U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Proposition 8 Case

Diane Robertson

The nine justices of the Supreme Court have just decided to hear the California Proposition 8 case and one DOMA case (Defense of Marriage Act). These cases will be heard before the court in March and a decision will be expected by the end of June.

In the DOMA case, the court will decide if it is constitutional for the federal government to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and limit federal marriage benefits to married couples of the opposite sex.  This won’t necessarily change any state laws on marriage, but the federal government would be required to recognize the marriages of same sex couples in states where it is legal.

In the Proposition 8 case, the court has two paths that it may take. The justices could decide the more basic issue of whether any state can ban same-sex marriage under the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law—is same-sex marriage a right protected under the constitution?  Or the court could limit the ruling to apply only to the ban in California. The 9^th Circuit Court of appeals ruled that California’s ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional because same sex couples were already granted the right to marry.

Same sex marriage is currently legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, and Washington D.C.

If the court rules that same sex marriage is a constitutional right then no one will be able to reject servicing  same-sex couples based on religious conscientious objections—infertility doctors, bed and breakfast owners, reception hall owners, family lawyers, photographers, bakers, etc.  Schools will be required to teach that homosexual unions are equal to heterosexual unions. Homosexuality will be enshrined in the law.

The two U.S. Supreme Court accepted cases are Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144) and US v. Windsor (12-307).

Can Freedom of Speech Even Survive?

Diane Robertson

One of the great things about America has always been freedom of speech. What a joy it is to be able to say or write something contrary to the government or popular opinion and still be safe and often respected.  This week, Americans used this right by voting. Four states voted on gay-marriage. The majority in these states chose either to legalize gay-marriage or not to add an amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  Gay-marriage has become a highly inflammatory issue, as proven this past summer with Chick-fil-a. Before and after the Chick-fil-a conflict, there have been some severe reactions to a difference of opinion concerning gay-marriage. This makes me wonder: Can freedom of speech continue alongside same sex marriage?

By now, most of us have heard of Angela McCaskill, an employee at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., a school for the deaf and hard of hearing. After having worked at Gallaudet for over 20 years, she has now been placed on administrative leave because of pressure from some students and faculty.  Her offense: She signed a petition in Maryland that added a referendum to the November ballet that asked voters in the state to vote yes or no in favor of “The Civil Marriage Protection Act”.  A majority “yes” legalized same-sex marriage in Maryland beginning January 2013.

It doesn’t matter that as chief diversity officer, McCaskill, helped open a resource center for “sexual minorities” on campus. Her job is in trouble because she wanted the legalization of same-sex marriage in her state to be decided by the people. Gallaudet is a federally chartered university—which means it is funded by the federal government. If Gallaudet was a private university then it would be within the university’s rights to hire and fire employees for things such as incompatible political views. As a public school, Gallaudet University’s president, T. Alan Hurwitz, has breached the first amendment by putting McCaskill on leave for signing a legal petition.

John Fund, from National Review Online lists similar cases in his article, “The New Blacklist”:

Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento, the state’s largest nonprofit performing-arts company, donated $1,000 to the “Yes on 8” campaign. Protests from the composer of the Broadway musical Hairspray and many other show-business people soon forced him to resign.

Similarly, Los Angeles Film Festival director Richard Raddon was forced to step down after it was revealed that he had donated $1,500 to “Yes on 8.” The festival’s organizer put out a statement saying, “Our organization does not police the personal, religious or political choices of any employee, member or filmmaker.” Behind the scenes, however, many of the festival’s board members pressured Mr. Raddon to resign.

Another incident happened in February when a 14-year-old homeschooler became the subject of cyberbullying, vicious name-calling, and death threats after testifying before the Maryland state senate against “The Civil Marriage Protection Act”.

More recently in Washington a volunteer working in support of traditional marriage, and a pregnant bystander, were confronted by an angry homosexual activist. The women had to call the police to end the confrontation.

And in Maine, Katelyn Daniels, a 14 year old girl wrote to the Portland Press Herald (Katelyn’s letter is the last on the page, scroll to the bottom to find it) describing what happened while her youth group—children 7 to 17—stood outsides with signs asking people to vote in favor of traditional marriage:

On one occasion, a middle-aged man with children in the back seat of his SUV deliberately drove up onto the sidewalk. He was dangerously near the children as he continued accelerating, plowing over 15 of our marriage signs and covering a span of more than 100 feet. The little ones were very scared.

He pulled off only to avoid hitting a telephone pole, and we saw him laughing as he sped away. The police chased after him and when confronted, the man claimed that he was “distracted.” Thankfully, a nearby store captured the entire crime on video.

On another occasion, a car drove by and the passenger leaned out the window, exposing his private parts. I was embarrassed by this lack of decency.

We children endured people calling us names, throwing things at us and hundreds upon hundreds of people sticking up their middle fingers and screaming X-rated profanities. And they call us hateful people?

Before there was any change in the law, these instances have had a chilling effect upon free speech. It makes one wonder who voted in favor of gay marriage out of fear of having his or her name published. And now, as more states legalize gay-marriage, one might ask how many people will be willing to risk a job or their personal safety to offer an opinion contrary to those supporting gay-marriage.

If same sex marriage were to be legalized throughout the United States would freedom of speech survive?

You Decide the Fate of Marriage!

U.S.  Marriage Score today:  0-32

To say it is a pivotal time for marriage would be quite an understatement!  Supporters of same-sex marriage are energized by recent developments such as the extreme support of so-called “gay rights” by a sitting U.S. President, including his reversal and now support of same-sex marriage, the abolition of the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, and this president’s refusal to defend the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (his stated preference is to have the DOMA abolished). 

Add to this various court actions such as the striking down of California’s Prop 8, the imposition of same-sex marriage by the courts upon the citizens of Iowa and ballot initiatives in four states that may bring to the U.S. the first time that same-sex marriage would be legalized by popular vote.

Yes, it appears that the trajectory of events favors gay advocates.  But not so fast!   Will “gay marriage” carry the day this fall?  We feel confident in saying “Absolutely not!” Especially if each one of us recognizes the threat and gets involved.   In that spirit, we thought it would be helpful to give a brief run-down on the state of marriage – not only in the U.S. but in other countries as well.

The State of Marriage in the U.S.

• Dating back to 1998, 32 states in the U.S. have held votes on same-sex marriage, and all 32 have opposed it.  We can’t sit back and assume that will always be the case, but 0-32 is a pretty good score!  It also reveals the depth of the commitment of the American people to traditional marriage.
• Thirty-one U.S. states have some type of constitutional amendments defining marriage.  (Hawaii is included in this list, but their amendment gives authority to their legislature to determine the definition of marriage; however, state courts cannot change the definition.)
• Twenty of the 31 states have amendments that additionally ban civil unions or domestic partnerships.
• Only six states (plus the District of Columbia) currently grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, so the number of states which define marriage as the union of a man and a woman is currently 44, not just 31.
• The six states which grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples are:  Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, and New York. (plus the District of Columbia)   In none of these states was same-sex marriage legalized via popular referendum.
• Nine states allow civil Unions:  California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington.

What is at stake for marriage in November 2012?

1)  Minnesota:  a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man/one woman is on the ballot.    Vote

“Yes” on the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment.  If the marriage amendment is defeated, it would still take a legislative act, court ruling or future popular vote to legalize gay marriage.

2)  Maine:   Maine voters in 2009 reversed the legislative legalization of same-sex marriage (“people’s veto”).  Pro-gay marriage advocates, however, have placed the issue on the ballot for 2012 to see if the citizens of Maine have had a change of heart and will now vote to legalize same-sex marriage. 

3)  Maryland:  Early in 2012 the Maryland legislature passed and the governor signed “The Civil Marriage Protection Act” legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland.  A “no” vote on Question 6 will reverse this legislation.  Otherwise same-sex marriage will be legal in Maryland beginning January 1, 2013

4)  Washington State:   a “reject” vote on Referendum 74 would repeal Senate Bill 6239 which legalized same-sex marriage (SB 6239 was signed by the governor on Feb. 13, 2012).

Countries that have legalized same-sex “marriage”   

• Netherlands
• Belgium
• Spain
• Canada
• South Africa
• Norway
• Sweden
• Portugal
• Iceland
• Argentina
• Denmark                      

This may seem like a lot of countries until you remember that the UN recognizes at least 192 nations.  The worldwide score for same-sex marriage:  11 to 192.

There are constant and concerted efforts to redefine marriage occurring in many nations of the world.  Britain currently has an aggressive and vocal group of politicians who are determined to redefine marriage in that country, but that effort is being met with stiff resistance.  The government of France recently announced that it is considering legalizing same-sex marriage and their intent to eliminate the words “mother” and “father” from their legal documents has been widely publicized. 

Yet in September, Australia’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to reject same-sex marriage. This shocked the gay rights establishment who had been convinced that they had the legalization of same-sex marriage in the bag.

What Can I Do to Help?  

• Watch and pass on this excellent video by National Organization for Marriage. You can view “Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry) here.   
• Realize the importance of your own marriage and work to strengthen it.  If you are not yet married, prepare yourself to be the best marriage partner possible.
• No matter what country you live in; stand up and speak up.  Share what you know about the importance traditional marriage to children and to society. 
• If you live in any of the states that have a marriage initiative on the ballot (Washington, Maine, Minnesota, Maryland), join with the groups promoting traditional marriage – give them your money and your time.  Help get your like-minded neighbors out to vote.   If you know anyone in these states, please share this information with them.  We must do all we can to keep marriage safe.   You might also consider a donation to the traditional marriage campaigns.
• Get out and vote! We need elected leaders who will support a pro-family position on all the issues.

Conclusion

“The future belongs to those people and cultures that deeply commit to ideas grounded in human nature:  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 to make the future happen.”  

Maggie Gallagher penned that statement almost 10 years ago.  We at United Families have quoted her often and her words ring truer today than ever.  Read it again.  You will see that it is the essence of the battle we face.   We know that there is an often silent majority of people who understand the nature of marriage and its critical importance to children and to the vitality of nations.  But we can be silent no more. 

We saw that silent majority rise up this past summer when thousands upon thousands of individuals around the U.S. came together in support of Chick-fil-A .  They came in support of traditional marriage and free speech.  A similar outpouring is required once again – in every state and in every country where traditional marriage is being threatened.  You are needed.  Please answer the call.

Carol Soelberg
President, United Families International

 

 

 

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

Ann Bailey

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Of Spiders and Smelt

Greg Barlow

Recently a Texas road construction project was postponed because of the discovery of a rare species of spider.  The project will not resume until scientists have fully evaluated the risks to the spider’s habitat posed by a continuation of the project.

Thousands of acres of productive farmland in central California have been turned to desert and the local economy ruined so that irrigation water can be returned to the Sacramento River.  The habitat of a small fish referred to as the Delta Smelt was deemed more important than the economic needs of the local farming community.

To many, the natural habitat of every living organism is sacred, perhaps rightfully so.  It is a rare day that ‘habitat’ loses a legal or for that matter a PR battle against economic or other interests.

So what of our human habitat?  More specifically what of the habitat of our children?  Biology requires that as humans we need a mother and a father, research also affirms that the outcome for children is far superior when a child grows to adulthood with his or her biological parents in a married household.  The nature of the ideal habitat for children is well known; unfortunately we fail to give the same level of deference to the habitat of our children that we demand for spiders and fish.

Perhaps there should be a law that requires an ‘environmental impact study’ performed on behalf of children prior to allowing parents to proceed with a divorce.  Prior to cohabiting, a similar study should be required so that a single mother fully understands the grave damage a live-in boy friend could inflict upon her children and their habitat.[i]

Same-sex marriage and gay adoption just might lose a bit of luster when we objectively consider just what a child is losing when removed from its natural mother/father habitat and placed in such an arrangement.

Of course abortion is the ultimate destruction of habitat.  We allow the humanity of an unborn child to be defined away so that its habitat can be invaded for the purpose of destroying it.  It would be difficult to imagine a civil society allowing similar savagery visited upon any non-human animal.

What can be said of a species that fails to seek, protect and nurture the ideal habitat of its young?  As we continue to allow the natural and essential habitat of our children to be violated, degraded, and polluted we may be wise to prepare for the far-reaching and inevitable consequences.  Sadly, I seem to envy the smelt…

---

[i] Evidence suggests that the least safe of all environments for children is that in which the mother is living with someone other than the child’s biological father. This is the environment for the majority of children in cohabiting couple households.  David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together?  What Young Couples Need to Know about Cohabitation Before Marriage,” National Marriage Project, 1999.  http://marriage.rutgers.edu/publicat.htm.

A British study found that children living with cohabiting biological parents who are unmarried are 20 times more likely to be abused and children whose mother lives with a boyfriend who is not the biological father are 33 times more likely to be abused than children living with married biological parents.   Robert Whelan, “Broken Homes and Battered Children, 1993.  Patrick Fagan and Kirk A. Johnson, “Marriage: The Safest place for Women and Children,” The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder Report no. 1535, 10 April, 2002. p. 3, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1535.cfm

To Kiss or Not to Kiss…

Ann Bailey

What a day it is!  The great “Kiss-In” at Chick-fil-A.  You’d think that after the astounding groundswell of support for free speech and traditional marriage that took place on Wednesday, that the gay lobby would at least lay low for a while.  Alas, ‘tis not the case.   The great “Kiss-In” (homosexuals couples encouraged to go to Chick-fil-A, do some smooching, take a photo, and post if around the internet) is taking place today.

On Wednesday night, United Families International received an email from a woman who had a plan to counter this event.  She writes:

Friday is traditionally date night both for those who date and want a kiss after the date and married couples as well. My son, Allan, decided he wasn’t going to let someone else chase him away from his date night, and has asked that we get the word out as quickly as possible to ask ALL married couples, and wanna be dates of couples to go to chick fil a to eat chicken, and kiss….

Most married couples I know began with a nice meal on a date, followed by kissing; eventually families came to be – all because of kissing! Please help us get the word out that Friday is the day for kissing someone of the opposite sex that you LIKE a LOT! Grab your partner, and have a date! Don’t hesitate to propose there if you haven’t done so already! Get the camera and record this event for ALL to see that even “they” wouldn’t be able to protest, if two people (of the opposite sex) hadn’t fell in love!

Hubbie can’t wait for Friday, and personally, I’m looking forward to it myself! Won’t confess how many years we’ve been married, but we now have 9 grandchildren…..

Please help us promote this so that there are so MANY married people kissing, that no one has time to notice “the others”….. OK?

At first, I thought “You bet!  Let’s do it!  Besides, this is kind of sweet to promote marriage, date night, and couples together.  I love the woman’s enthusiasm.”  But then I realized that this would only play into the hand of the gay lobby – the crazies in the gay lobby.

At this point, I can’t figure out how homosexuals think that this kind of publicity could do anything but harm their cause.  Who is this going to influence?  The people that support the gay “cause” are already on their team.  Those that aren’t, are only going to be repelled by this type of behavior.  What point, exactly, are they trying to prove?  They will only cause more attention – and more business – to rain down upon Chick-fil-A, their sworn enemy.

So, “yes” go to Chick-fil-A  sometime today.  It is important that Chick-fil-A coffers not suffer any negative repercussions from this so-called “counter protest” coming from the gay lobby.  But this time, I think it’s probably best to hold the kisses until you’re back home.

Thoughts?

 

 

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

Ann Bailey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chick-fil-A meets a first amendment buzzsaw

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

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

 

 

Processed and Tainted with Politics

Diane Robertson

It seems like the food business has suddenly become interested in politics. As it turns out their values are not my values.

It actually started with my beloved Ben and Jerry’s ice cream nearly three years ago. To celebrate when the state of Vermont legalized gay marriage, Ben and Jerry’s renamed their famous “Chubby Hubby” ice cream to “Hubby Hubby” for the month of September 2009. This past March in order to support gay marriage in Britain, Ben and Jerry’s renamed an apple pie flavored ice cream to “Apple-y Ever After”. Both containers showed a picture of two men on top of a wedding cake. So my husband and I decided that we could stop cuddling up with a carton of “New York Super Fudge Chunk” and a movie.

Now this month, General Mills, the Box Tops cereal company, has taken a position against the marriage amendment ballot measure in Minnesota. This amendment, like in 30 other states, would amend Minnesota’s Constitution to state that marriage is to be only between one man and one woman.  Ken Charles, General Mill’s Blog author, made General Mills position quite clear when he said, “Obviously, there are strongly held views on both sides. We acknowledge those views, including those on religious grounds. We respect and defend the right of others to disagree. But we truly value diversity and inclusion – and that makes our choice clear.”

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), rightly stated, that the General Mills Corporation is effectively declaring a “war on marriage” with its own customers. General Mill’s products: cold cereals, granola bars, fruit roll-ups, Yoplait yogurt, etc. are mainly bought and consumed by families with children. The families that are having children are the traditional families with a mother and a father.

And now, Oreo, the famous childhood cookie, put out a rainbow picture of an Oreo in support of Gay Pride Month (June) on their Oreo Facebook Page. According to LifeSiteNews, “Kraft Foods, the company behind the Oreo cookie, has defended a promotional image of the cookie stuffed with rainbow filling as “a fun reflection of our values,” even as the gay rights endorsement triggered boycott threats within hours of appearing on the Internet.” Oreo’s values apparently do not reflect my values.

I think my family can do without the processed foods tainted with politics. We will join the thousands of other traditional families boycotting these companies, so society can be a whole lot healthier and so can we.

Reader Poll: “Generally speaking, will publicly supporting same-sex “marriage” help or harm a politician come Election Day?”

Here’s the question we asked UFI readers: 

“Generally speaking, will publicly supporting same-sex “marriage” help or harm a politician come Election Day?”

Here’s how readers responded:

90 Percent       Harm

4 Percent         Help

6 Percent         Unsure

Are Same-Sex Couples Dashing for the Altar?

We are regularly barraged with news articles about the “injustice” of same-sex couples not being allowed to “marry.”  But how many same-sex couples even want to be married?  The most recent U.S. Census Bureau numbers indicate that the number of same-sex households that would actually take advantage of legalized “same-sex marriage” is very small – in fact miniscule.

The 2010 U.S. Census gives us actual numbers of same-sex households – a number that is dramatically lower than many of the past guesses that have been featured so prominently in the media.  There are between 515,000 and 551,000 “unmarried” same-sex households in the U.S.   Yet there are 117.5 million total households in the U.S.   That means that just five-tenths of one percent of households in the U.S.  might even have an interest in being granted the legal status of “same-sex marriage.”

Secondly,  data from the 2010 American Community Survey  (ACS)*shows that less than 50,000 same-sex marriages were recorded by civil authorities in the U.S. from the years 2004 to 2010.  During that same period of time about 14 million heterosexual marriages were performed.  Once again, we see that the number of same-sex marriage is less than four-tenths of one percent of the number of heterosexuals who are marrying.

When you consider that the number of individuals who identify as being “gay” or “bi-sexual” stands at about three percent of the total population, it seems that there is not much of a groundswell of interest among same-sex couples to run for the alter.  It appears that the push for “same-sex marriage” is not about homosexuals actually desiring to marry, but it is about homosexuals seeking societal validation for their behavior.

*Daphne Lofquist, “Same-Sex Couple Households,” American Community Survey Briefs, U.S. Census Bureau, September 2011.