FRC Releases Powerful Video – ‘100 Days of Change for the Family’

From LifeSiteNews.com: Washington D.C. – On April 29, the Family Research Council (FRC) released a powerful video report on the devastating first 100 Days of the Obama presidency. The report dramatically exposes the negative impact of the Obama Administration on life, marriage, the justice system and other family issues.

“This video provides indisputable evidence of the current Administration’s hostility to the values of faith and family,” said FRC President Tony Perkins. “This President and his advisors have a very purposeful agenda, one that is seeking to take our country in a radically different direction. Mr. Obama is personally winsome, but his agenda is destructive.”

The video reveals Obama’s 1. Change for the unborn, 2. Change in the stem cell debate, 3. Change in our justice system, 4. Change for marriage, 5. Change in government spending, 6. The planned radical reduction or elimination of charitable deductions and 7. Change in the economy.

The report uses the President’s own spoken words to emphasize how the change he is bringing about is radically different from what he has led the American people to believe he would do.

The video concludes with a repeated clip of Obama’s words, “Change has come to America”, which FRC says is a radical social agenda which preys on the most vulnerable members of our society.”

CRC Wants to Tell You How To Raise Your Children!

Being a parent is one of the greatest joys we have in this world. Being able to guide, direct, encourage and support your child is what being a parent is all about. That could all come to an end for parents all over the world if the treaty named the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is ratified. Currently, only two countries have not ratified this treaty: the United States and Somalia. This treaty will substantially change the rights parents have to raise their children and will treat the government as an equal partner in the parenting process.

Today, as a parent, you can choose how to educate your child about your religion. You get to decide how to teach them about homosexuality, chastity, morality and abstinence. If you feel that your child needs discipline – you get to decide what that discipline will be and how it will be administered. These are the choices and responsibilities that come with being a parent.

However, the CRC treaty mandates that children will have the right to appeal any of these decisions made by their parents. Parents will not be given the right to teach their children about their religion or impart their moral standards and wisdom. Children can appeal any disciplinary actions that parents want to impose. Government would then decide whether that discipline was appropriate or not.

This should concern all parents! Senator Barbara Boxer, this past December, announced that the CRC would be ratified by the Senate within two years. President Obama announced that by ratifying this treaty we would once again “resume our global leadership in human rights”.

During the next two weeks while United Families International is attending the Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations, we will be focused on fighting the language contained in this treaty. You can monitor our progress at the CSW blog by clicking here! While we will be focused on issues like abortion and homosexual rights, we will also be working to stop this treaty from being incorporated into the document which will be signed by countries around the world. We will be working to protect the rights of parents to determine how their children will be raised. If protecting your rights is important to you, please consider making a $20, $50 or even $100 donation today to help us continue to protect your family.

Beverly Rice, UFI President

The Best of CPAC 09

CPAC 2009 was a great experience.  At a time when the conservative movement was feeling “down and out,” the conference was the perfect remedy to unite and recharge the movement.  CPAC was the place of several speeches and meetings, some of the “MUST SEE” speeches include: Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee.

These two weren’t bad either, check them out:

Standing Up for Marriage in Maine

The Following article was published in The Exception Magazine.

Recently, much of the gay marriage debate has been focused in California; however, in the past few weeks the debate has returned to its roots on the East Coast.  The group, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) has announced their plans to legalize same-sex marriage in the 6 New England area states.  GLAD told the Washington Times, “We can make New England a marriage-equality zone by strategically combining existing legal, electoral and on-the-ground know-how to fast-track marriage in every New England state.  By 2012, we not only can have marriage equality throughout New England, we can have a road map for the rest of the country.”  Two New England states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, already allow same-sex couples to enter into matrimony.  Through legislation proposed in the Maine State Legislature, GLAD has taken steps to add Maine to the list of states where Same-Sex Marriage is legal.

GLAD has met opposition on several fronts, including from many pro-family organizations.  The Alliance Defense Fund issued a statement responding to the proposed legislation, “Legislators in Maine have added to their agenda a bill that would redefine marriage as a union between two “people.”  The bill would do away with the state’s time-honored definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and would recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states.  State legislators should never attempt to impose a system that knowingly deprives a child of a mom and a dad.  This Trojan-horse-of-a-bill deceptively states that pastors would not be forced to perform same-sex ‘marriages’ if it passes, yet this legislation will essentially wipe out every other religious freedom.”

One precedent that has been set in states where gay marriage is legal is that sexual freedom trumps religious freedom.  One illustration of this example took place in March of 2006 in 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 and groups 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 practice that is against church teachings, 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 gay adopting law, but it was voted down by his state legislature. Thus, rather than defy their religious beliefs, Catholic Charities of Boston voluntarily stopped their adoptive services.

Beverly Rice, President of United Families International commented on the Gay Marriage bill in Maine by saying, “Many people do not realize the impact that the legalization of same-sex Marriage will have on their families and marriages.  Local churches will be restricted on what can be said over the pulpit, they will lose the right to decide who may be wed in their buildings, and religious organizations may be forced to shut down or compromise their beliefs.  It will effect what children are taught in public schools.  Parents will lose the right to decide what children learn about homosexuality and families.”

Traditional marriage must be protected because of the effect on education and the parent’s right to teach and rear children.  Several cases prove that once same-sex marriage is legalized, public schools must teach that it is just as acceptable as heterosexual marriage.  Public schools will, by law, be required to teach about gay marriage and parents will be required to stand by and watch as principles they disagree with are taught to their children.

The family is the fundamental unit of society; marriage is between a man and a woman.  These truths must be defended and preserved.  In the name of family, children, religious freedom, parental rights, and the future of our society stand up for marriage today!

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.

NEWS: Recommendation Before AZ State Bar Could Require Lawyers to Endorse Homosexuality

From WorldNetDaily:

A recommendation before the State Bar of Arizona – the organization that licenses attorneys – to require all new lawyers to swear they won’t let their personal religious perspective on homosexuality affect their representation of any client. Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, warns that the proposal is just the “tip of the iceberg.”

According to reports in Arizona, the state bar is considering a major change to its existing oath that requires lawyers to affirm they won’t “permit considerations of gender, race, age, nationality, disability or social standing to influence my duty of care” to clients.

The proposal in Arizona is to add “sexual orientation” to that list.

The concept would demand that Christian lawyers affirm they would pursue child custody cases for lesbians and “marriage” rights for homosexuals just as they would pursue any other issue for clients, regardless of their religious perspective.

Not agreeing to the demand would end a Christian lawyer’s career before it even starts, since attorneys cannot practice law without bar association permission.

Already, several dozen attorneys have sent a letter objecting to the plan, and concern has been raised by the online Catholic.org report.

“Are these lawyers going to be excluded from their profession because of their religious beliefs? Or will they have to give up their beliefs in order to continue practicing?” the report asked.

“The Catholic Church teaches that: ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.,” Catholic Online continued. “Does this mean that all Catholic lawyers in the state of Arizona will now either have to apostatize from the faith or lose their jobs?”

Staver has argued in courts across the nation, including the U.S. Supreme Court, on a wide range of fundamental constitutional questions. He’s appeared to discuss constitutional issues on “The O’Reilly Factor,” “Hannity and Colmes,” “Good Morning America,” the “Today” show and others. He said Arizona’s plan isn’t unique, citing controversial provisions already in force in Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

But he said Arizona’s proposal is broader, and therein could lie considerable discrimination against Christians.

“It is a disturbing trend,” he said.

“It opens a wide door (against) people like us who defend traditional marriage,” he said. “We’re not going to represent someone who’s engaged in the homosexual lifestyle and the issue deals with that matter.

“Obviously from our perspective, we would take that into consideration,” he said.

Staver said the change actually would require Christian lawyers to endorse and support the homosexual lifestyle choice that their deeply held religious beliefs may not allow.

“What if you represent someone in a divorce and you’re the attorney of record. Afterwards this person enters into a lesbian lifestyle and wants a change of custody. They want the child. That presents Christian attorneys with a conflict with their religious beliefs. Would (that Christian lawyer) want to continue to represent that person?” he asked. “It would be pushing that child into a homosexual lifestyle.”

Staver said he’s seen the threat to lawyers coming for some time already.

“We’ve talked about the fact one of the major threats coming down the road as Christian attorneys is bar regulations with regard to homosexuality,” he said. “What we’re seeing in Arizona is the tip of the iceberg.

“If they can license you out of defending traditional morality, they can eventually capture the whole court system. There would be nobody left to defend traditional marriage,” he said.

Staver said there already are a number of bar association codes preventing lawyers from “denigrating” others such as opposing counsel. For example, remarks on race or sex are disallowed.

When homosexuality is given the special protected status previously reserved for issues like race, Christians face choices for which there is no right answer, he said.

“These are significant threats,” Staver said. “It further illustrates the conflict between the homosexual agenda and the Christian world view.”

He noted the attacks already have begun. Opposing lawyers in lesbian custody dispute in which Liberty Counsel is participating already have asked the court to fine Staver’s organization $100,000, accusing the group of being “engaged in a nationwide effort to take away rights of gays and lesbians,” he said.

Such attacks on Christian lawyers mirror attacks already taking place on Christian churches because of their biblical disapproval of the homosexual livestyle.

Staver’s organization is working on one such case, a discrimination complaint brought by two lesbians who were denied permission to rent a Christian group’s facilities for a “ceremony.”

That pending situation involves the United Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which has been accused by the government in New Jersey of discriminating against a self-described lesbian duo, Luisa Paster and Harriet Bernstein, who were denied permission to rent a church pavilion.

The pavilion is on church-owned beachfront property near Asbury Park and had been open to the public for decades under an agreement reached between the church and the local government.

One of the provisions of the agreement was that the pavilion would be open to the public “on an equal basis,” according to the report from Liberty Counsel. But in 2007 the state adopted a new definition of equal, granting civil union rights to same-sex couples. The lesbians wanted the pavilion, the church refused on grounds its religious beliefs did not allow that, and the state now is pursuing a discrimination case.

Media and Governments Seek to Curtail Religious Liberty

Note: This message was sent via the UFI Alert E-Mail Program.  Click here to be included in future UFI Alerts.

Merry Christmas!!  Happy Hanukkah!  Isn’t it wonderful to be able to say that to each other?  As much as we enjoy hearing and saying those phrases, we must realize that right now, during this holiday season, there are those who are working to take it away.  In this season of religious holidays, it is important for us to stop and consider what must be done to preserve our religious freedom.  We must be more cognizant of the forces that seek to strip us of our religious liberty.

Voices in the media and governments are trying desperately to convince us that giving up this freedom will, in fact, make us happier.  Many have tried to suggest that we are living in the past, relying on old books that have no meaning in today’s world.  Governments and world bodies are also trying to convince us to shed our religious beliefs.

Recently, we have seen what happens when people of faith choose to exercise their religious liberty.  With the passage of Proposition 8, a flood of protests have shown that what the opposition really wants is to limit religious freedom to include only those ideas they see as relevant to today’s world.

The December 5, Newsweek  article, “Our Mutual Joy” by religion editor, Lisa Miller, seeks to convince readers that “The Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history.  In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be  (civilly and religiously) married – and a number of excellent reasons why they should.”

The author also tells us that “No matter what one thinks about gay rights – for, against or somewhere in between – this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism.”

She continues by saying, “Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history.”

It is this type of rhetoric that allows us a window into what others really think of those who believe in God.  They believe that we embrace the “worst kind of fundamentalism”.  They think that the Holy Scriptures which are the basis of religious beliefs for millions around the world “give us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be married“.
 
Last week United Families International was in New York for the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  We were there to call upon the General Assembly of the United Nations to reinforce the original intent of the document.  

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

This week, France is collecting more signatures for its own declaration that calls for recognition of “sexual orientation or gender identity” as a protected human rights category on par with race and sex.

If the United Nations begins using sexual orientation or gender identity as protected categories we will see our religious liberties severely curtailed.  Once those categories become protected human rights, governments and courts around the world will begin enacting laws to protect those human rights.  Those laws will have severe consequences for people of faith and their religious freedom.

This is a season of gratitude.  It is a season when we give pause in our busy lives to stop, remember, and worship according to our religious beliefs.  This year, it is also a season to remember that freedom is not won by standing still.  Freedom – religious freedom – is won and will be maintained by recognizing the enemy and choosing to engage in the battle.

United Families International has been engaged in the battle for 30 years.  We urge you to join us today.  Make a contribution so that we can continue fighting for what we all believe in.  Help us keep this season a season where we can wish each other “Merry Christmas!” and “Happy Hanukkah!”

Beverly Rice, UFI President

Why Marriage Matters

Last night, during a discussion over the absurd Newsweek cover story, A Religious Case for Gay Marriage, this comment was made, “If gays are legally able to wed, it will not really affect my marriage, nor your marriage.”  I was pretty surprised to hear that comment and I fear that others may believe this lie.  In truth, if same-sex marriage is legalized it will not only have a tremendous impact on my marriage, but on all current and future marriages.  Families would lose important aspects of religious freedom and the freedoms and rights that are given to parents would be under attack if gays and lesbians are legally allowed to marry.     

One argument that I have made before is that as gay marriage is legal the freedom of religion is lost.  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.

The various religions that view homosexuality as a sin would, through the legal process, be forced to change their doctrine or face punishment such as the loss of tax-exempt status or other legal ramifications.  Sexual orientation would be viewed in the same light as race or eye color, characteristics that are by no means controllable, a notion that the teachings of many religious institutions fully oppose.

Take these 3 cases for example:

•  February 24, 2000: A professional printer refused to print material for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives because he felt doing so would violate his religious beliefs. He was fined and ordered to print the material anyway. He took his case to the Ontario Supreme Court and then to the Ontario Court of Appeal and lost both times. His total legal bills exceed $170,000.
• March 10, 2006: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts is forced out of the adoption business for the first time in 100 years because it will not place children with homosexual couples.
• January 28, 2008: Jon and Elaine Huguenin, a young Christian couple from Albuquerque, N.M, were tried before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission after they declined a request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, citing their religious beliefs. The same-sex couple filed a discrimination complaint with the commission, which scheduled the hearing. In the hearing, the Huguenins cited their First Amendment rights, but the commission sided with the same-sex couple. The Huguenins were fined $6,600.

Marriage matters because of the effect on education and the parent’s right to teach and rear their children in the manner they see fit.  It is widely documented that once same-sex marriage becomes legal, it will be taught that it is just as acceptable as heterosexual marriage in public schools.  The schools that will be forced to teach about homosexual marriage and parents will be unable to withdraw their students from these teaching sessions.  Public schools will, by law, be required to teach about gay marriage.  Students will, by law, be required to listen as teachers teach the mandated material.  Parents will, by law, be required to stand by as principles that they disagree with are taught to their children.  I do not wish to practice “fear-mongering,” the scenarios that I have laid out are real and have already happened in some states.   

As a society grows lax in its defense of the traditional family, the goals of the anti-family movement draw closer to fulfillment.  Their desire is to create a genderless society that is run by the state – void of religion, marriage and parents.  They hope for a pleasure-filled culture with no responsibilities and zero accountability.

Archbishop George Niederauer said in a post-Prop. 8 editorial, “Members of churches who supported Proposition 8 sincerely believe that defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is one such issue. They see marriage and the family as the basic building blocks of human society, existing before government and not created by it. Marriage is for us the ideal relationship between a man and woman, in which, through their unique sexual complementarity, the spouses offer themselves to God as co-creators of new human persons, a father and mother giving them life and enabling them to thrive in the family setting.”

MUST READ: The Gay Marriage Mess in Mass.

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.

The Opposition to Marriage Gets Ugly

What ever happened to the concept of respecting other people’s opinions? I was always taught to disagree agreeably even when passionate about the issue. Unfortunately, the anti-family, homosexual groups have gone nuclear by taking disagreeing to a whole new level.

Not only will those who disagree with the redefinition of marriage as a right for same-sex couples to marry be pummeled with anti-discrimination accusations; their names, contributions and religious affiliation is being published on a blog or website near you.

The intention is to smear the good names of those that are brave enough to stand up for what they believe and put their hard-earned money where their mouths are. A request has gone out from overzealot activists for all to do Internet searches on these names in order to find some dirt.

I have heard of this type of political ball being played, but normally it goes on quietly and discretly. These folks are in-your-face shameless.

Oh, and did I mention that the only religion published is that of the Mormons? In fact, the homosexual-rights folks are protesting in front of the Oakland LDS Temple where they hope to discredit and harrass those attending services.

If I did not know better, I would think this is a hate crime…

Smearing the names, harrassing and revealing the religious affiliation of political contributers may or may not be a hate crime, but it is a crime. At the very least it is immoral and anti-American.