UFI

Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

Remember Liberty

In Democracy, Religious Freedom on July 3, 2012 at 10:49 pm

Diane Robertson

On the fourth of July, I always like to ponder the founding of our great nation, read the Declaration of Independence, and sing some of the great songs about our freedom, liberty, and the sacrifices that so many men and women made to make our nation the place of freedom and refuge it has been.

The fourth verse of the patriotic song, My Country ‘tis of Thee, says:

Our fathers’ God, to thee,

author of liberty, to thee we sing;

long may our land be bright

with freedom’s holy light;

protect us by thy might, great God, our King.

This was written in contrast to England’s national anthem, “God Save the King”. Instead of asking God to save the king, Samuel F.Smith, the author of this poem declares God to be the author of our liberty and then declares God to be our king and our protector.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” “Our Creator” is God. Jefferson and all of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, like Smith, declare God to be the author of our liberty.

The first of amendment of our Constitution, written by James Madison, states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Samuel Adams, another of our founding fathers declared, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Clearly, the men who fought for liberty and established our great Nation believed God to be the giver and protector of liberty. These men did not want a state religion to limit the worship of the people. They understood that freedom of Religion isn’t about taking God away from the people. It is about allowing the people to worship God according to their consciences.

In our day, many are trying to remove religion completely from the public square. The word “God” has in many instances become offensive. Many people are being denied the right to act on their conscience. This clearly is against the founding principles and ideologies of our nation. This July Fourth, as we think back to and remember the beginning of our great nation, let us remember what these men fought to establish, and like them, protect it for the future liberty of our children.

 

What do UFI readers think about Surrogate Mothers?

In adoption, Child Development, Families, motherhood, Polls on November 11, 2010 at 5:48 am

Here’s last week’s UFI Family Poll question and here is the response:

What are your thoughts on a surrogate mother carrying a child for an infertile heterosexual couple? (child not conceived from the egg of the surrogate mother)

33 percent said                 “a positive and altruistic thing to do”

67 percent                          “a morally and ethically questionable thing to do”

The article, The Most Wanted Surrogates in the World, was linked to.  This article had a relatively positive view of the topic, yet the majority of our readers think surrogacy is a bad idea.  Anyone had any experience with this they’d like to share?

While we’ve got your attention, here’s the question of the week:

What is the greatest predictor of juvenile violence and crime?

  • poverty
  • neighborhood environment
  • fatherlessness
  • lack of education

Go to our website at www.unitedfamilies.org and scroll down to locate our Family Poll on the bottom right of page.  We want to hear from you!

Obama’s Healthcare Devastating to the Health of the Unborn

In Abortion, Constitution, Democracy, Health Care on March 22, 2010 at 3:54 pm

With the passage of Obama’s Healthcare Bill comes what some are calling “the greatest expansion of elective abortion since Roe v. Wade.” Although Bart Stupak and other supposed “pro-life democrats” want the public to believe that a Presidential Executive Order will save unborn lives and prevent taxpayers from funding abortion, the reality is that legal precedent in such court rulings as Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Commerce of U.S. v Reich leave much doubt as to whether an Executive Order could even stand a court challenge—one that would surely come.
Add that to the doubt that Obama would even put much effort into an Executive Order banning taxpayer supported abortion. Candidate Obama promised, repeatedly, that abortion would be treated as a “basic health care mandate” that both taxpayers and health insurers would be required to subsidize. When you add this attitude to the fact that Pres. Obama could rescind his Executive Order at any time and that future Presidents have the ability to rescind as well, it leaves one wondering if an Executive Order such as this is even worth the paper it is written on.

Obama and the Democrats in both the House and the Senate have for months and months insisted that the various Healthcare Bills as written did not allow for abortion. So now with agreeing to an Executive Order barring tax payer funding of abortion, they have admitted that abortion is in the Healthcare bill. Why should we trust President Obama and his fellow Democrats now when their deceit on this issue is clear?

It is a dark day for the unborn and for all Americans.

A Principled Understanding of Same-Sex Politics

In Same-Sex Marriage on March 5, 2009 at 11:28 pm

ufilogoExerpts 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

In The Family on February 20, 2009 at 9:56 am

ufilogoPresident 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

In Same-Sex Marriage on February 17, 2009 at 4:02 pm

ufilogoSACRAMENTO, 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

In Same-Sex Marriage on February 16, 2009 at 9:46 am

ufilogoThe 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?

In Same-Sex Marriage on February 10, 2009 at 11:19 am

ufilogoNearly 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

In Same-Sex Marriage on February 4, 2009 at 9:27 am

ufilogoFrom 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

In Same-Sex Marriage on February 2, 2009 at 11:09 am

ufilogoA 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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 144 other followers