice is also a powerful word.  It brings to mind the agency we have all been given by our Creator to make decisions in this life that will benefit ourselves, our families and our country.

The Freedom of Choice Act, however, is disingenuous in the use of those two words.  This Act does not bring freedom to a doctor who chooses not to perform abortions.  It does not give choice to fathers of unborn children.  It does not promote freedom for the millions of unborn children who will be sacrificed on its altar.  It destroys freedom and choice for millions of people around the world who do not support its destructive agenda.

United Families International is determined to defend the true meaning of Freedom and Choice.  We will fight this legislation by educating people around the world about its destructive consequences. We will be there in Washington to find Senators and Congressmen who will stand up for families, religious liberty, and the sanctity of life.

Those at the United Nations will be watching closely to see if they have been successful in achieving their agenda in the United States.  We do not want them to find success.  Please join us in this battle.  Help us defend Freedom and Choice.

Beverly Rice, UFI President

Baby Born at 23 weeks Challenges UK Abortion Laws

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

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

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

But Lexie defied the odds and gradually gained strength.

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

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

The Telegraph, another UK news outlet, continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fight FOCA Petition

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fight FOCA Petition:

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

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

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

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION

 

Prop. 8 UPDATE: CA Attorney General Changes Position

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

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

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

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

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

National Review Online added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Successes of 2008:

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

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

Plans for 2009:

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

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

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

- Increasing our associations statewide. 

- Sponsoring community-based educational programs throughout the state. 

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

Visit United Families Arizona

True Colors of the Rainbow

 

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

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

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

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

By Curtis Anderson, United Families California

United Families California Defends Prop. 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UFI Celebrates The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gay Marriage: Sexual Freedom Trumps Religious Freedom

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

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

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

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

I could go on with more examples.  

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

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

Prop. 8

The California State Constitution, Article 1 Section 7.5 reads, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This amendment to the state constitution was made after the Nov. 4th election in which 52% of California voters made the powerful statement that family does matter and traditional marriage will be protected.

In the weeks since California defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, the pro-gay marriage movement has become a scary and almost militant group of individuals. They have held demonstrations in nearly every big city in America and have sought to strike fear in those who oppose them. From racial slurs directed at the Black Californians who supported traditional marriage by 70% to hate filled memos to members of religious organizations, the gay community is quickly transforming their anger to an out-of-control rage.

Gary Bauer, of American Values had this to say about the recent demonstrations, “Thousands of homosexuals continued to march in major cities this weekend from coast-to-coast against America’s laws and common sense values regarding marriage. These individuals are insisting on more than tolerance, which they already have. They are demanding that the whole country throw thousands of years of Western Civilization in the trash can and redefine marriage. Even the New York Times acknowledged what is at stake by describing same-sex “marriage” as “an issue that many gay men and lesbians consider a critical step to full equality.” Indeed, that is exactly the issue because marriage is the foundation of our society and the first institution ordained by God. Marriage is society’s “stamp of approval.”

He continued, “These protests are shedding light on the authoritarian, anti-democratic impulse of the militant homosexual rights movement. While most of the press coverage of the weekend protests was glowing, one San Francisco station, KTVU, filmed a mob of angry gay radicals threatening a small group of Christians who had gathered to pray on a street corner Friday night. Police in riot gear had to be called in to escort the Christians safely out of the area.”

One of the great traditions we hold in our great country is that of peaceful transfers of power. A republican may replace a democrat in the White House and there is no war in the streets, that is what makes these radical demonstrations so absurd. We live in a land of democracy and as such we understand that when the majority make their opinion known, it is accepted by all. Our democracy is being mocked and it is a true embarrassment.

Amid the contention in the streets we will rejoice that the family has been protected. We appreciate all who worked to pass Prop. 8 in California and those who fought to preserve our religious freedoms. We surly have not seen the last of this fight and we will continue to press on.

Protecting Marriage protects society

The marriage debate has surely opened my eyes to the importance of educating oneself on the issues and voting according to that education rather than the confusing rhetoric that surrounds each campaign. There is a tremendous amount of deception that can only be dispelled as the issues are carefully studied. The opposition to the marriage amendment in AZ says the amendment is not necessary because AZ already has state law protecting marriage. If this amendment is redundant, why do they care if it passes? The fact is, it is NOT redundant! It is very important to have a constitutional law regarding marriage or the statutory law that is presently protecting marriage can be easily overturned. The law concerning marriage is AZ this year is far different than the one defeated in 2006 because this law deals only with the definition of marriage: the union of one man and one woman. Who wouldn’t want that definition protected? Marriage is the foundation of the family and the family is the foundation of civilization. It is in families that the next generation of responsible adults is created! Study it out folks. A simple yes vote protects marriage—and society—in Arizona, California, and Florida!

UFI President in Kosovo to Address Constitutional Issues

UFI President Carol Soelberg is in Pristina, Kosovo working with pro-family/pro-life coalition allies for the purpose of commenting on the draft of a new constitution’s treatment of social values. Carol filed this report:

I am safely in Kosovo. It was a long, but good trip. I am meeting many wonderful people here and our agenda continues to add new appointments. Our goal is to actually start a few grassroots organizations that will help convey our message when we leave. Our fear is that the newly formed government is moving from “dependence” under the ruling of the United Nations to unelected international bureaucrats, as opposed to their own independent rule.

The man who picked me up from the airport told me a fascinating story. He is an Albanian and has lived here with his family all his life. In 1999, all Albanians were called to the city center for a “rally.” When they arrived, they learned that they were all to be killed on the spot. The commander in charge could not bring himself to do such a dastardly deed, so he put all 8,000 people in trucks and drove them to Albania, where they had to stay for three months until things settled down some. They left without any clothes or supplies, but were grateful to be alive.

Our coalition team of legal and human rights experts is meeting with top government officials and religious leaders about the draft constitution. The team comes from some of the most influential non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the United States and Europe that focus on social policies related to constitutional and international law, human rights and international institutions. I am representing United Families International here. The team consists of members from: the Alliance Defense Fund, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, Concerned Women for America, Chrétiens Démocrates Fédéraux, Action pour la famille-Actie, Educational Initiative for Central and Eastern Europe, Human Life International, Alliance of Romania’s Families and Advocates Europe.

The group is concerned that aspects of the draft constitution removes any ability for Kosova to determine what issues are constitutionally protected. For instance, language in the draft could be misinterpreted to promote certain rights including special rights for “sexual orientation” leading to same-sex “marriage,” a right to abortion. The coaliton is also concerned that the draft could violate the rights of conscience of Kosovar professionals and limit speech, media, assembly and association, preventing any public expression of unpopular viewpoints – the viewpoints that most need constitutional protection.

We are meeting with senior government officials and we also held a press conference today. This weekend, the group will provide a lecture at the University of Pristina and meet with religious leaders.

Our purpose is to comment on the substance of the constitution, not to address the question of independence.