Stop Governor From Honoring Homosexual Activist, ACT NOW!

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has until Sunday to decide on a bill that would establish a day of significance for slain politician Harvey Milk, the first openly homosexual official to be elected to public office in California. The bill, promoted as a day to commemorate the life of a fallen civil rights activist, would directly undermine the parental rights and religious freedom of all Californians, and further the attempts to promote homosexual behavior under the banner of civil rights.

Harvey Milk, revered as “a martyr for homosexual rights,” served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for 11 months when he was murdered with Mayor George Moscone by fellow supervisor Dan White. During his political career, Milk actively promoted homosexual lifestyles, promiscuous sexual practices, and the entire LGBT agenda. Although Milk’s murder was in no way associated with his homosexuality and his time in public service insignificant, his life, career and death became symbolic icons for the gay rights movement.

If passed, the bill would officially establish May 22 as Harvey Milk Day and “encourage public schools and educational institutions to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on that date.” This means that schools would conduct activities commemorating and promoting the life of a man recognized solely for his homosexuality. It would not simply commemorate the life of a “civil rights activist,” but rather it would pressure schools to present homosexuality as an identity (rather than a behavior) entitled to civil rights protection and those morally opposed to homosexual behavior as discriminatory bigots. The homosexual agenda would, thus, become a state-sanctioned part of all public education in California.

Furthermore, the primary assumption behind the bill is inherently false and directly undermines the battle to defend traditional marriage. If passed, the bill would reinforce and write into law the belief that LGBT behavior is in fact a minority identifier equivalent to race, religion, gender or ethnicity, as it would establish Harvey Milk as a civil rights activist equal to Martin Luther King Jr. The entire homosexual agenda is dependent upon normalizing the fallacy that homosexual behavior is entitled to specialized civil rights protection and this bill would be just one more step in that process.

Therefore, the time to defend religious freedom, protect parental rights, and stop the state-sponsored promotion of homosexuality is now. You have until Sunday to let Gov. Schwarzenegger know that the people of California oppose this bill. Call him at 916-445-2841 or email him by clicking here and tell him he must VETO bill number SB572.

Good News Comes in Threes: Utah, California & The Nation

One…Two…Three. United Families Utah and the pro-family movement is making a difference!

1. Utah’s Next Governor Supports Traditional Marriage

At a recent news conference on Capitol Hill, Lt. Gary Herbert, soon to be Governor Herbert, was asked by a reporter “Do you support same-sex civil unions?” Lt. Gov. Herbert clearly stated:

“I do not. I supported Amendment 3; I voted for Amendment 3; and for me, at least, the debate is over in Utah. The [State] Constitution’s been changed, amended. That being said, I do believe we have due respect for all people in Utah and ought to make sure we conduct ourselves in that way. Again, in my faith, I believe we’re all brothers and sisters of a loving Heavenly Father and we’re going to treat each other that way.”

In response to the follow-up question, “Did you support any of the ‘Common Ground Initiative’ [bills]?” the Lt. Governor responded:

“I supported Amendment 3 and I’m going to let that be my statement on the issue…”

United Families Utah along with the Sutherland Institute commends Lt Governor Herbert and looks forward to working with him in the future.

2. California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8

Finally, California Supreme Court has upheld the voter’s voice: Same-sex marriage will not be allowed in California. The Christian Science Monitor reports “the measure only takes away the term ‘marriage’ – not a gay couple’s legal rights.”

3. Majority of Americans are Pro-Life

America has shifted to a Pro-Life position and the trend will continue into the future. A recent Gallup poll reveals more Americans are “Pro-Life” than “Pro-Choice” for first time since 1995 when Gallup started gathering opinions on pro-life. Click here for more information.

It is evident that when we keep up the effort to reason and advocate for the family we can make a difference. Let us continue to reach out to those who will join our ranks to keep the tide rolling our way.

Prop 8 Upheld!

One month ago, United Families International gave you a short update on the marriage battle as it was playing out across the United States. Today, as policy discussions come to an end before the break of summer, we have additional information to share regarding the targeted New England area of the United States, as well as Washington DC and California’s Prop 8.

Gay rights activists who aimed to legalize same-sex marriage throughout New England by 2012 are certainly building momentum. It appears that they will have passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage in at least 4 of the 6 New England states by the end of May. The win is a blatant attempt to “normalize” gay marriage one area of the United States at a time, but also to redefine marriage through the state legislative process instead of through the court system.

Before this year, the gay rights activists only saw success in the court room. Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, and Iowa were legalized through their state courts, allowing proponents of marriage to point out that the will of the people was overturned by liberal courts involved with policy making. Unfortunately, last month Vermont became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through legislative action.

Voters believe that when it comes to who should decide whether same-sex marriage should be legal, 43 percent of voters say their state legislature, and 25 percent say the courts should. Only 16 percent say neither should make the decision.

ACLU: Same-Sex Marriage Is Top Priority

Gary Bauer reports:

Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, thinks so. In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Romero says, “Clearly, the momentum is on our side,” and he calls the nationwide legalization of same-sex “marriage” a “sure thing.” According to Romero, the issue is the ACLU’s top priority, “behind only national-security issues.” That’s very telling. The ACLU has been leading the charge to expose our national security secrets in the war against Islamofascism, shutting down GITMO and pursuing the absurd notion that terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield deserve the same constitutional protections as American citizens. Undermining our national security is the ACLU’s first priority; undermining our cultural security, its second.

While it is undeniable that the drive for same-sex “marriage” has picked up steam in recent months, it is also undeniable that the upsurge is a direct consequence of recent elections. The militant homosexual rights movement had a very clear strategy to fundamentally alter the political environment in key states by defeating pro-family, pro-traditional marriage legislators. If just one or two of them could be defeated, it would send the message that supporters of traditional marriage had a bull’s eye on their backs, creating a chilling effect on sympathetic politicians. If enough could be defeated, it could potentially change the makeup of the state legislature, putting pro-homosexual rights candidates in control – politicians who would use their power to prevent marriage protection amendments from getting on the ballot. That is exactly what happened as a result of the 2006 elections in Iowa and in other states where “gay marriage” has advanced in recent months.

Is same-sex “marriage” inevitable? Romero is right when he says that the momentum is on his side. But, I’m not willing to concede that the coast-to-coast redefinition of marriage in America is “inevitable.” As we saw in California, the courts do not get the final say. The United States Supreme Court once declared slavery to be legal. But the people, through the democratic process, amended the Constitution to guarantee no man could be held as property. The Supreme Court declared in 1973 that our unborn children had no rights we were bound to respect. But men and women of faith have fought the good fight for more than three decades, and, as recent polls indicate, we are changing hearts and minds.

If pastors speak up and if men and women of faith and of all races and backgrounds unite to defend the institution of marriage as it has existed from the dawn of civilization, I believe we will prevail. The culture war is real and the public policies that we must all live under are determined by the men and women we elect to public office. This is why it is so important for men and women of faith to remain engaged in the public policy battles and to speak up and defend their values.

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.”

Is The Marriage Battle Lost?: Miss California Stands For Marriage!

How are you feeling about the battle over same sex marriage these days? Do you feel like the battle is over? Do you feel like we should just give up? Are you sensing that the other side has won?

If these feelings describe how you have felt since the Iowa Supreme Court decision and the Vermont legislature vote – then the other side has won. Their efforts to win this war will only be successful if we allow them to influence us through psychological efforts. This war can only be won by the other side if we allow that to happen.

In any battle, whether it be one of weapons, words, or philosophies, the greatest weapon that can be used is the psychological one. If one opponent can get the other to begin seeing the battle in terms that are defined by that opponent then the battle is won. Military experts will tell you that their biggest job is keeping their forces optimistic. They will tell you that as soon as their soldiers begin thinking they have lost – the battle becomes much, much more difficult.

We were all given an excellent example of courage and optimism this week. When the California contestant for the Miss USA pageant bravely stated that her opinion was “… I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.” We should all look at the courage she demonstrated, in a competition that could be won or lost by such an answer, and ask ourselves if we would be willing to do the same. We need to look at her example and realize that it will only be through millions of similar acts that we will continue to win this battle.

The battle over same sex marriage is only in its infancy. Of 50 states, only 4 have legalized same sex marriage. Over half of the states have marriage amendments. In recent polls, a majority of Americans still oppose same sex marriage. This is a war that will have many ups and downs. Remember the jubilation felt when the voters of California, Arizona and Florida voted in favor of marriage between one man and one woman? Remember how demoralized the opposition felt?

In our efforts to protect traditional marriage, religious liberties and parental rights, the most important thing we can do is continue to feel optimistic. It is critical that we are all willing to continue fighting. It is essential that we not become weary of the battle. This is the war that will define our culture and society for generations to come. It is the battle that will determine the rights that our children and grandchildren will have.

At United Families International we have fought this battle for many years. We will continue fighting it for many more. We have established chapters in several states. We would love to establish more state chapters. If you feel that you have the desire and the willingness to become actively involved in this battle we would love to hear from you. Please consider making a donation today to continue the work each state chapter is performing.

Voice Of The Nation: Family Values Blog Talk Radio 4.16.09

Voice Of The Nation: Family Values Blog Talk Radio will be live at 3:00 MST!  If you can’t listen live, the show will be available to listen to or download at your convenience. Click here to listen to current and past shows!

The Family Values Blog Talk Radio show is a joint effort between United Families International, the Digital Network Army, and other Pro-Family organizations.  The show highlights current Family Values news and discusses the logic behind the Pro-Family Movement.

Today’s guest will be Arthur A. Goldberg, author of the book, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change.  This groundbreaking book explodes the “gay gene” mystique, offering hope, compassion, direction and vitally needed information to gay strugglers, their families, friends, and surrounding community.  Arthur is also the The Co-Director of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality).

Click HERE to see a video interview with Mr. Goldberg.

Gary Bauer: Why Marriage Matters

The institution of marriage has taken some high profile hits in the past few days. But the meaning of marriage – how it is defined and who defines it – is tremendously important for our entire society, because it has implications that go well beyond the desires of two consenting adults. This debate will impact religious liberty and what your kids are taught in the public schools. Even the liberal media understand that. 

Last week, the Washington Post carried an article entitled “Faith Groups Increasingly Lose Gay Rights Fights.” It was about the inevitable conflict between the militant homosexual rights movement and the freedom of religion. It cited several examples of discrimination against men and women of faith. Professor Jonathan Turley, who supports homosexual “marriage,” suggested that we are “on a slippery slope that inevitably takes us to the point where we punish religious groups because of their religious views.” Last summer, National Public Radio addressed the same issue. It also concluded, “the religious groups are losing.” 

Here’s just one example of how this debate will impact your values and your children. This Friday, April 17th, has been chosen by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network as the “National Day of Silence,” when students are urged to show their support for the homosexual movement in the public schools. Believe it or not, there is a resolution pending in the House of Representatives supporting this effort. In addition, the resolution asks President Obama to issue a proclamation “calling on the people of the United States to observe the National Day of Silence with appropriate ceremonies, programs, and activities.” Prayers are prohibited in our public schools, but by co-sponsoring this resolution, at least three dozen members of Congress have shown they believe the homosexual lifestyle should be promoted in the public schools. Is this what you believe Congress should be working on right now? 

This is why it is so important for men and women of faith to be informed and active in the public policy process. If your values matter to you, you must defend them!

Agree With Homosexuality Or Else…..

Christian charity worker suspended over opposition to gay rights

A charity worker has been suspended after telling a colleague about his Christian beliefs against homosexuality, even though he says he is not homophobic and was merely responding to questions from a colleague about his beliefs.

David Booker, 44, who works at a Christian hostel in Southampton, a charity whose patron is the Archbishop of Canterbury, was asked about his faith by a colleague, Fiona Vardy during a late shift last month.

He told her he was opposed to same-sex marriages and to homosexual clergy but denied being homophobic and said that he had homosexual friends.

The next evening, Mr Booker was suspended from his £19,000-a-year post as a hostel support worker with Society of St James, where he has been employed for the last four years. The hostel told him the action was taken for “events that happened last night”

A few days later he was told he had “seriously breached” the charity’s code of conduct “by promoting your religious views which contained discriminatory comments regarding a person’s sexual orientation”. The action had been taken “to safeguard both residents and staff”, he was advised.

Mr Booker, an evangelical from Southampton, who is being advised by the Christian Legal Centre, now faces an enquiry and a disciplinary hearing.

It comes just weeks after a Christian nurse suspended for offering to pray for the recovery of a patient was reinstated. North Somerset NHS Trust suspended nurse Caroline Petrie for failing to show a commitment to equality and diversity after she offered to pray for the recovery of an elderly patient. The patient did not complain.

E. Mich. Univ. ousts student for not affirming homosexual behavior

DETROIT — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom filed a lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University Thursday after school officials dismissed a student from the school’s counseling program for not affirming homosexual behavior as morally acceptable. The school dismissed Julea Ward from the program because she would not agree prior to a counseling session to affirm a client’s homosexual behavior and would not retract her stance in subsequent disciplinary proceedings.

“Christian students shouldn’t be penalized for holding to their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French. “When a public university has a prerequisite of affirming homosexual behavior as morally good in order to obtain a degree, the school is stepping over the legal line. Julea did the responsible thing and followed her supervising professor’s advice to have the client referred to a counselor who did not have a conscience issue with the very matter to be discussed in counseling. She would have gladly counseled the client if the subject had been nearly any other matter.”

EMU requires students in its program to affirm or validate homosexual behavior within the context of a counseling relationship and prohibits students from advising clients that they can change their homosexual behavior. Ward has never addressed homosexual behavior in any form during counseling sessions with clients.

EMU initiated its disciplinary process against Ward and informed her that the only way she could stay in the graduate school counseling program would be if she agreed to undergo a “remediation” program. Its purpose would be to help Ward “see the error of her ways” and change her “belief system” as it relates to counseling about homosexual relationships, conforming her beliefs to be consistent with the university’s views. When Ward did not agree with the conditions, she was given the options of either voluntarily leaving the program or asking for a formal review hearing.

Ward chose the hearing, during which EMU faculty denigrated her Christian views and asked several inappropriate and intrusive questions about her religious beliefs. The hearing committee dismissed her from the counseling program on March 12. Ward appealed the decision to the dean of the College of Education, who upheld the dismissal on March 26.

“Julea has a constitutional right not to be compelled to speak a message she disagrees with. She acted as a professional counselor should–with great concern both for her beliefs and the client,” ADF Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco explained. “The two are not incompatible, but EMU’s policies are incompatible with the Constitution.”

Voice Of The Nation: Family Values Blog Talk Radio 4.9.09

Voice Of The Nation: Family Values Blog Talk Radio will be live at 3:00 MST!  If you cant listen live, the show will be available to listen to or download at your convenience. Click here to listen to current and past shows!

Today: Voice Of The Nation will be discussing the recent same-sex marriage changes that have happened in Iowa and Vermont this week as the number of states allowing same-sex marriages actually doubled in a matter of days!  Four states now allow same-sex marriages, is the tide of public support turning against family?  or is the system being usurped?  What’s the next step?

Guest Craig Benson will be joining us to talk about what happened in Vermont as the votes actually went down this week.  We lost the veto on Tuesday by one vote.  It was a close fight!.  Hear the inside scoop from the grass roots of Vermont this Thursday!

Craig Bensen is the President of Take It To The People, a Vermont Citizen Coalition for Traditional Marriage. His group has been working on this issue in Vermont since 1997.  Dr. Bensen is a local church pastor, businessman and political activist.

Open Chat and Call lines: We’ll be taking your questions via online chat during the show and if you want to ask your own questions, feel free to call in!  347- 215-6801.

NOM Launches Religious Liberty Ad Campaign!

April 8, 2009 (Trenton, NJ) –April 8, 2009 — Today the National Organization for Marriage launched an ad campaign to protect marriage and religious liberty throughout the nation. The centerpiece of the new ad campaign is the 60-second TV spot “A Gathering Storm,” bringing viewers face to face with the growing religious liberty threat posed by same-sex marriage.

One Vote in Vermont: Vermont Legislature Overrides Veto, Votes in Same-Sex “Marriage”

From Beetle Blogger:

So many people, so much effort. We needed 50 votes in the Vermont House to hold the veto in place. We got 49. It all came down to one vote in Vermont. Governor Jim Douglas stood against the tide for what was right but others chose to waffle under pressure. Who was that one vote? It could have come down to a number of people, but today it came down to Sonny Audette.

Sonny Audette originally voted for marriage. Valiantly he stood with the governor against the tide, but as the pressure increased, he waffled, and flipped:

“I apologize for voting this way, I’m a devout catholic,” said Audette.

The 4 term house member plans to change his vote, but not because he’s changed his mind about same sex marriage.

“What I’m doing is changing my contempt for the way the governor has treated the house of representatives,” he said.

Audette says he’s still angry for the way governor Jim Douglas announced his plan to veto the bill before the house had a chance to vote.

That’s why Audette says he’s willing to change, even though he knows he could end up being the one vote that ultimately passes the bill he morally opposes.

“I hope it doesn’t come down to that, if it does, I’ve got some more thinking to do,” said Audette. –Fox44News

Today, this is how it played out for this one vote. While everyone else stood and were counted, Rep Audette abstained.

Rep. Sonny Audette of South Burlington did not vote. It wasn’t clear whether he intended to vote to override. Audette opposed gay marriage but also opposed the governor’s early announcement of a veto as “interference.” –wcax.com

Interference? He abstained because he was offended? I wonder how he feels about that now.

The last few weeks we’ve had several instances on this theme. How issues surrounding marriage and families have become so divided among our people that the swaying vote has come down to one, or two or just a handful of people making a principled stand. Today we have the flip side.

Families could have used your help today Mr. Audette.

For the rest of us, we’ve got to decide, where do we stand? And are we willing to make that stand, even under pressure? Even through persecution? Hate mail? Angry friends? What price is there on your vote?

How incredibly powerful one vote can be, and how dear the cost.

UPDATE: Iowa and Vermont

VERMONT (AP):

MONTPELIER, Vt. — The Vermont House has given final approval to a bill that would legalize gay marriage in the state.  The 94-52 vote for final passage on Friday falls short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto promised by Gov. Jim Douglas.  

The state Senate is expected to concur with the House action on Monday. The governor’s office says he will then veto the bill quickly.  Legislative leaders say they could bring the bill up for veto-override votes in the House and Senate as early as Tuesday.

IOWA:

WORLD CONGRESS OF FAMILIES RESPONDS TO IOWA COURT LEGISLATING GAY MARRIAGE: CARLSON’S TESTIMONY RULED INADMISSIBLE

(Rockford, Illinois) World Congress of Families Managing Director Larry Jacobs said he was “appalled but not surprised” by today’s ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court, in effect legislating gay marriage in the state.

Jacobs commented: “The rationale for this ruling is that limiting marriage to a man and a woman is a violation of equal protection for homosexual couples who want to marry, hence unconstitutional.”

“But if not allowing same-sex couples to marry is unconstitutional, what about a brother and sister, or a man and three women who want to marry? On the basis of today’s ruling, aren’t they also denied equal protection under the law by not being allowed to marry?” Jacobs asked.

“Clearly, the ‘equal protection’ argument is a ruse by a court determined to force its social views on the people of Iowa.” Jacobs charged. “Otherwise, it would have ruled that any two people, or group of people, have an equal-protection right to marry in the state.”

The Iowa Supreme Court ruling affirms a 2007 decision of Iowa District Court Judge Robert Hanson.

World Congress of Families International Secretary Allan Carlson, a renowned scholar of the family, was deposed in the Iowa court case. Carlson’s testimony was ruled not admissible in the summary judgment from Judge Hanson. Hanson stated, “Despite Carlson’s impressive academic credentials, the court does not believe he possesses the knowledge or expertise to answer the specific questions propounded to him [specifically, the consequences of marriage for children].”

In a summary of his “Relevant Opinions” (submitted to the court to establish his qualifications as an expert witness), Carlson said of children raised by their married natural parents: “They are less likely to be physically, sexually, or mentally abused, to use illegal drugs, to be involved in the juvenile justice system, to become wards of the state, or to attempt suicide. Marriage law has privileged the sexual relation of man to woman because of these positive effects on children, which have also made valuable contributions to society.”

Carlson was born in Iowa and is the author of more than 10 published books on marriage and family, including “Conjugal America: On the Public Purposes of Marriage” (2006) and “The Natural Family: Bulwark of Liberty” (2008).

World Congress of Families is an international gathering of pro-family leaders, scholars, parliamentarians and activists held every two years. World Congress of Families V will be held in Amsterdam, August 10-12, 2009.

Iowa Supreme Court: Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

Fox News reports:

DES MOINES, Iowa — The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state’s same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where marriage will be legal.

In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge’s ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman.

“The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion,” said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.

From NOM:

In an opinion just released on the Iowa Supreme Court website, the Iowa Supreme Court today struck down the Iowa marriage laws recognizing marriage as the union of a husband and wife.

The ruling, which held that the marriage laws unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, puts the ball back in the court of the state legislature, where a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as the union of a husband and wife was introduced last month.

As soon as today’s decision was handed down, we set up an online action center so that Iowa residents can quickly and easily contact their elected officials, urging them to support HJR 6, which gives Iowa voters a chance to have the final say on marriage.

We know that the people of Iowa support marriage — and we need to make sure their legislators get the message: Marriage is too important to leave in the hands of a few judges. Let the people vote!

Marriage does matter.  Let us, those who know of the dangers of the legalization of same-sex marriage, hope that the people of Iowa will soon have an opportunity to cast their vote and amend their constitution so that it defines marriage as it is: a union between a man and a woman.

Voice Of The Nation: Family Values Blog Talk Radio 4.2.09

Did you miss today’s show?  If you did, it has been archived and is available at your convenience. It was our best show yet!  Brian Brown of National Organization for Marriage was our guest.  Brian broke down the marriage battles in the Northeast and laid out a flawless argument in favor of traditional marriage. Brian also spoke about his experience inside the courtroom in San Fransisco as Prop. 8 was debated before the CA Supreme Court.

Angela and Drew discussed the breaking news in the battle for marriage in Iowa, Sweden, and North Carolina.  As a bonus, there is a special offer from UFI specifically for listeners of the show. This is a show that should not be missed!

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

CLICK HERE FOR THE VOICE OF THE NATION BLOG

VIDEO: This is Marriage—It’s that Simple.

From Beetle Blogger:

In a world of increasing confusion and moral depravity, marriage should be our dependable rock, our children’s rock, our family’s rock, our country’s rock, our government’s rock. Instead, homosexual activists intent on gaining forced public acceptance through marriage redefinition, have launched an all-out assault on marriage in multiple states (most recently New England states) through the legislative and judicial branches of government, effectively circumventing the sovereign will of the people of the United States of America, denying them their right to decide the fate of marriage in their state. At the height of hypocrisy, the homosexual machine that touts love and equality has bared it’s intolerant, hypocritical teeth at individuals (Marjorie Christoffersen, Maureen Mullarkey, and eightmaps, for example) and non-profit organizations (such as NOM, UFI, and DNA) that would dare to attempt to speak against them with such fantastically firm resolve to preserve those values, principles, and institutions which made America great at its birth.

What will you do to secure your children’s future? Your family’s future? Your country’s future? Your government’s future? Your future grand-children’s future?

It can be daunting and intimidating to face such a virulent, violent rage that is at the core of the homosexual movement.

But take heart! There are others like you, who cherish marriage as a union between one man and one woman, who are blogging, Twittering, Facebooking, MySpacing, and commenting on all of the above. Awareness is key. And you can easily help to raise awareness.

Join the Digital Network Army today (DNA) and learn how you can make your voice heard.

VIDEO: Times Have Changed – The United States vs. The Family

UPDATE: Marriage in Minnesota

The UFI State Chapter Director from Minnesota reports:

Friday, March 27th, the Civil Justice committee in the MN House was scheduled to hear 4 bills concerning civil unions (HF999), ending of DOMA laws (HF893), recognizing same-sex marriages from other states (HF1740) and a proposed amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman (HF 1871).

On March 25th the committee canceled hearing those four bills and added the bill, HF 1655 which is a bill to develop a committee to study marriage laws and regulations in Minnesota and how they may discriminate or affect economic conditions. 

Bottom Line: Marriage will not be voted on in Minnesota this year.

New Hampshire Takes The Stage

The New Hampshire House voted this morning to reject the same-sex marriage bill on a 183-182 roll call vote, only to reverse position moments later on a motion to reconsider. On motion to reconsider, proponents successfully pressured 3 representatives to change their votes. The bill then passed the House by a 186-179 margin and is now headed to the Senate.

Just three weeks ago, we were expected to lose by a wide margin in the New Hampshire House, but because of your efforts very nearly pulled off a shocking upset victory. Those on the ground in New Hampshire are telling us that your efforts — contacting NH legislators and supporting the NOM Northeast Action plan — were critical as we were able to send thousands of emails to New Hampshire lawmakers and run radio ads throughout the state.

Unfortunately, a loss is still a loss, and we have lots of work ahead in the Senate. Please join us in contacting the NH Senate today.

-Brian Brown, National Organization for Marriage

Voice Of The Nation: Live at 3:00 EST on Thursday, March 26th

On Thursday: Voice Of The Nation will discuss same-sex marriage initiatives that are taking root across the country, most notably in Vermont as the state Senate and House are voting on same-sex marriage legislation this week.  Will the Governor Veto the legislation?  Does he have the votes to hold?

Also, William Duncan, Director of the Marriage Law Foundation, will be a guest on the show this week to talk about the dangers of legalizing same sex marriage.

William C. Duncan is director of the Marriage Law Foundation. He formerly served as acting director of the Marriage Law Project at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and as executive director of the Marriage and Family Law Research Grant at J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, where he also served as a visiting professor. He has published numerous articles on constitutional and family law issues in a variety of legal journals.

Voice Of The Nation: Family Values Blog Talk Radio show is a joint effort between United Families International, the Digital Network Army, and other Pro-Family organizations. The show highlights current Family Values news and discusses the logic behind the Pro-Family Movement.  All shows are archived and you may listen at you convenience.

CLICK HERE FOR THE SHOW’S BLOG

CLICK HERE FOR THE SHOW’S SITE

UPDATE: Vermont Gay Marriage Bill Passes Senate, Moves to House

**NEWS** AP: Vt.’s GOP governor says he’ll veto gay marriage

The following was received by the National Organization for Marriage as an Urgent Action Alert:

If we don’t act now, by the end of the week, Vermont could become the first state to adopt same-sex marriage legislatively — without a court order hanging over their heads.

I need two things from you today. It’ll only take about 5 minutes, but your action could make the difference for marriage, not just in Vermont, but in the nation. Once the floodgates open in Vermont, it will be easier for other state legislatures to follow suit.

We need to remind these legislators that their constituents are watching, and that they will be held accountable for their votes. We can’t let them forget that 17 Vermont legislators lost their seats over civil unions in 2000. Urge them to adopt a proposed amendment sending the same-sex marriage bill to the people of Vermont for a vote. Tell them this is too important an issue to ramrod through in just a few days — with no real public debate.

Here’s where things stand: Despite our best efforts, the Vermont Senate passed Senate Bill 115 Monday night on a vote of 26-4. The vote sends the bill to the Vermont House, where the leadership is expected to try to push it through quickly — a committee vote is likely within the next day or two and a vote of the full House may come before the end of the week.

While the Democratic leadership claims to have enough support to pass the bill, our efforts this week are critical. Working together, we can stop this, and at the same time put Vermont legislators on notice that the nation is watching, and that their constituents care about marriage. Even if the leadership succeeds in ramming the bill through this week, the margin of passage is critical.  Governor Douglas opposes same-sex marriage, and is considering a veto. The House vote is certain to be closer than the Senate vote, and we need to keep the pressure on.

One legislator told the Burlington Free Press yesterday that he’d received 300 calls and emails about the same-sex marriage bill (an unheard-of number in Vermont!)– and that supporters of same-sex marriage outnumbered opponents by a 2-1 margin! Let’s correct the record, and make sure that every pro-marriage Vermonter contacts his or her legislators today!

Here’s what I need you to do:

1. Contact the members of the Vermont House. If you live in Vermont, your action today is critical. Even if you’ve taken action before, please use this hyperlink to send a message to all 150 members of the Vermont House of Representatives, urging them to respect the voice of all Vermonters, and send this to the people for a vote — not rush it through in just a few days.

Even if you don’t live in Vermont, please send a message letting the Vermont House know that the nation is watching, and urging them to respect the voices of their constituents — let the people vote!

2. Forward this message to every person you know in Vermont!  We have three days to get every pro-marriage person in Vermont to contact their legislators, and we need your help!

Thank you for all you’re doing to stand for marriage. The need is urgent, and we couldn’t do it without your help.

-Brian Brown

VIDEO: Exclusive UFI Interview With Arthur A. Goldberg

Can homosexuals transform their sexuality?  Torah, Talmud and time-tested advances in gender psychology answer YES! The Co-Director of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality), Arthur Goldberg, tells how in his book “Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change.”  This groundbreaking book explodes the “gay gene” mystique, offering hope, compassion, direction and vitally needed information to gay strugglers, their families, friends, and surrounding community.

The UFI Blog interviewed Mr. Goldberg about his new book and the facts behind same-sex attraction and the gay lifestyle.

ALERT: Marriage in Vermont is in Jeopardy TODAY!

This EMERGENCY ACTION ALERT was sent by the National Organization for Marriage:

This afternoon, the Vermont Senate is holding a rare special session to vote on a handful of bills including S.115, the same-sex marriage bill. A vote on the SSM bill is likely to take place sometime after 3:00pm.  Unless we take decisive action now, it looks increasingly likely that the bill may pass.

Please take action before 3pm today!   Send emails to every member of the Vermont Senate to let them know how important protecting marriage is.

 

Even if you’re from out of state, help us send a message to the Vermont Senate.

1. TAKE ACTION! Use this hyperlink to send a message to all 30 members of the Vermont Senate, urging them to respect marriage and the voices of their constituents by voting NO on S.115.

2. FORWARD TO A FRIEND! Then, click here to forward this email to five friends, especially anyone who lives in Vermont. We must get this email into the hands of as many Vermonters as possible before 3pm today!

Voice Of The Nation: Family Values Blog Talk Radio Debuts

United Families International (UFI) and the Digital Network Army (DNA) are pleased to announce the new BlogTalkRadio show: Voice Of The Nation, on Family Values Blog Talk Radio. Voice Of The Nation will be hosted by UFI Media Director, Drew Conrad and DNA Director, Angela Rockwood. The on-line talk radio show will highlight current Family Values news and discusses the logic behind the Pro-Family Movement.

The inaugural show was on Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 2:00 PST.Voice Of The Nation discused same-sex marriage initiatives that are taking root across the country as well as summarized the recent happenings regarding the assault on the family at the UN.

UFI International Policy Director, Laura Knaperek, who was one of several UFI representatives at the UN during CSW, will be a guest on the show. Prior to joining UFI, Mrs. Knaperek served in the Arizona State Legislature for ten years. During her tenure as a State Representative, she established herself as an advocate for children, families and the disabled.

CLICK HERE FOR THE SHOW’S HOMEPAGE

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

United Families Report Success at CSW 2009!!!

We were successful!!! Two weeks of concentrated negotiating, conjoling, writing, lobbying, and supporting have come to an end. At the conclusion of the 53rd Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), many in the pro-family coalition had slept less than four hours during the final 48 hours. But, it was worth it! We were able to remove the six references to “reproductive health services” (abortion) and insert six references to “family”!! This was a significant success! At one point there were no references to the family at all!

The final three days were blurred into one long day as the delegates worked until 2 a.m. on Wednesday and until 7:30 a.m. on Thursday. The delegates, and those of us who had stayed up all night with them, had only two hours to prepare for the final round of negotiations on Friday. Negotiations became so intense on Thursday night that delegates from pro-family nations would need to leave the room to get rejuvenated by the support and nourishment brought by our small coalition of pro-family organizations. The large International Planned Parenthood Federation had employed a large, imposing man to represent them. Several times United Families International representatives had to block the door to the negotiating room so he would not enter to influence the proceedings.

It was amazing to watch the intimidation tactics that were used in an attempt to force small countries, who want to protect families and the unborn child, to change their votes. It was apparent that the European Union and the United States were attempting to use various persuasive means to convince smaller, pro-family countries to join them in supporting abortion language. One delegate from a small country told us that he finally yelled at the other delegates, “I cannot join you! It would go against the instructions from my capital! It would go against ideals of the people in my country! And, it would go against my own personal beliefs! I will not change my vote!” This brave delegate continued to stand strong despite the agonizing, tortuous attacks he was getting. At times, he came out of the room to talk to us and to vent his feelings before going back in to face the opposition again.

During the two weeks of CSW, we saw many delegates abandon the principles of their country and their citizens. We saw delegates fawning over the EU and the US in an attempt to gain favor and money from them by supporting their ideas. We also saw delegates who came from small countries stand up against the tidal wave of pressure that was exerted against them.

The Commission on the Status of Women lasts for two weeks. It is hard to believe that in two weeks so much can happen that affects families. There were many tears shed at the conclusion. It is wonderful to know that because a small group of pro-family organizations teamed up with a small group of pro-family delegates, the family was protected one more time.

Now it is time for you to do as did these brave delegates. Now is the time for families to stand strong just as the delegates did this week. Now is the time for you to commit to the importance of families. Please show your commitment and support for what was accomplished by making a donation of $25, $35, $50, $100 or $200. We will continue to fight for your family with your help. Show us that the work we are doing is important to you.

Thank you for your support. It was for your family that we worked so hard and slept so little.

Beverly Rice, UFI President

Gary Bauer: Obama and The Mass Destruction Of Marriage

While the administration does virtually nothing about Iran’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, it remains intent on the mass destruction of marriage in America. Friday White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated that President Obama was prepared to work with congressional liberals to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

One would think this announcement would make for major headlines in the news. After all, the president is advocating a tremendously radical step. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage in federal law as the union of one man and one woman, was passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support — 342-to-67 in the House and 85-to-14 in the Senate. It was signed into law by then Democrat President Bill Clinton. Since then, the voters of 30 states have passed constitutional marriage protection amendments by overwhelming margins. But if the administration is intent on redefining marriage, I believe there are millions of Americans who will rise up to defend our traditional values.

-Gary Bauer

Beverly Rice Featured in March Issue of WCF Newsletter

UFI President, Beverly Rice was profiled in the March edition of The World Congress of Families Newsletter.  Mrs. Rice will address the fifth World Congress of Families in August of 2009 in Amsterdam.

Beverly Beckstead Rice is the President of United Families International, a nondenominational pro-family organization which has defended the family, traditional marriage, parental rights and religious liberty for over 30 years. As an NGO with consultative status at the United Nations, UFI works with countries around the world to strengthen family rights.

Prior to serving as UFI president, Rice was the organization’s California State Director. As such, she was a leader of the coalition that secured the passage of Proposition 8, the defense-of-marriage amendment. Rice was responsible for coordinating the coalition’s speakers’ bureau – more than 300 speakers who did interviews and participated in debates. She personally traveled the length and breadth of California speaking on behalf of the marriage amendment to groups as large as 1,000 and as small as 10.

Beverly represented UFI at U.N. Conferences on HIV-AIDS and the Status of Women (both in 2008). She recently participated in the 2009 U.N. Conference on the Status of Women. On December 10, 2008 (the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), Beverly was one of a number of profamily leaders from around the world who presented a petition — signed by more than 437,000 individuals from 168 countries – calling on the United Nations to return to the original understanding of the Declaration as protecting a right to life and the natural family. The petition was presented at the U.N. headquarters in New York.

Rice has worked in a variety of industries including banking, aerospace, healthcare, computer technology, telecommunications, administration, automotive, universities and local governments. Rice has been a faculty member at the University of Southern California, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, Orange Coast College, Coastline Community College and Utah State University. Rice graduated cum laude with a Bachelors degree in Public Relations and Spanish from Utah State University, and a Masters degree in Organizational Communication and Behavior from the University of Southern California, where she attended on a full fellowship.

Beverly Rice has been married for 26 years and is the mother of two children, ages 20 and 23.

BREAKING NEWS FROM COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN

The United States representative to the U.N. is making a move that goes against national law and President Obama’s position on gay marriage. Please call your Congressman or U.S. Senator and protest the U.S. delegation’s position.

U.N. Delegations are planning on adopting the CSW Resolution on HIV/AIDS. This document references “The International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS” as adopted by the Second International Consultation on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights, and as amended and endorsed at the Third International supported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UNAIDS.

The HIV/AIDS and Human Rights International Guidelines have the following language included as referenced below:

30. (f) “Laws should also be enacted to ensure women’s reproductive and sexual rights, including the right of independent access to reproductive and STD health information and services and means of contraception, including safe and legal abortion and the freedom to choose among these, the right to determine number and spacing of children . . .”

30. (h) “Anti-discrimination and protective laws should be enacted to reduce human rights violations against men having sex with men . . . ”

30. (h) “. . . These measures should include providing penalties for vilification of people who engage in same-sex relationships, giving legal recognition to same sex marriages . . .”

Developing….

Link to document:

http://data.unaids.org/publications/irc-pub02/jc520-humanrights_en.pdf

Have You Been Keeping Up With UFI At The U.N. This Week?

On 21 June 1946, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) was established as a full-fledged United Nations Commission dedicated to ensuring women’s equality and to promoting women’s rights. Its mandate was to “prepare recommendations and reports to the Economic and Social Council on promoting women’s rights in political, economic, civil, social and educational fields” and to make recommendations “on urgent problems requiring immediate attention in the field of women’s rights.”

Throughout its history, the Commission on the Status of Women has brought many critical issues to the forefront and has been the catalyst for much good for women and girls around the world. Unfortunately, the liberal, anti-family viewpoints that are now pervasive at the UN have shaped the workings of CSW and threaten to destroy the traditional family. The documents and policy recommendations that are being produced and adopted at CSW contain language that promotes abortion, promiscuity among young girls and gay rights. The language and policy recommendations also indentify the family as a place that promotes dangerous stereotyping of gender roles.

United Families International (UFI) began attending CSW to monitor the documents that were being produced and adopted by this Commission and offer support to delegates and missions that shared our views. Over the years UFI has played an increasingly important role as a strong voice in favor of the family as the fundamental unit of society. At this time, UFI is part of a coalition that lobbies on behalf of the pro-family position. The UFI team will travel to CSW equipped with resources that can help bolster the position of like-minded individuals engaged in negotiations. The resources, information and moral support offered to the pro-family negotiators is incredibly helpful and gives them the strength they need to stand against the rising tide of anti-family sentiment at CSW.

The 2009 Commission on the Status of Women will take place from March 2-13. As we wish to participate with our supporters, UFI has created a special blog for the CSW weeks. This blog will post daily updates from the various UFI representatives who will be inside the UN during the 2 week long session. Check this blog often for a unique look inside the United Nations and for special insight as to why we should all be concerned with the happenings of the UN. CLICK HERE FOR THE CSW BLOG.

VIDEO: Highlights from CA Supreme Court: March 5, 2009

SEE ALSO: Prop. 8 UPDATE: CA Supreme Court appears likely to uphold gay marriage ban

Prop. 8 UPDATE: CA Supreme Court appears likely to uphold gay marriage ban

MercuryNews.com reports:

The California Supreme Court today appeared inclined to uphold Proposition 8, but showed obvious reluctance to void thousands of same-sex marriages already in place when voters restored a ban on gay marriage last fall.

During three hours of arguments in San Francisco, the justices peppered lawyers opposing Proposition 8 with questions that suggested they do not believe they have the authority to trump the will of the voters.

At the same time, even justices who voted against striking down California’s previous ban on gay marriage indicated that Proposition 8 should not wipe out an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place last year. Those couples mobilized around the state to obtain marriage licenses after the Supreme Court ruled last May that California’s prior ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional.

Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to confine marriage to heterosexual couples, and its backers insist that the Supreme Court cannot overturn the will of the voters if they choose to change the state constitution.

During today’s arguments, the majority of the court remarked that the current case is very different than last year’s, primarily because the voters amended the constitution the court is bound to follow. “I stand by what I said in the marriage cases,” Justice Joyce Kennard, a key vote in legalizing gay marriage last year, said at one point. “But this case is different. We’re dealing with the power of the people.”

Justice Carol Corrigan, who dissented in last year’s decision, remained reluctant to interfere with voters and legislators.  ”Is the essence of your argument that the people have the right to amend their constitution as long as it isn’t done in a way the Supreme Court doesn’t like?” Corrigan asked one civil rights lawyer.

Christoper Krueger, the senior deputy assistant attorney general who argued for Brown, had the roughest ride during arguments, as all of the justices appeared poised to reject his argument that last year’s ruling created an “inalienable right” for same-sex couples to wed. “What I’m picking up from the argument is that the court should willy, nilly disregard the will of the people,” Kennard told him. “As judges, our powers are limited.”

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

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.”

ADF: Activists filing lawsuit against DOMA, want judge to redefine marriage for everyone

BOSTON — A lawsuit filed by a handful of same-sex couples represented by a homosexual activist group is seeking to have a judge redefine marriage for the entire country, according to attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund. The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, unconstitutional.

“Public policy should be decided by the public, not by one judge and a very small number of radical activists,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. “America continues to overwhelmingly reaffirm that marriage is one man and one woman. Does the democratic process mean anything anymore?”

• 45 states have laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
• All 30 states that have sought to affirm marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitutions have done so.
• DOMA passed in 1996 by an overwhelming majority of 342–67 in the House and 85–14 in the Senate and was then signed by President Bill Clinton.

“None of these facts appear to matter to the people who have filed this lawsuit,” Raum explained. “They do not care about the negative social impact on children if federal judges redefine marriage. Courts should never impose a system which guarantees that more kids will be brought up in homes without a married mom and dad. How can we justify hurting millions of children for the possible emotional benefit of a very small number of adults?”

The homosexual activist group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders brought the lawsuit on behalf of several individuals involved in homosexual behavior.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE STORY FROM THE AP

Opinion Essay: I Thought Prop 8 Passed. Why do I Still Need to Worry About It?

Because the Governor, the Attorney General, the Legislature and the Supreme Court of California, along with the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara are all conspiring to once again overturn the vote of the people last Nov. 4th. The State Supreme Court will hear arguments and is expected to nullify Prop 8 this Thursday, March 5th!

Why is it important that Prop 8 not be overturned?

1. To Protect our Democracy: The People rule the government in America, not vice-versa!

Prop 8 was written to protect the will of the people of California from being overruled by a handful of politicians in Sacramento and San Francisco. Twice now the people have clearly voted that they want marriage to remain as it has always been, and now once again our government is going to nullify our vote. Allowing four activist judges to overrule the decision of the entire state brings us back to the days of the tyrannies of King George before the Revolution. We live in America and here the people decide their laws. If the people of California want to change the institution of marriage let them so vote in a legal election!

2. To Protect our Civil and Religious Rights: It is not a hate crime to oppose homosexuality!

Our country was founded to be a safe-haven where all men and women could say and practice what they believe without persecution. Americans have fought and died to protect these fundamental freedoms of speech and religious worship. In recent years, however, homosexuals have pressured individuals, private organizations and churches to accept their actions, labeling those who oppose on moral and religious ground as “narrow-minded,” “homophobic” and “bigoted.” Already homosexuals have successfully sued a private photographer in New Mexico who refused to photograph a lesbian wedding, a New Jersey church that refused to allow gay couple to be married on their property, a gynecologist in California for referring the in vitro fertilization of a lesbian to an associate due to religious beliefs and the Boy Scouts in Berkeley, Calif. for excluding gay men. A Boston Catholic adoption service was forced to close rather than be required to adopt to gay couples and the Christian dating site eHarmony.com was forced to provide dating services for gay and transsexual individuals. Already religious leaders have been prosecuted for making “disparaging” remarks about homosexuality—even reading straight out of the Bible!—and the tax-exempt status of their churches threatened. The names of individuals who donated money in support of Prop 8 were listed on websites by the LA Times, SF Chronicle and Google with encouragement to harass them; several revealed donors were consequently dismissed from their jobs for their support for traditional marriage. There is no place in America for silencing religious belief or coercing people and organizations to support a behavior that goes against their conscience!

3. To Protect Parental Rights: Kids should not be taught in public schools that homosexuality is okay.

At a young, impressionable age it is especially important that our children be taught correct principles and morals. Since California law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage (Education Code §51890), when Prop 8 is overturned teachers will be required to contradict the moral convictions of the majority of the parents and teach our children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional man-woman marriage and that homosexuality is healthy and normal. When one Massachusetts couple tried to prevent their child from being indoctrinated with homosexual teachings in a public school, they were told by the Court of Appeals that because their state recognized gay marriage they did not have a right to opt their children out of it. One 8th grade science teacher in Massachusetts proudly told NPR that she now teaches her classes how to use sex toys and in San Francisco a first grade class went on a field trip to watch a lesbian wedding. It is wrong for our state to teach our children morals that we don’t agree with behind our backs.

4. To Protect our Society and Children: Stable Families = Well-Raised Children = Stable Society

The entire history of mankind offers proof that children are best raised in a stable family of a woman and man who commit to come together for life to support and nurture them. Marriage was created to promote and support this ideal family arrangement. With the increase of children born or raised outside of this ideal, especially those abused or neglected by unfit parents, it is more important than ever that the ideal child-raising situation be honored and protected. A Dutch study concluded that gay couples cannot provide a stable child-raising situation, noting that the average homosexual relationship lasts 1.5 years and even “committed” homosexual couples average eight sexual partners outside of the relationship per year. By diluting marriage to include any relationship desired, we will seriously undermine its meaning and value; hence, our society and children will suffer.

5. Gay “Marriage” Is NOT About “Love” or “Civil Rights”: It is about forcing approval of homosexuality

Homosexuals defend their intimidation and undemocratic actions by claiming that their “civil rights” are being violated when they are not allowed to “follow their hearts” and have their relationships recognized by all as marriage. In reality, however, gays already have every right that heterosexuals do: They can marry or remain single, and they can engage in any kind of relationship or activity they desire, so long as it is legal. California has even created “domestic partnerships” as an alternative for committed same-sex couples to “have the same rights, protections and benefits…as married spouses.” (California Family Code §297.5) There is no restriction whatsoever on a gay couple’s ability to love or practice sexual relations with their partner. But homosexuals are not satisfied with mere tolerance or equal rights: their agenda is to force everyone to approve of their actions. Homosexuals do not have the right to take away everyone else’s rights by forcing them to change their definition of the fundamental unit of society to include same-sex relationships. Already polygamists and pedophiles have begun to cite gay marriage laws as legal justification for their actions. To be able to force everyone to recognize anything you want to be marriage is not a civil right!

Marriage is not a vehicle for social recognition of morally taboo behaviors. It is a protected and honored arrangement designed to promote the raising of children in an ideal environment, the way nature intended. Prop 8 is not about denying rights to homosexuals: They retain every right that heterosexuals do . . . plus the right to a same-sex “civil union” that state law ensures is equal to marriage in all ways but name. They have no right to force the rest of society to change their moral convictions to fit their fancy. Twice, the people of California voted in fair elections for marriage to remain solely between a man and a woman. The government of California should abide by the democratic voice of its people and not tyrannically impose its will on them.

SOURCE: Good Sense Politics

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:

UFI at CPAC: February 26 Update

The largest CPAC in history kicked off today in Washington, D.C. with more than 8,500 attendants.  A large youth presence is noticed as nearly half of those 8,500 CPAC goers are college students.  Much of the conversation was dominated by the current economic condition, the “Fairness Doctrine”, and discussion of ways to advance the conservative movement.  One of the more humorous comments made about the economy was made during tonight’s banquet when the Emcee said, “we know with the current president, a penny saved is a penny taxed.”  Between the humor and financial speak, the family was also mentioned.

Rep. Mike Pence criticized the Mexico City Policy, saying that it is shameful that the tax dollars of Pro-Life Americans goes toward the promotion of abortion abroad.  He also called for action to reduce the amount of federal funding that the pro-abortion group, Planned Parenthood receives.  Rep. Pence cited the breakdown of accountability and integrity as a major reason for the current economic downturn.

Gov. Mike Huckabee advocated the family as a means of reducing government’s involvement in the lives and business of Americans.  Gov. Huckabee said, “It is when families fail that government is forced to take over.”  In his speech, the former Arkansans governor also refereed to the fact that in all 30 states that have allowed citizens to vote on the definition of marriage,  traditional marriage has won every time…including states like California and Florida, states that Barack Obama won.

At the UFI booth in the exhibit hall, we gathered nearly 200 signatures for the UN Petition to Protect Life.  If you will be attending CPAC tomorrow or Saturday, please come by and add your name!

Openly Gay Minn. State Senator calls Same-Sex Marriage a ‘Pointless Issue’

From The Minnesota Independent: 

The office of state Sen. Paul Koering, a gay Republican representing a district near Brainerd, Minn., is responding by e-mail to criticisms over his decision not to vote for the Marriage and Family Protection Act, a bill that would make gay marriage legal in Minnesota.

The gist? Legislators can’t “waste their time” with “pointless legislation.” The mass e-mail, penned by an impassioned Ken Swecker, Koering’s legislative assistant, concludes with the punchline: “I’ve already wasted too much time in responding to you.”

Here’s the full letter:

My name is Ken Swecker, Senator Koering’s Legislative Assistant. Senator Koering and I both would like to respond to the e-mails we’ve been receiving regarding his intention to not vote in favor of Senate File 120. I am currently responding to the e-mails to give you the Senator’s home phone number so that you might call him over the weekend and speak with him personally on the matter. This much he asked me to do.

To add to that, as a personal statement, is to say that SF 120 is something that the majority of the People of Senate District 12, the People that he was elected to represent, do not favor this piece of legislation. In case you have forgotten, we are a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. He was not elected serve his personal interests. I personally believe that instead of sending e-mails full of threats and hateful words you should take his example to heart and congratulate him on being a legislator who cares more about what the People of his district want than what he may want personally. You and I both know that this is a rare quality to find, and just because this is contrary to how you wish for him to vote, you must remember and respect he is here to represent the interests of his rural Minnesota constituents who voted him into office. As a constituent of his myself, I am happy to see him take non-personal votes on several issues. After all, I would not want another politician taking another vote that would serve his or her personal interests more so than the People’s, would you?

I can testify all day long about how much Senator Koering cares for the People of Senate District 12. He ran three consecutive times, being defeated the first two, and why did he put himself through so much hard work? Do you think it was because he needed another job? Absolutely not! He did it because he believed he was the best person to serve the People that he calls neighbors, friends, and family. And especially now, in a time like this, we are being bogged down with this completely pointless issue. There are People in Morrison and Crow Wing Counties, and across the State who are losing their jobs, their homes, their insurance, and were you to ask them if this is an issue that should take one second of precedent over these conditions they’re facing every day, do you believe, do you honestly believe that they would say to you, ‘Yes, please, waste the time of the State Legislature with a piece of legislation that will not help, but in fact, overshadow the current situation we’re living in? Please, waste their time with this piece of legislation while I tell my son and daughter that mom and dad aren’t hungry tonight?’

I know very well that you will respond to this e-mail of mine with some probably quirky, snide, and very thoughtless comment that will make me out to be a bad person and threaten the Senator even more just as most of the absolutely tactless and disrespectful e-mails we’ve received have been written, but really, don’t waste your time. We’ll just put your e-mail where it belongs, in the trash.

The Senator’s home number is
xxx-xxx-xxxx

He’s free on the weekends.

Very Sincerely, every word of it,
Ken Swecker

P.S.
I hope you do not believe that this e-mail was written specific to the one that you sent, this is a blanket e-mail, being sent to everyone who has e-mailed us on this issue and I’ve already wasted too much time in responding to you. Good day.

Senator Paul Koering
District 12
131 State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155-1206
Phone:651-296-4875

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.

Obama Administration Declares War On Families

The Obama Administration has declared war on parents and children. In the last few weeks, they have approved and voted for people or groups who would like to promote pornography, pedophilia, and destroy parental rights. They have appointed or voted for people or groups who want international law to usurp our own Constitution. Are you prepared to let the government tell you how to raise your children? Are you prepared to have pornographers and pedophiles have access to your children by enacting new laws or failing to uphold existing ones? Two seemingly unrelated events occurred recently which will have a significant impact on your parental rights.

The first one took place at the United Nations. There is a committee which screens organizations that are trying to gain access to the United Nations. Non-governmental organizations must submit an application and be approved by the group before they can lobby delegates on their issues. The group that was denied by the committee was a Brazilian homosexual rights groups who critics charge supports having sex with children. This group has been working for two years to gain official status with the UN. In the 6-8 decision, the member states supporting this radical group included the United States. If history repeats itself the committee’s decision to deny this group membership will be overturned by the larger body.

Then, last week, David J. Ogden sailed through confirmation hearings on his appointment as the second in command at the Justice Department. In this position, Mr. Ogden would be charged with upholding and defending the law. Mr. Ogden is a dangerous man to families. He has defended and supported the rights of pornographers, Planned Parenthood, and the use of international law to usurp our own constitution. He has worked to reduce parental rights, encourage abortion and promote homosexual rights. His efforts have included rejecting the idea that pornographers should keep documents verifying that their models are of legal consenting age. He did this by opposing a law that was designed to protect children from molestation and rape focused on “imposing a burden too heavily and infringe too deeply on the right to produce First Amendment protected material.”

He also filed a brief on behalf of a group of library directors who were opposed to the Children’s Internet Protection Act. Mr. Ogden called the Act, “unconstitutional”. In addition, Mr. Ogden submitted a brief in the Lawrence v. Texas case defending the use of international law as opposed to using our Constitution to determine what is constitutional.

And there you have the connection. The United Nations will probably allow a group to begin lobbying delegates with the intention of legalizing all homosexual rights. This may include pedophilia. The United States delegation – appointed by Obama – voted in favor of this group. And, in the United States, Obama has appointed a man who favors groups like this one and many others who are working to destroy the family.

United Families International will spend two weeks in New York during the important Commission on the Status of Women. We will be working against the agenda of the United States delegation, the European Union delegation and many others. But we will be working with many member states who believe as we do that families deserve to be protected. We will work with them to protect parent’s rights to raise their children. We will be working to defend the family – not destroy it. We will be working to protect your parental rights – not take them away. We cannot do it alone. We need your help. Please consider making a donation today to help us be able to do our job and protect your family.

Beverly Rice, UFI President

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.”

International News Headlines: February ‘09 Edition

Spanish Families Defy Mandatory Homosexual Indoctrination in New Video

Spanish families who are resisting their government’s mandatory homosexualist indoctrination program have made a video expressing their defiance.  ”We’re not giving in” says one mother. “We’re not going to enter the classes,” say two teenagers.  “We’re going to continue fighting … for our freedom and the freedom of all,” say two groups of families. 

The video has appeared in the wake of a recent decision by the Spanish Supreme Court, which has not been formally announced yet, but which purportedly confirms that the government may compel students to take the course, which is entitled “Education for Citizenship and Human Rights.”

Although the course is billed as a type of civics instruction, it has been criticized for promoting secularist values strongly opposed to Christianity, including homosexualist ideology.

Massive German Study Confirms Abortion Significantly Increases Premature Birth Risk

A huge German study has further substantiated the link between abortion history and an increased risk of future premature births.  The German study joins a solid body of evidence showing the increased risk of preterm births for children who are brought to term after a previous abortion. 

Why, instead of chasing criminals, are police asking children to write essays about gay pride?

It takes pride in its reputation as one of the most gay-friendly employers in the country.  But the Kent Police force has been accused of going too far after inviting children under the age of 14 to write about their feelings on homosexuality and transsexuality as part of a competition. The force is offering a £25 prize to the child who submits the best 200-word essay on the subject. 

Ireland to refuse adoption rights for gay couples

The Irish government published the Adoption Bill 2009 last month.  It limits access to adoption to married couples and individuals, excluding non-married same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Tiny Fetal Models Cause Uproar in Dutch Media and Parliament

The model of an unborn child carried in the annual March for Life in Amsterdam has caused a firestorm in Holland.  A photo of the tiny fetal model was pictured on the front page of the Dutch Christian newspaper “Het Nederlands Dagblad” in December after the march. The front-page coverage garnered other media attention, television interviews and even angry reactions in the House of Representatives of the Dutch government. 

The two inch long model represents a fetus at ten weeks of actual length and weight. “At four weeks the heart of the unborn beats; the model shows that it is a child with hands, feet and a nose even able to bring its finger to its mouth” according to the Dutch pro-life group Cry for Life. 

Pro-Abortion Marie Stopes Eager for American Funds to Promote Abortion in Kenya

The leader of the Kenyan division of Marie Stopes, one of the worlds largest abortion providers, has told an AP reporter that he is eager to receive American funds now that President Obama has rescinded the Mexico City Policy.

The Mexico City Policy is a Reagan-era directive that prohibits pro-abortion overseas organizations from receiving American taxpayer dollars.  Obama repealed the policy three days after his inauguration, making hundreds of millions in foreign aid money available to such groups.

Thanks to the policy, abortion facilities that would have made abortion available to Kenyan women were forced to close, and contraception became less available, according to Marie Stops Kenya.  Now groups like Marie Stopes Kenya, who were “limping along” on European aid, are lining up to apply for American aid.

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.”

California Actively Promotes Gay Adoption Agenda at the Expense of Children

What is California doing handing children out as legitimacy prizes for gay agenda promos? Shouldn’t they be more concerned with giving children a chance at being a part of real families?

Gender matters in child raising. Homes with single parents or same-sex parents are not equipped to give a child the same things homes with a loving mother and father could.

The American College of Pediatricians says that homosexual parenting is sadly less than ideal for children:

“The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development,” the college states in a position statement about homosexual parenting posted in the “Position Statements” section of its website, acpeds.org.

“Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation,” it says. “This position is rooted in the best available science.”

The American College of Pediatricians’ position statement references the many studies that have found that children thrive best in families with a married mother and father.

So, if there’s no equal substitute for a real family, why are we giving children away to gay couples? And why is California pushing the issue and giving money it doesn’t have to promote the gay agenda?

WorldNetDaily NEWS ALERT: Bankrupt California buys ads for ‘gay’ adoptions

SACRAMENTO – Facing a $42 billion deficit and a state debt that grows by $28,000 every minute, California has managed to find enough room in its budget to sponsor an elaborate statewide campaign to promote homosexual adoption.

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation has partnered with the California Department of Social Services and the Los Angeles County to promote a “Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Family” campaign that invites homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to adopt children.

According to a Campaign for Children and Families report, the state has sponsored two billboards promoting “gay” adoption in West Hollywood and Alameda County.

SOURCE: BeetleBlogger

UFI President, Beverly Rice, Will Be The Featured Guest on TCOT Radio Tomorrow

Beverly Rice, President of United Families International, will be the featured guest on the Blog Talk Radio show, TCOT Radio, tomorrow at 1 PM PST.  TCOT Radio is the official podcast of TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) and is hosted by Tony Katz.  Mrs. Rice will discuss the topic of gay marriage in America.  The show is open to callers, the number is: 646-929-1981 or you may interact by twittering @tcotradio.

Click here for the TCOT Radio Blog

 

Click Here to listen to the completed podcast.  The interview with Mrs. Rice begins about 30 minutes into the show.

The Intolerance of Those Demanding Tolerance

I never cease to be amazed at the rationales, excuses, and bizarre lengths that some people will go to attack those of us, like myself, who supported Proposition 8 in the last election.

For those hate mongers who simply cannot bear the fact that Proposition 8 won, and have decided that those who supported it need to be vilified, attacked, and destroyed, I am pretty easy to find. Not only did I support Proposition 8, and vote for it, but I was a lead attorney in a lawsuit to invalidate the Same Sex Marriage licenses issued in response to the California State Supreme Court Ruling–that ruling created a “constitutional right” of homosexual marriage. Further, to add more flames to the fire, I was up all night on election night, one of 140+ attorneys who were designated to monitor the Registrars of Voters in counties around the state, to ensure fairness in the vote.

Even more to the chagrin of those of you who are the real haters in this situation, I will be filing one or more briefs with the California State Supreme Court defending the passage of Proposition 8 in the November, 2008, election.

Since the passage of Proposition 8, I have learned of racial epithets being hurled at Blacks who supported Proposition 8. I have read about death threats and violence directed at those who supported Proposition 8. I have learned of people being forced out of their jobs, or harassed at work, for having the audacity to contribute money to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

I have read about the extreme lengths that those who cannot stand the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints supported Proposition 8 have gone to vilify and attack that church. Nowhere, however, have I seen any attacks against the Black churches that went to the same, if not even greater, lengths to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States. It appears that church involvement in elections is only “evil” if it offends the activists in the homosexual movement, and their leftist allies.

It is amazing to me that those who cried for “fairness” during the last election, and who continually ask for tolerance for their lifestyles, not only show no tolerance for those who oppose them, but promote outright hate against those that oppose them.

Despite all the protestations of many in the homosexual movement, this lack of tolerance for opponents is nothing new.

In 1990, I was appointed to the San Diego City Human Relations Commission (“HRC”) by then San Diego City Councilman Bruce Henderson. Bruce took a lot of heat for appointing me, but he wanted someone with legal experience to keep an eye on the HRC. As it turned out, my experience in Constitutional law resulted in stopping unconstitutional actions of the HRC, as the San Diego City Attorney’s Office, at my urging, ruled that certain of the proposed actions of the HRC would violate the due process rights of individuals and businesses targeted by the HRC.

As I did not live within the city limits of the City of San Diego, the San Diego City Council had to grant a waiver, so that I could sit on the Commission. It did so unanimously. I was, it was acknowledged, the “token conservative” on the HRC,

Having gone through a childhood where I was short, fat, wore glasses, had a bizarre last name, and “my mommy dressed me funny”, I had developed a pretty thick skin. However, nothing could have prepared me for what I went through while sitting on that Commission.

During the 1980’s, I had publicly objected to a “trial balloon” “sent up” by then Governor Jerry Brown. He had proposed the idea of having a quota system for homosexual judges on the California Bench. My expressed position was that Judges should not be picked on the basis of their sexual orientation, they should be picked on the basis of their abilities. Nothing much came of it at the time, however, after I was appointed to the HRC, that stance was raised by activists in the homosexual community in San Diego. I later found out from two reporters that the local chapter of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) had been keeping a file on me for a number of years and had provided copies of part of that file to homosexual activists and to the media. The purpose was to try to drive me off of the Commission. This was around the same time that it was revealed that the ADL Office in Los Angeles had been raided by the FBI, for buying police intelligence files, as part of their monitoring of people they considered to be their opponents, on both the left and on the right.

The resulting campaign of harassment forced me to keep my now deceased wife and my stepdaughter away from the meetings, due to the violence that they might have been subjected to, had it been discovered that they were, indeed, my wife and stepdaughter.

Somehow, my unlisted home phone number was obtained, and I received harassing phone calls on it and at my law office. I had people telling me that I had “better not” attend any more meetings of the Commission. From what I understand, death threats were leveled against me through the City Council Offices, and the result was that I was escorted to and from the meetings, through back stairways, by San Diego City Police Department Officers.

At the meetings, the 15-person Commission was set up in a horseshoe-shaped series of tables. At the direction of the Chairman of the Commission, I was seated at one end of the horseshoe, closest to the podium. During virtually every meeting for months, I was subjected to having blood-soaked cotton balls thrown at me, after they had been used to daub open sores on people, used condoms were launched at me, and I was subjected to the most vile and horrible comments. None of this was stopped, or even objected to, by the Chairman of the Commission, for it was his intention to force me off of the HRC. Concern was raised for my safety by the City, and 2-6 police officers, uniformed and plain clothes, attended the Commission meetings for months.

People were literally afraid to speak in my defense at the sessions, for fear of retaliation by the radical homosexual activists. Finally, one night, a group of Black men appeared at the meeting. They signed up for their time to speak, and they all donated their time to one man. That man, a rather imposing young Black man, got up and said that he did not know me, had never met me, but had heard what was going on in the commission meetings. He said he was there to support me, as I was simply standing up for what I believed was right, and that was all part of what America was about. When it appeared that some people in the audience were objecting to his stance in support of me, the other Black men that came with him made it clear that, if anyone attempted to attack this man, he would be defended. That man was Pastor Adelaide Mac, who I met shortly thereafter, and who I have considered a friend ever since.

The Chairman of the Commission wanted me off the HRC so badly that he even had the Commission vote to dissolve itself, believing that I would never be reappointed to the Commission when the entire Commission was reappointed.
Homosexual activists in the community told the media, where it was reported, that they had the votes to get me off the Commission, and that I would never be put back on. Unfortunately for them, then Mayor Maureen O’Connor publicly announced that she would not even put the issue of the dissolving of the Commission on the agenda. Her comments were essentially that, if the people that opposed me could not live with a 14 to 1 vote on issues, that was not her problem, and that she was not going to set the precedent of dissolving a commission just to get rid of one person with politically unpopular views.

When the time came for my two-year term to end, the council member that had succeeded Bruce Henderson did not even bother to replace me for six months into the next term. In the meantime, the attacks on groups like the Boy Scouts of America, and other groups that did not conform to political correctness, had no longer become 14 to 1 votes. Others on the Commission were joining with me on certain issues. In fact, when the Chairman pushed the idea of dissolving the Commission to get me off of it, there was only 10 votes for, 4 against, with 1 abstention. Even though I was supposedly the “token conservative,” other members of the Commission started having problems with the way that I was being treated and started to understand that I was not the “evil being” that some activists in the homosexual community had tried to portray me as. I later learned that other activists in the homosexual community were appalled by the treatment of me, being rightly concerned that such treatment of me would hurt their cause.

The intolerance of certain elements in the homosexual community is nothing new. They have been emboldened by their recent successes in the courts, which have created new rights out of “whole cloth,” and their ultimate goal is to destroy all opposition to their agenda.

Had Proposition 8 not passed, it would have been a very short jump to where Pastors in California were being criminally prosecuted for opposing homosexuality from the pulpit. This has already happened in Canada, Sweden, and in other countries. That may still happen, but, at least for now, Proposition 8 provides a bulwark against the attempts to erode the Freedom of Speech of those who oppose the homosexual agenda.

Sincerely,

Gary G. Kreep

SOURCE: USJF

From Smart Girls Politics: A Profile in Conservatism: Beverly Rice, President of United Families International

Smart Girls Politics (SGP) was formed in the aftermath of the 2008 US Presidential Elections as a mechanism to join like-minded conservatives together in several unique ways.  Recently, SGP interviewed UFI President, Beverly Rice.

Beverly Rice is the President of United Families International. In addition to the following interview, she has also provided a video addressed to the members of Smart Girl Politics, SGP. You can find the video here.

 

SGP: What is United Families International, UFI, and why was it started?

BR: United Families International was started thirty years ago in response to the pro-ERA forces. When the backers of the Equal Rights Amendment were not successful in getting the amendment ratified, they turned their focus to the United Nations with the thought that they would have better luck there. UFI leaders testified before Congress on the ERA and then began working at the UN to combat the anti-family voices there.

SGP: What are the primary issues that UFI currently stands for or against?

United Families International works on five issues which are the basic tenets of our orgniazation. They are: Traditional Marriage, Sanctity of Life, Parental Rights, Religious Liberty and National Sovereignty. These are the same tenets which are fought against us by the anti-family forces at the UN, in Congress, in State Legislatures and in governing bodies around the world.

SGP: What issue poses the single greatest threat to families under the new administration?

BR: We feel that the greatest threat to the family that the Obama administration brings is the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. If this is repealed, then all the marriage amendments and statutes that have been enacted by state and local governments will have no validity. Without this protection we feel that marriage will be undermined, religious liberty will be weakened, and parental rights will be diminished. The agenda of the radical gay movement is to take away many of the rights that currently protect families.

SGP: What are your organizations fears if the new administration loosens the controls on all forms of abortion?

BR: The problem with the administration loosening the controls on all forms of abortion is that is will have world-wide repercussions. While abortion is legal here in the US , there are many countries across the globe where it is not legal. These countries have been able to withstand the pressure of many organizations and countries to legalize abortion because of the support they have enjoyed from the US these past 8 years. However, with the new administration, that support will vanish and many countries will feel they have no choice but to embrace the culture of abortion.

Additionally, here in the US , doctors will be forced to perform abortions regardless of their religious beliefs and parents will lose the right to be informed when their child is seeking an abortion and finally, abortions will be allowed through the full pregnancy term. People will become desensitized to the destruction of life in the unborn.

SGP: United Families International is against same-sex marriage. However, does the organization support civil unions? Why or Why not?

BR: We are opposed to anything that causes damage to the family. There is a movement throughout the world to redefine “family”. We support the definition of the “natural family”. Social science research shows that children do best in families that have a father and a mother. One of the problems with supporting civil unions is that it is an attempt to redefine what a family is. When civil unions are accepted then other changes to family life begin to be accepted. Soon people are saying that any two people who live together, love each other and are committed to each other should be considered a family unit. It is a slippery slope and the opposition understands this better than our side does. Whenever society accepts counterfeits to the natural family, they then find themselves giving additional credence to the idea that family can mean many things.

SGP: UFI is an advocate for family issues at the United Nations. What do you believe is the biggest challenge families face from United Nation members and policies?

BR: The biggest challenge we face at the United Nations is the attempt to reinterpret the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document, which was adopted by the UN sixty years ago is an amazing document. In this document the countries of the United Nations agreed that the family is the fundamental unit of society; that marriage between a man and a woman should be protected; that motherhood and childhood should be protected; that parents have the right to raise and educate their children; and that all people have the right to practice their religious beliefs. It is an astounding document in its breadth and depth of addressing the human rights of families.

The forces at the UN would like to have that document reinterpreted to fit the times of today. They suggest that abortion, sexual orientation and gender identity should be human rights. They would like to have it be a criminal act to restrict anyone from enjoying these rights as human rights. If they are successful in persuading the UN countries to accept this reinterpretation then we will find that the protection that families currently enjoy will be severely curtailed.

SGP: What do you believe is the leading cause of the decline of the American Family today?

BR:I believe that many people are simply not educated on the issues. Many people are not aware of what is happening – not only in our own country – but also in countries and governing bodies around the world to destroy the family. There is an agenda out there that seeks to establish a genderless, parentless society. It will be a society where the state will have say over what children learn and believe. It is a society that wants to free all women to be able to work outside the home unencumbered with the responsibilities of rearing children. It is a society that seeks to curtail the old, tired verbiage of the religious organizations, in favor of new verbiage that talks about the secular nature of our world. It is a society where families, as we know them today, do not exist but have been replaced with varying forms of relationships that meet the physical needs of the adults involved.

There is an urgent need for people who believe in families to become educated on the issues and join with others to fight the creation of this society.

SGP: What can members of SGP do to support your organization?

BR: Members of SGP are welcome to visit our website, sign up for our weekly emails and learn all they can about the issues. We are currently in the process of setting up leadership in all 50 states and abroad. We are looking for people who are interested in helping to lead the efforts in their states. We would love to hear from anyone who might be interested in helping with this effort.

Most importantly, we want everyone to become educated on the issues affecting today’s families. Societies are only as strong as the families within those societies. United Families International is dedicated to helping protect and defend strong families.

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

The World Congress of Families

Every afternoon the streets of Amsterdam are filled with bicycles. Atop the bicycles are mothers and fathers bringing their children home from school. Mothers ride with a child on the back, one riding on the front and a baby closely nestled in a carrier next to her heart. Fathers, too, are seen carefully guiding their bicycles through the narrow streets in order to protect their precious cargo.

In a place where prostitution, drug use and same-sex marriage has all been legalized, parents are still working to preserve the one thing that will save their country – families. It is in this place that the next World Congress of Families (WCF) will be held in August. The Congress will provide the families of the Netherlands, and Europe as a whole, a place to hear world-renowned speakers talk of ways to strengthen their families. It will be a place where parents and children can attend classes to educate themselves on how to be proactive in living traditional values.

The World Congress of Families was instituted as a way for pro-family organizations around the world to unite together to demonstrate to the world that families everywhere want to make a stand. Despite the strident voices of the anti-family movement, evidence abounds that families are not giving up. The WCF is an opportunity for families to gather and show their support for the values they hold dear: traditional marriage, motherhood, parental rights, sanctity of life, and religious liberty. Regardless of cultural and political differences, organizations and families that support these values find that the World Congress of Families gives them an opportunity to band together. By working together, much will be accomplished in the fight to protect and defend families.

United Families International was a part of the planning team for WCF V last week. We worked with other leaders from pro-family organizations around the world to design a Congress where families can come to be uplifted, strengthened, and motivated to continue working to protect families. We were thrilled with the way the Local Organizing Committee in Amsterdam has chosen to focus the theme on how modern families can continue to live traditional values. The theme for the Congress is: Family: More Than the Sum of its Parts.

We endorse the focus of the Congress and hope that we can count on your support to help us make this WCF a sterling example of what pro-family organizations have to offer the families of the world. We would love to have you attend the Congress. If you are unable to attend, please consider making a donation to United Families International that will be used to help us support this very worthwhile endeavor.

HISTORY OF THE WORLD CONGRESS OF FAMILIES

“By bringing the world’s leading family voices to one table, WCF is the catalyst that helps direct the discussion and find solutions related to the natural family.”
- Beverly Rice, President of United Families International

United Families International is not alone in its work to secure a future for the family. Since our inception in 1978, we have worked with national and international colleagues and coalitions from around the world, educating, promoting and advancing our cause. The World Congress of Families (WCF), founded in 1996, is an additional way for United Families International to link up with our pro-family brothers and sisters from differing cultures, ethnic backgrounds, social and national communities.

The World Congress of Families was founded by Dr. Allan Carlson, president of The Howard Center For Family, Religion and Society with the purpose of promoting the natural family as the fundamental social unit of a healthy society. Since that time United Families International has been a partner in the work of WCF for the benefit it provides to all involved, and its message of hope.

Hope to the families of the world is the ultimate benefit of our involvement. Hope is what Dr. Richard G. Wilkins, founder of United Families International’s Defend Marriage Program and long time advisor, brought to Geneva when he led in the organization of WCF II.

Hope is what United Families International former Board member, Craig A. Cardon gave to those present in Mexico City when he spoke on “The Family A Source of Untold Wealth”.

Hope was all around when Carol Soelberg, President of United Families during WCF IV received a standing ovation in Warsaw for her presentation on “Homemakers Have the Ultimate Careers”.

United Families knows that families can and do bring hope to a world where the family and other traditional values are continually threatened. World Congress of Families is a safe haven where a unified voice for the family can gather and together find ways to reduce the negative effects of a failing society.

WCF focuses its work towards those who value the natural family as the standard; and who are willing to participate in the effort of promoting the family and its valuable assets around the world.

More importantly, WCF draws in families from across the globe and provides the information and support needed for the home-front battle.

WCF draws its work from some of the best and the brightest pro-family organizations in the world who by working together – are unified in our efforts.

World Congress of Families Declaration States:

The natural family is the fundamental social unit, inscribed in human nature, and centered on the voluntary union of a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage. The natural family is defined by marriage, procreation and, in some cultures, adoption. Free, secure and stable families that welcome children are necessary for healthy society. The society that abandons the natural family as the norm is destined for chaos and suffering. The loving family reaches out in love and service to their communities and those in need. All social and cultural institutions should respect and uphold the rights and responsibilities of the family.

Each World Congress of Families conference has its own theme and focus. New policy direction and insight is gleaned through planning meetings held in the interim. As the cultural war against the traditional family continues to strengthen, United Families International and WCF are dedicated to monitoring the opposition and researching new pro-family policy prospects emerging at each WCF conference:

HIGHLIGHTS OF WORLD CONGRESS OF FAMILIES CONFERENCES

WCF I

In 1997, World Congress of Families met for the first time in Prague, The Czech Republic. It was there that the Prague 1997 Declaration was adopted by the World Congress and presented to world leaders.

WCF II

In 1999, World Congress of Families met in Geneva, Switzerland under the leadership of distinguished law professor Richard G. Wilkins, and in conjunction with the world’s great religious leaders, where a common definition of the “natural family” was proclaimed.

WCF III

In 2004, World Congress III was hosted by Red Familia, and Family and Society in Mexico City. It was here that United Families International board member, Craig A. Cardon spoke and UN Ambassador to Commission of the Status of Women Ellen Saurbrey attended in support of families and marriage. Action items were created and emphasis was put on fighting for marriage between a man and a woman.

WCF IV

In May of 2007, WCF met in Warsaw to support Poland’s fight for the family in Europe. Discussions included the real threat of under-population related to the demographic challenges of the 21st century and celebrating large families as a source of renewal and progress. Carol Soelberg, mother of 13 received a standing ovation from hundreds who crowded into the room to hear her words of love and support to the mothers of the world.

WCF V (coming this year)

World Congress of Families V will be held at the Amsterdam RAI Convention Centre, August 10-12, 2009. The theme is “Family: More Than the Sum of the Parts.”  Beverly Rice, United Families International President, will be a speaker at the event.

Our message of hope as we journey around the world protecting the very existence of society’s best effort – the family, cannot be advanced without you! Please join in our efforts as we continue to partner with WCF and other pro-family coalition members.

Justice Department Nominees Worry Pro-Family Movement

CNA Reports:

Confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice nominees are reportedly proceeding so quickly that Republicans and outside groups are unable to make meaningful criticisms of their intense support for abortion rights and other moral issues. One critic said the nominations portend the most “Culture of Death” justice department in American history.

“We are on the brink of having the most Culture of Death, anti-family Justice Department ever,” Leonard Leo, former Co-Chairman of the Republican National Committee Catholic Outreach and Chairman of Students for Life of America, told CNA in an e-mail.

The first controversial Obama nominee is David Ogden, whose confirmation hearing for Deputy Attorney General is scheduled for next week, less than one month after his nomination. In an amicus brief for the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade’s mandating of permissive abortion laws, Ogden argued that abortion “rarely causes or exacerbates psychological or emotional problems.”

“The few women who do experience negative psychological responses after abortion appear to be those with preexisting emotional problems,” he continued.

He argued that evidence shows abortion is more likely to make women “experience feelings of relief and happiness” and claimed childbirth and childrearing or adoption may pose “concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects” compared to the effects of abortion.

Thomas Perelli, the nominee for Associate Attorney General, is the second person pro-life and pro-family advocates are concerned about. Perelli is best known for representing the husband of Terri Schiavo in his effort to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from the severely injured woman.

President Obama has also chosen Dawn Johnson to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Johnson raises red flags for pro-lifers because she is a former counsel to the pro-abortion rights group NARAL. The Office of Legal Counsel provides the government with opinions about the constitutionality of proposed governmental acts.

The nominee for Solictor General, Elena Kagan, is reportedly a lesbian who strongly opposed the Solomon Amendment, which denies federal grants to institutions of higher education which forbid military recruitment or the Reserve Officer Training Corps from campus.

“A Deputy Attorney General who signed a brief in Casey dismissing the psychological harm caused by abortion. An Associate Attorney General who supported withdrawing Terry Schiavo’s life-sustaining treatment. An Assistant Attorney General who was counsel to NARAL. And a Solicitor General who has actively supported homosexual rights, particularly in regard to banning military recruiters on campus,” Leo summarized.

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

Video: Meet UFI

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!

DOMA REALLY DOES PROTECT MARRIAGE!

In 1996, gay marriage percolated to the political forefront starting in Hawaii when several gay couples sued for the right to legally marry. Pro-family organizations and policy makers, in an effort to get in front of the movement, passed The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

With the new administration and US President Barrack Obama’s promise to the gay community, there is a distinct possibility that one of the first acts of the U.S. liberal Congress will be to repeal DOMA, opening the door for the redefinition of marriage based on the faulty premise that civil unions are not the same as traditional marriage.

DOMA – HOW IT WORKS

DOMA is a promise to protect our culture, our society and our future. The federal government ensures federal benefits to encourage couples to marry and support the children within that marriage – codifying what governments have long known; the strength of nations lies within the family. Some of the benefits that are embedded within the law include:

• Immigration
• Welfare
• Taxation
• Employment
• Social Security survivor rights
• Veteran benefits

What DOMA does is protect marriage from being redefined at the federal level from acts by the states, and gives each state the right to refuse recognition of same-sex marriage licenses issued by other states.

What DOMA does not do is prohibit states from allowing gay marriages, and does not obligate states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. DOMA also defines marriage between one man and one woman recognizing that marriage is the foundation of our society and deserves special treatment.

In plain English, the provisions of The Federal Defense of Marriage Act disallow marriage licenses granted to gay and lesbian couples in one state from being recognized by another state. Gay marriage licenses issued in Massachusetts, for instance, are only valid in Massachusetts – unless and until other states pass laws recognizing them. Federal benefits are also withheld from legally recognized same-sex couples in states where marriage is recognized.

ALTERNATIVES TO MARRIAGE

In an attempt to appease the gay community’s demand for equal rights without total alienation from pro-family groups and individuals, policy makers found alternative legal substitutes to marriage. The first was invented in the northeast where legislation by the bench set a new precedent.

Civil Unions Mimic Marriage in State Law Only

The term civil union was coined by Vermont policymakers in 2000 in response to their Supreme Court’s ruling that declared gays were entitled to “common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law.” This new legally recognized relationship allowed some or all of the same rights of marriage on the state level, without the protection, recognition and benefits of the federal government. Today, there are a total of four states that recognize civil unions: Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and New Jersey.

Domestic Partnership

Not to be outdone, California adopted a similar alternative called domestic partnership. First enacted in 1999; then expanded in 2005 to include all state marriage rights, making it virtually the same as civil unions. Hawaii and Maine also have domestic partnership laws that give a limited amount of rights and protections as state marriage law.

EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE ON FAMILIES AND CHILDREN

Note that the number of gay marriages and civil unions in the United States is very small, in fact miniscule in comparison to traditional marriage, and a lot less than even proponents of LGBT rights anticipated. Even so, the LGBT advocates have turned the debate into one of special rights versus the protection of the family and traditional marriage. This small percentage of individuals is on the brink of changing society as we know it; dooming future generations to financial, moral and cultural ruin.

Social and Cultural Changes

Sex, marriage and child rearing has a profound effect on communities, states, nations and society as a whole. The costs associated with “a live and let live” society are enormous and will only continue to escalate until untenable. Expect to see:

• Changes in divorce law and custody
• Additional immigration sponsorship of gay spouses and family members
• Less reliance on families and faith-based initiatives and church attendance
• Increase in poverty, welfare rolls, incarcerations and increased government programs that try to alleviate these conditions
• A reduction in live birth rates
• The passage of mercy killings, and assisted suicide initiatives
• Broad access to government programs that provide condoms, and other devices to reduce HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases at tax payers’ expense
• Future recognition of other marriage relationships including polygamy

Religious Liberty in Jeopardy

There are current examples of religious speech, assembly and worship being threatened in the U.S. and around the world. Churches will no longer be allowed to preach their doctrine and encourage marriage between one man and one woman; because “anything goes” relationship definitions will be protected by the law, making lawbreakers of those who oppose them. United Families points out some of the threats to religious freedom in past publications, but note what the future holds:

• Further closures of faith-based social services, like adoption and foster care
• Elimination of religious ceremonies, including marriage
• Eventual closure of parochial schools, churches and practices

Educational Changes Including Curriculum

Children in Massachusetts are already forced to take home diversity packets introducing them to the homosexual lifestyle, which undermines parental rights as well as indoctrinates the next generation. What is happening in Massachusetts and in other countries where same-sex marriage is legal is just the beginning.

• Loss of parental rights
• Increase in sex-curriculum including the teaching of homosexuality, etc.
• The elimination of abstinence-only programs
• Distribution of condoms and other devises to prevent HIV/AIDS and pregnancy
• The opening of additional gay schools and programs

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.  

Prop. 8 UPDATE: Militant Homosexual Rights Movement Keeps The Pressure On

Gay-Rights Boot Camp (LA Times):

Determined to avoid the mistakes of their last, losing campaign for gay marriage, gay rights activists are launching the first of what they hope will be many “marriage equality training camps” in Los Angeles this weekend.

The idea is to train activists in “the practical, hands-on skills to organize in their communities to restore marriage equality for same-sex couples to California.”

“The Camp Courage training, inspired by ‘Camp Obama,’ is based on grassroots organizing models that have developed leaders and nurtured progressive social movements for many years, including the fundamentals of community organizing; volunteer recruitment and management; voter persuasion and more,” according to a statement.

Prop 8 Opponents Distribute Maps of Traditional Marriage Supporters’ Homes:

Radical opponents of Proposition 8, the proposition that democratically amended the California constitution to define marriage as the union of one man with one woman, have used a variety of tools to alter, and then reject, the popular will of Californians. They tried running vile ads that unfairly targeted groups such as Mormons. When that failed, they resorted to violence and brutal assaults.

And now, they’ve crossed the line once again. They have posted maps online that very clearly show the addresses of those who donated money to the Prop 8 cause (supporting traditional marriage), including even small donors who gave $50 or less.

UFI blog EXCLUSIVE NEWS:

The UFI blog has learned that up to 1/3 of the Christmas packages that were sent to Californian missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) were not delivered.  The LDS church has been widely criticized by the Militant Homosexual Rights Movement for their opposition to Same-Sex Marriage.  It is suspected that the Christmas presents were stolen in retaliation to the passing of Proposition 8.

Canada Proves That Same-Sex Marriage Paves The Way For Anti-Family Laws

In Canada, the legalization of Same-Sex Marriage is now paving the way for the legaization of polygamy.  The AP reports:

Canada’s decision to legalize gay marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well, a defense lawyer said Wednesday as the two leaders of rival polygamous communities made their first court appearance.
 
The case is the first to test Canada’s polygamy laws.
 
Winston Blackmore, 52, and James Oler, 44, are each accused of being married to more than one woman at a time. The charges carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison, British Columbia Attorney General Wally Oppal said.
 
But Blackmore’s lawyer, Blair Suffredine, said during a telephone interview that marriage standards in Canada have changed.

“If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can’t marry more than one person?” said Suffredine, a former provincial lawmaker. Canada’s Parliament extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2005. 

The goal of the liberal, Anti-Family movement 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.  As demonstrated in Canada, each victory claimed by Anti-Family groups, such as the legalization of gay marriage, will place the family on the fast track toward total destruction.  Let us urge our leaders and lawmakers to look abroad and see the harsh realities that await us if we allow the radical Anti-Family movement to roll forth.

For more than 30 years United Families International has been devoted to maintaining and strengthening the family as the fundamental unit of society.  UFI has always been engaged in defending traditional marriage and standing up to the Anti-Family agenda.  UFI opposes Same-Sex Marriage for several reasons, including the facts that:

• Same-Sex Marriage endangers freedom of religion
• Same-Sex Marriage puts parental rights in danger
• Gay Marriage would have serious negative effects on public schools
• Same-Sex Marriage would force lawyers and other professionals to compromise their beliefs
• Gay Marriage would severely hinder the exercises of many other liberties that people all over the world enjoy

Gary Bauer: White House “Extreme Makeover”

If you visited the White House website yesterday morning, you would have been introduced to a defense of the right to life, the need for lower taxes and the sanctity of traditional marriage. But within hours, as power changed from a president of one party to a president of another, all that was gone. By mid-afternoon the White House website had undergone an “extreme makeover,” with the extreme agenda of the new administration front and center. Here are just a few examples:

• Abortion: “he [President Obama] has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice [abortion on demand] and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration.”

• Homosexual rights: “President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation… President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. …President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.”

• On taxes and the economy, he is promising to hike tax rates on successful families and small businesses back to Clinton-era levels, raise payroll taxes, again raise the minimum wage and then index it for inflation.

Of course, changes to the White House website by the new administration were to be expected. But the radical changes in policy outlined there today underscore the consequences of elections past and future, as well the challenges ahead for those who cherish our time-honored traditional values, which do not change with the winds of political fortunes.

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.

Is “One Way” Really the Only Way?

In U.S. President-elect Obama’s speech in Berlin he talked about being “a fellow citizen of the world”.  He described the burdens of global citizenship that “continue to bind us together”.  He said, “Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way to ….. advance our common humanity.”

In the European Union Parliament this week, Giusto Catania, an Italian Communist MEP, will ask the European Union member-states to approve a resolution that will guarantee access to “sexual and reproductive health and rights” (abortion) and will recognize same-sex unions equally with traditional marriage.

Another attack on the family is coming from three international homosexual rights groups.  These groups are trying to get committees at the UN to include the Yogyakarta Principles as a measure by which states could be held accountable.  These principles, originated from a conference held at Yogyakarta, Indonesia in 2006.  The meeting was attended by leading homosexual rights advocates to develop a brand of sexual rights intended to be “…a universal guide to human rights which affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply.”

Several states across the United States have recently had to deal with laws allowing transgender individuals the use of public restrooms.  These laws provide the right to individuals to use the restroom of their choice.  These are entitled “gender identity protection laws.”

During the battle of Proposition 8 in California, we at United Families sought to educate citizens about the impact that laws and treaties at the United Nations had on their state.  It is obvious that in an attempt to “advance our common humanity”, the citizens of the United States are being pressured to adopt the customs, ideas, and morals that a “global citizenship” brings.

At United Families International, we do not believe that what has been happening in the European Union, Indonesia, the United Nations or in many states in the U.S. represents what families all over the world want.  We believe that families would like to have leaders who felt that being a “fellow citizen of the world” would mean protection from the homosexual agenda.  We would like to have leaders who stand up for families and recognize the critical contribution that they make to society.  Without families these leaders will not have a country to represent.

President-elect Obama needs to take the stance that the only “burden” that global citizenship brings is the one that forces the traditional family to suffer the consequences of choices that will destroy the family.  We disagree with Obama when he says that “Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way…”

We believe that there is a choice.  We believe that their way is not the only way.  We believe that the only way is to fight this agenda that seeks to destroy the family.  We believe that the only choice the world has is to defend families.

At United Families International, that is what we do every day.

Beverly Rice, UFI President

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.”

Same-Sex Marriage: Coming To Your Neighborhood Library

During the campaign to pass Prop. 8 in California, Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council, produced a video warning of the dangers of legalizing Same-Sex marriage.  He shared that if Same-Sex marriage is legalized, then it must be taught as normal, acceptable and moral behavior in public schools.   Mr. Perkins then interviewed a Massachusetts family whose kindergartner was given a book that introduced the child to homosexual families.  When the boy’s father, David Parker, went to the school to protest the homosexual literature he was told that there was nothing he could do.  His young son had no choice but learn about homosexuality while attending public school (click here to watch the video).

The right of parents to teach their children is one reason why marriage matters.  It is another evidence that shows that sexual freedom will trump religious and parental rights if it is legalized.  The book that the kindergartner was given is one example of gay books that teach young minds about the unnatural behavior of homosexuality, here are some others that are waiting to get picked up at your local library:

King & King: One day, a queen decides she’s had enough of ruling, and it’s time for her son to find a suitable princess and get married. “When I was your age, I’d been married twice already,” she grumbles. The prince agrees, though he’s never much cared for princesses… and none of the ones who show up manage to change his opinion. Then in walks the last princess, beautiful golden-haired Princess Madeleine–and her brother, Prince Lee. It’s love at first sight, and the two princes, known as King & King, live happily ever after. The final panel shows the two Kings kissing, their lips hidden behind a red heart.  King & King has been translated into several languages, including Spanish. There is also a sequel, King & King & Family. (Intended for ages 3 and up)

And Tango Makes Three:  A “true story” about two boys who fall in love and start a family. The two boys are penguins, Roy and Silo, and they do everything the other penguins do: “They bowed to each other. And walked together. They sang to each other. And swam together. Wherever Roy went, Silo went too.” When the two try to hatch a baby penguin, devotedly sitting on a rock to warm it, their keeper gives them an egg to foster. “Roy and Silo knew just what to do. They moved the egg to the center of their nest. Every day they turned it, so each side stayed warm.” And one day, “out came their very own baby!” Named Tango, “because it takes two to make a Tango,” the chick is the very first penguin in the zoo to have two daddies.  (Intended for ages 4 and up.)

Mom and Mum Are Getting Married!: When Rosie’s mom and mum decide to get married, the main conflict is whether Rosie will get to be a flower girl and whether she and her brother Jack are responsible enough to take care of the wedding rings. (Intended for ages 4-10)

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.

Opinion Essay: Why Rick Warren Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

Barack Obama’s selection to give the prayer at his upcoming inaugural continues to stir controversy. Rick Warren, author of the mega-bestsellingThe Purpose-Driven Life and pastor of a California megachurch, is controversial, because he opposes abortion rights and has campaigned to ban same-sex marriage.

Gay rights activists are particularly incensed. They insist that Obama, elected with overwhelming support from the gay community, should never have picked such a “divisive” figure. Gay rights advocates have called Warren “homophobic” and “hateful” for his support of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that invalidated same-sex marriage in California.

**To watch and read about Rick Warren’s interview with Ann Curry, click here. UNFORTUNATELY…they don’t play the whole interview, and the place the website chose to stop the interview clearly shows their bias.**

Whenever one examines the issue of same-sex marriage, it must be done on two levels. First, the secular, civil level. And, then, the moral and religious one. In Warren’s case, focus is generally on the issue’s religious dimension, since the California pastor is…well…a pastor. 

This blog post won’t get into the civil aspects of the issue. I understand some people objecting to Warren bringing his religious beliefs into the public arena. I understand that criticism, though I don’t agree with it, since a Christian has as much right to engage the public policy arena as any other citizen. But we’ll leave that aspect of the issue for another day. For now, let’s focus on the religious dimension of same-sex marriage.

It’s clear that Rick Warren has little choice on the matter of same-sex marriage, when it comes to his Christian faith. The Bible from which he preaches clearly condemns homosexuality. If Warren were to support same-sex marriage, he would be turning his back on the Bible. This is simply not something a conscientious, honest, sincere, Bible-believing evangelical can do. 

David R. Stokes, a pastor himself and columnist for TownHall.com, points this out in an excellent op-ed titled “An Evangelical Bridge Too Far.” Pastor Stokes writes:

“No matter how understanding evangelicals are and how sincere some are to open a dialogue with same-sex marriage advocates and activists, there can be no real rapprochement without the willingness to change the way the Bible is read and interpreted. And that would be an evangelical bridge too far.”

Sincere, Bible-believing evangelicals don’t oppose same-sex marriage because of hate or homophobia. They object to gay marriage, because of what the Bible teaches on the subject. Pure and simple. 

And while some gay rights activists will point out that earlier generations of evangelical Christians supported slavery and segregation on religious grounds, it’s clear from a straightforward reading of Scripture that racism and race-based slavery are not consistent with Christian principles.

To argue that the Bible endorses race-based slavery shows the same kind of shallow and twisted logic that says the Bible supports polygamy. The Bible clearly condemns involuntary slavery with its denunciation of stealing and covetousness as well as Jesus’ teachings on the Golden Rule. The fact that some people in the Bible practiced slavery doesn’t make slavery right. The same is true for polygamy. 

In the case of homosexuality, the Bible’s moral teachings are consistent throughout. Of course, some critics of the Bible use this against Christians.

These critics argue that the harsh penalties for homosexuals in the Old Testament should prove that a literal reading of the Bible belongs in the past. These critics, among them scholars like former Anglican Bishop John Shelby Spong, say that Christianity must change and adapt to accommodate new discoveries and realities. 

It’s true that the Mosaic Law contained rather harsh and punitive measures for homosexuals (as well as for rebellious teenagers, witches, etc.), but the Mosaic Law was unique and is not one-dimensional. Parts of the Mosaic Law, particularly the ceremonial aspects and the penalties assigned to certain offenses, were temporary and applicable only to the Hebrew nation. 

This is particularly clear with the addition of the New Testament, which separates the Kingdom of God from the realm of Caesar and which elevates grace over law. Christians in the New Testament and post-New Testament era are not called upon to use the arm of government to enforce specific religious orthodoxy, and the penalties of sin (whatever the sin may be) are in God’s purview. It’s the role of Christians today to reach out with love and compassion, not hatred or vengeance.

And few Christians have reached out with more love and compassion than Rick Warren. He and his wife have become global leaders in the fight against AIDS and poverty. To say now that Rick Warren is homophobic or hateful, because he takes a public position against same-sex marriage is unfair and quite extreme. 

I hold a strong position against polygamy. As does Warren, I’m sure. Does that mean we hate those who practice polygamy??? 

To disagree with someone is NOT the same as hating him or her. Disagreement – even public disagreement – is not hatred. And opposing part of the gay rights agenda doesn’t mean one is homophobic. 

For crying out loud, I voted against a referendum in Ohio that would’ve allowed casino gambling in Clinton County. But I surely don’t hate people who gamble. My wife’s parents gamble – and do so in casinos. And I love and respect them. 

It’s utterly outrageous to say that Rick Warren is a bigoted homophobe, because he opposes same-sex marriage. He has every right to oppose it — and to do so publicly. And his biblical convictions dictate that he oppose it!

And this is where the rubber meets the road. The choice that many (if not most) gay rights activists are giving people of faith (especially people of evangelical Christian faith) is this…

Support the gay rights agenda and, in doing so, jettison or change your religious beliefs….OR….be branded a hateful bigot! 

Many evangelicals will cave to this pressure, because no one (least of all a true Christian) wants to be associated with bigotry or hate. But an honest Christian can’t simply jettison the Bible or change its meaning to suit his or her needs at the moment. The Bible is either the Word of God or it’s not. And if it is the Word of God, then it carries authority with it. 

It is not for Rick Warren to decide whether the Bible is right about homosexuality. If Rick Warren is to be true to his Christian convictions and true to the Bible for what it is, then he has no choice but to support traditional marriage.

Brian Tubbs is a pastor, educator, writer, and speaker living in Clinton County, Ohio. 

UFI: Success in 2008

As we come to the end of another year, we at United Families International wish to thank all of you for your support during our 30th Anniversary year!  What a year it has been!  We have been successful on many fronts thanks to your willingness to support our efforts.

We hope we can count on your support again in 2009.  It is crucial that we receive your donation before the end of the year so we can finalize our plans for 2009.  Our ability to continue this work on behalf of families throughout the world depends on you! Your donations in 2008 provided us with critical resources.  We accomplished so much because of you!

Here are a few of the highlights your support helped us achieve:

• In March, while lobbying at the United Nations at the Commission on the Status of Women, UFI was able to work with other pro-family organizations and split the European Union in order to defeat pro-abortion language. http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=138

• In April, as part of the pro-family international coalition leadership, we worked with Kosovo’s parliament leaders to craft language for their new constitution that would protect the rights of families, religion, marriage, and life. http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=134

• From May through November, United Families played an important role as a integral component of the ProtectMarriage coalition in California.  Through the educational tools and speakers we provided, we were able to help secure the passage of Proposition 8.  http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=243

• In May, we announced two new partners for our abstinence-based HIV/AIDS prevention program – Stay Alive.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Catholic Church, both announced that they would begin pilot programs to implement Stay Alive in Kenya and Tanzania.http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=131

• In October, we celebrated our 30th Anniversary and announced that Giff and Wendy Nielsen would be honored as our Champions of the Family Award recipients.  http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=249

• In November, we joined with other ProtectMarriage coalition leaders to denounce the attacks the opposition was making on individuals, churches and businesses who contributed time and money to support Proposition 8 in California. http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=244

• In December, we joined with other pro-family organizations and presented thousands of your signatures to the United Nations General Assembly to show support for the original intent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=244

Thanks to your support we were able to make significant inroads in the protection of families, religious liberty, and sanctity of life.  As you consider your year-end giving, please make a significant contribution to United Families so that at the end of 2009 we will have many more wonderful successes to report.

Happy New Year!

Beverly Rice, UFI President

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.”

UN UPDATE: UFI Helps Gather Signatures Defending The Family

On December 18 Reuters reported the following UN news:

The U.N. General Assembly split over the issue of gay rights on Thursday after a European-drafted statement calling for decriminalization of homosexuality prompted an Arab-backed one opposing it.

Diplomats said a joint statement initiated by France and the Netherlands gathered 66 signatures in the 192-nation assembly after it was read out by Argentina at a plenary session. A rival statement, read out by Syria, gathered some 60.

The two statements remained open for further signatures, the diplomats said. No resolution was drafted on the issue and there was no voting, they added.

The division in the General Assembly reflected conflicting laws in the world at large. According to sponsors of the Franco-Dutch text, homosexuality is illegal in 77 countries, seven of which punish it by death.

The European Union-backed document, noting that the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was marked this month, said those rights applied equally to all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

But the opposing document said the statement “delves into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states” and could lead to “the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts including pedophilia.”

“We note with concern the attempts to create ‘new rights’ or ‘new standards,’ by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration and international treaties to include such notions that were never articulated nor agreed by the general membership,” it added.

This, it said, could “seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework.”

Muslim countries have for years opposed international attempts to legalize homosexuality.

U.S. officials said the United States had not signed either document. They said the broad framing of the language in the statement supporting decriminalization created conflicts with U.S. law, but gave no further details.

Last week United Families International spent the week at the UN with a Pro-Family Pro-Life coalition.  During their stay at the UN, UFI, along with the Pro-Family coalition, presented a petition to the UN General Assembly in favor of the family and the rights of the unborn.  In addition to the presentation of the petition, UFI held meetings with several UN Ambassadors that helped get signatures on the opposing document that Reuters cites.

“United Families International is proud to have been instrumental in helping garner additional support for the Pro-Family statement.  Our coalition was happy to have worked specifically with the nation of Egypt on this particular document.”  UFI President, Beverly Rice told the UFI Blog.      

For the past 30 years UFI has worked at the UN to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.  UFI maintains non-government organization (NGO) status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) and works to educate UN ambassadors and delegates on root policies affecting the family. UFI sends representatives, including experts on family issues, to UN conferences to provide legal analysis and peer-reviewed scholarly research in support of UN delegates working to preserve the family. UFI has been successful in affecting the outcome of numerous UN conference documents and in promoting respect for the family, marriage, life, religion, parents and national sovereignty.

Gary Bauer Reports Anti-Family News: 12.17.08

Note: This News Alert was sent by Gary Bauer, click here to subscribe.

Standing For Life 

The Wall Street Journal reports today that the Bush Administration will announce new regulations Friday expanding the “right of conscience” protections for health care providers so that hospitals, doctors, nurses and other workers cannot be forced to participate in abortions or other practices that may violate their religious beliefs. We believe conscience clause protections are extraordinarily important. Whether it’s a Catholic hospital or an evangelical doctor, no one should be forced to participate in a practice they find morally reprehensible. 

Regrettably, however, the Journal also reports that the Obama transition team is already laying out plans to repeal these new rules and force taxpayers to pay for abortions. 

Educating Or Indoctrinating? 

If you thought segregation in education was a thing of the past, think again. Barack Obama’s announced nominee for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who currently heads Chicago’s public school system, was promoting segregation in the schools as recently as October. But in this case, Duncan’s issue wasn’t race but sexual orientation. At an October press conference announcing 20 new schools, Duncan unveiled plans for Chicago’s first “gay, lesbian and transgender” high school. The so-called “School for Social Justice Pride Campus” would “seek to foster a violence-free atmosphere for students who are often targeted for their sexual identities.” Shouldn’t all schools have “violence-free atmospheres”? 

According to the Chicago Tribune, Duncan hailed the “gay high school” concept, saying that he expected “half of its students would be gay while the other half would be straight students with an interest in the social justice focus school officials want to foster.” When I served as Under Secretary of Education in the Reagan Administration, we did our best to keep the focus on reading, writing and arithmetic. But today our kids leave high school knowing precious little about our nation’s founding principles, basic grammar, math and science, and way too much about “social justice” and radical environmentalism. 

Education has given way to indoctrination. And the fact that the head of the Chicago Public School system would be championing the cause of “sexual identity segregation” in the public schools is a sad testimony to the radicalization of education in America today and the agenda of the incoming administration. If Duncan was pushing the creation of homosexual high schools in Chicago, what will his agenda be in Washington?

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.

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

Gary Bauer Reports Anti-Family News

Note: This News Alert was sent by Gary Bauer, click here to subscribe.

The pro-abortion lobby, led by Planned Parenthood and NARAL, have put together a 55-page “strategy memo” outlining their demands on the next administration and Congress. Unbelievably, the Obama transition team posted the document on its website, which gives us a glimpse, an early warning, of the pro-abortion movement’s plan of attack.

It is developing a broad, sweeping assault on the right to life. It is demanding the repeal of all restrictions on abortion at every level. That means repealing the federal ban on the gruesome procedure of partial-birth abortion. That means repealing state parental notification laws. It means gutting abstinence education, while providing more of your hard-earned tax dollars to pay for condoms and birth control pills in the schools and more abortions at Planned Parenthood centers. We must fight this radical anti-life, anti-parent agent!

Unfortunately, that’s not all. The militant homosexual rights movement has also compiled its list of demands. Officials at the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force are saying publicly that they want hate crimes laws and special employment rights for homosexuals passed next year. We also anticipate a legislative assault in Congress against the Defense of Marriage Act and more efforts in the states to redefine marriage. Believe it or not, last week the Iowa Supreme Court heard arguments in a case seeking to force same-sex “marriage” in the American heartland. Just one month after the people of three states, including California, voted to protect the traditional meaning of marriage, the militant homosexual movement is still trying to get the courts to undo the will of the people!

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

UNITED FAMILIES INTERNATIONAL TO CELEBRATE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, SUBMIT 300,000 NAMES TO UN IN FAVOR OF LIFE AND FAMILIES

 

UN Headquarters, New York – Tomorrow, December 10^th, on the 60^th Anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) by the UN General Assembly, United Families International (UFI), along with a coalition of social conservative groups from around the world, will present a petition of 340,000 names requesting that all member nations and states interpret the UNDHR to mean that:

The right to life, liberty and security is for every person; that each child born or unborn, has the right to birth and a full, natural life. That a child has the right to a mother and a father, of full age, within the bonds of marriage defined as between a man and a woman.  And, that the parents have the right to raise and educate their children without any limitation due to race, religion, culture or nationality.  

The petition is a response to opposition petition efforts by pro-abortion groups International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International that demand that the UNDHR be interpreted to include that access to abortion is a human right and the UNDHR should be interpreted as such.

“During a time when family values are under attack in nations and states across the globe, tomorrow should be a celebration of the family, freedom of religion, and marriage between a man and a woman.  Tomorrow should be a declaration that 60 years ago the United Nations stood up for what is most important.  Tomorrow we should all feel safe that life, our families, marriages and religions will be protected because of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”  Said Beverly Rice, President of UFI, a non-profit organization that has been fighting to protect the family at the UN since 1978. “But, instead, we fear tomorrow will just be another day on the battlefield, another day when those who wish to destroy the family will make another attempt.  They will use deception as their weapon.  Their desire is to create a genderless society that is run by the state – void of religion, marriage and parents.”

UFI, along with a Pro-Family Pro-Life coalition including the Pro-Life Federation of Poland, the Institute of Family Policy of Spain, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, and US-based Concerned Women for America will present the petition at UN headquarters and in private meetings with Ambassadors from several UN missions.

Those who wish to join the celebration of the family as the fundamental unit of society and of the right to life may continue to sign the petition after tomorrow at unitedfamilies.org.

United Families Utah Counters Equality Utah

In the wake of California’s proposition 8, Equality Utah has the ear of some of Utah’s most influential policy makers.  According to the Deseret news, “A group of Utah lawmakers unveiled five pieces of proposed legislation aimed at securing rights for gay couples”.  If you thought this could only happen in California or on the East Coast, think again. 

The first of these five bills, the Wrongful Death Amendments Bill, passed the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee on Nov. 19 with flying colors. The vote was (10-4).  Although the committee membership includes two of three openly gay state legislators, the amount of support on this committee calls for great concern. The bill is now eligible to be heard during the regular legislative session that begins on Jan 26, 2009.

Equality Utah, Utah’s gay rights organization is the impetus behind this bill. Senator Scott McCoy, one of the three openly gay Utah legislators, is the sponsor of the seemingly harmless bill. It appears harmless because it makes no explicit mention of marriage in the bill, and appeals to those living together who have no sexual relationship worthy of wrongful death benefits to make the bill palatable. The bill is simply a cover for an obvious agenda to circumvent the Constitution, and achieve, statute by statute, step by step, the rights denied by the Utah State Constitution. 

United Families Utah Statement on WDAB:

United Families International, a non-profit organization devoted to the preservation of the traditional family on a local, national, and international level.
While we have compassion for those represented today by the Equality Utah Coalition, we stand in firm opposition to the proposed Wrongful Death Amendments Bill for what it both ‘includes,’ ‘excludes” and “infers” in its attempt to rewrite Utah law and negotiate the definition of marriage.

1. WDAB INCLUDES:
The WDAB “includes” a provision for “heirs” to consign a designated same-sex or cohabiting partner as heir in suing for wrongful death.
While this may seem an innocuous request, we don’t believe it is. Extending through the Wrongful Death Amendments Bill benefits and provisions designed for and due married couples and their children to non-marital, cohabiting partnerships is commensurate with elevating homosexual or consensual cohabiting relationships to legally recognized status. Once sanctioned legally, through affording benefits reserved for married couples, a precedent is set for the acquisition of additional and ultimately all benefits due married couples. That is a precedent we do not wish to set in Utah.  Marriage and consensual cohabiting relationships are not equal. Marriage is an unequivocal institution not created by law but that is upheld by it, since it is singular in its benefits to society “indissolubly linked to the procreation of our race and childrearing.”  

Unwin’s study is a monumental reminder: In Sex and Culture, he chronicles the decline of 86 cultures.  He revealed that strict marital monogamy is central to social energy and growth, and stated, “In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and post nuptial continence.”(Sex and Culture, 1934).
Preserving these rights properly due marriage for marriage is not a civil rights issue nor would it deny homosexuals their basic civil rights accorded other citizens, including the right to establish and order their private lives by contract.

2. WDAB  EXCLUDES:
By removing the marriage protection clause this bill reveals a larger agenda.  It is not only a first attempt to establish legal legitimacy equivalent to marriage for future claims to marriage benefits, it is an overt attempt to subvert marriage by virtue of what it excludes.  

This bill excludes the following statement:  Neither a grant of standing under this section, nor anything else in this section, nor any finding by the court under this section may be construed as recognizing or treating a mutually supportive and dependent relationship as a marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or any other legal or relationship status that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage as defined in Article I, Section 29 of the Utah Constitution.

This is a significant exclusion.  It indicates to us, that while the knock on the front door of marriage rights is the redefinition of heirs and a step onto the Utah ladder of legal recognition—the even louder knock on the back door is indicative of a bigger overarching agenda, to subvert the definition of marriage.  As one homosexual writer and activist, Michelangelo Signorile, admits, the goals of homosexuals is “to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then once granted redefine the institution of marriage to demand the right to marry [and, I would add, or rights of marriage] not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution” (“Bridal Wave,” Out, Dec. 1994).  Clearly, the intent of this bill veers in this direction. The agenda of the sponsors, Equality Utah is quite clear on their website.

In summary, Utah voters overwhelmingly supported a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, indicating their desire to uphold traditional heterosexual marriage with its respective legal privileges and benefits. By including marriage benefits packages, we dismantle the institution and permit a reconstruction of family and family law. This cannot be sanctioned.

Watch Out Elton John!

Elton John, the openly gay musician, has joined many other gay rights activist and denounced gay marriage.  From New York Elton John and his partner, David Furnish told the USAToday:

“We’re not married. Let’s get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.”

“I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,” John says. “The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off.

“You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

As Elton John has voiced his opinion, I would advise him to watch his back.  For as many have found, there are some tough repercussions that come with publicly supporting traditional marriage.  Just ask the people of California who spoke, whose votes were counted, and who now, in defiance of democracy, are being persecuted for their opinions.

Let us hope that the Militant Gay Marriage Movement does not blacklist Elton John nor boycott his business.  Let us pray that they do not send mysterious white powder to the office of his record label, or that they do not disturb the religious practises of those who enjoy his music. Elton John and his partner ought to be prepared the disturbing slurs that will come out of the mouths of those who disagree with him. Disgusting are the actions of the No-On-8 movement.

Through all the calamity and scare tactics we will press on, protect the family, and defend marriage.  The majority has spoken, and we will ensure that their vote counts.

 

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.

Dumbing Down to A Different Level

I remember when it was important for schools to teach students about reading, writing, math and science. In fact, No Child Left Behind was designed to help schools focus on the mastery of those subjects so that American children would be able to compete in the global economy.

Today, it looks like American children are being subjected to the teachings of another sort. Kindergartners were recently sent on a field trip to witness their teacher’s same-sex marriage to her long time partner…another woman.

Is this what is in store for the next generation? Reading, writing homosexuality, instead of reading, writing, ‘rithmetic?

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!

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.

The Majority of Americans Want Their President to Support Traditional Marriage

I found the results of a national poll quite reassuring. The vast majority of Americans want their President to support traditional marriage. Fifty-eight percent of likely voters would be more likely to support a candidate that favors state marriage protection amendments—only 29 percent said they would be less likely to support such a candidate.

To see the full results of the national survey see: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08G19.pdf

This bodes well for the state of Arizona’s Marriage Amendment, as well as for the proposed amendments in California and Florida. It appears that citizens do understand the importance of maintaining the definition of traditional marriage. I’ll sleep just a little easier tonight.

18 Conclusions to Take Away from California Supreme Court’s Decision to Constitutionalize Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

1— The court parroted bromides commonly tendered by the homosexual agenda, including: comparing restrictions of same-sex “marriage” to past laws barring interracial marriage, and same-sex “marriage” does not impact heterosexual marriage. Race cannot be compared to homosexuality because no one is born homosexual. The court re-defined “marriage” for everyone, including heterosexuals, and it rendered meaningless the gender of fathers, mothers and children.

2—The court did not accept the argument that marriage is fundamentally about raising children, and it argued that through adoption and assisted reproduction individuals incapable of bearing children are capable of raising children. This logic fails to recognize that both genders contribute in unique ways to the psychological development of children.

3—The court said marriage is basically about individual happiness. This logic discounts children and fails to recognize that marriages based primarily on personal happiness are lacking in depth and contribute to the high divorce rate.

4—The court a) cited the dissent of a New York Supreme Court justice who last year argued that tradition is not a sufficient argument for maintaining the status quo of heterosexual-only marriage; and b) rejected the Court of Appeals’ basis for using the absence of historical or precedential support for same-sex “marriage.” If history and tradition are accorded so little weight, then why do courts go to such great lengths to cite precedents?

5—The court cited changes in the State of California’s understanding and legal treatment of homosexuals and asserted that homosexuals are fully capable of entering into the kind of loving and enduring committed relationships that may serve as the foundation of family. These relationships are actually less likely to last, more fraught with behavioral problems, more infidelity, more likely to end quickly and less likely to provide stability for children in the home.

6—The court dealt with the state’s Domestic Partner Act at great length only to conclude the act did not have a significant impact on its decision. Because the state legislature had already enacted a comprehensive domestic partnership law granting to same-sex couples virtually all of the substantive legal rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, the plaintiffs were relieved of the burden of presenting a constitutional challenge to obtain those rights and benefits. This indicates that the Left won this case by making incremental gains in the past.

7—The court referred to a 1972 constitutional amendment adding “privacy” to the “inalienable rights” of all Californians and said the state constitutional right to marry now falls within an individual’s interest in private autonomy. The privacy argument could be used to defuse any state law, but was selectively used in this example of judicial activism.

8—The court cited past court decisions and the United Nations for recognition of the family as the basic unit of society and then assumed any adult coupling can achieve these ideals. The ideals cited were established by heterosexual marriage over the annals of time and have never been equaled by homosexual parenting.

9—The court ruled that the right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice and as such is of fundamental significance to society and to the individual. The court cited no social science studies to show that alternative family forms provide the same benefits to society contributed by heterosexual-headed families. The burden of proof still remains with the court.

10—The court recognized an individual’s “opportunity to live a happy, meaningful and satisfying life as a full member of society” as grounds for granting all individuals and couples without regard to sexual orientation the right to marry. This thinking opens the door for polygamy and all manner of marital arrangements.

11—The court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim of “sex discrimination” as it relates to the California equal protection clause, but it insisted that “the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation.” The court also stated that heterosexual and homosexual persons have the legal right to marry someone of the opposite gender, but nevertheless insisted that behavior was applicable to the equal protection clause.

12—The court ruled that denying “marriage” to same-sex couples amounts to “second-class citizenship.” Nomenclature matters, and states should continue to protect traditional marriage and oppose counterfeit forms of “marriage.”

13—According to the court, the circumstance that the majority of Californians voted in favor of retaining the traditional definition of marriage does not exempt the statutory limitation from constitutional review, nor does it demonstrate that the voters’ objective represents a constitutionally compelling state interest for purposes of equal protection principles. This is judicial arrogance at its highest.

14—The court stated that in the past, interracial marriage was banned, women were excluded from many occupations and official duties and racial minorities were relegated to separate facilities and institutions. Race and gender are immutable characteristics, but one’s sexual orientation is not a basis for “minority group” status.

15—The court acknowledged a heavy burden of proof upon the state to demonstrate why homosexuals should not be permitted same-sex “marriage rights. However, the governor and the attorney general both approve of same-sex “marriage.” It is thus not surprising that the court found their arguments less than compelling.

16—The court stated that “affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.” This is a hollow “protection” for those churches, businesses and individuals who don’t support this court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Boy Scouts and other organizations have the right to determine their own membership, but that did not prevent cities, states and political parties from demonizing the Boy Scouts.

17—The court concluded that Family Code section 300 – which designates marriage as the union of a man and a woman – is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute. The remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. The limitation of Family Code section 308.5 “can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.” These actions circumvent the legislative process and the will of the people of California. As Justice Marvin Baxter dissented, the majority violated the separation of powers.

18—The majority placed great reliance on Perez v. Sharp (1948), a case that ruled in favor of interracial marriage. However, Perez and many other cases establishing the fundamental right to marry were all based on the common understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

California Supreme Court Marriage Decision – May 2008

Dr. Wilkins: California Marriage Decision will Have Serious Long-term Consequences

Last week’s decision by the California Supreme Court to legalize same-sex “marriage” is sending shock waves around the world. Dr. Richard Wilkins, a constitutional law professor and legal expert on marriage and managing director of the Doha International Institute for Family Studies and Development, Qatar Foundation, issued the following statement today to United Families International:

The recent decision of the California Supreme Court redefining marriage demonstrates the continued willingness of unelected judges to overturn – and frankly ignore – the will of the people on a vital issue of social policy that lies at the core of any successful society. The decision to alter dramatically the meaning of marriage in California will have long-term (and as yet not fully known but nevertheless serious) consequences. The decision, at the very least, flies in the face of mounting evidence that children need (and deserve) the care of a father and a mother. The decision also ignores the now undisputable facts that altering the historic meaning of marriage destabilizes the institution of marriage and weakens its vitally important social roles. For example, in countries that have had same-sex “marriage” for a significant period of time (e.g., the Netherlands), marriage rates are at all-time historic lows, the number of children born out of wedlock are at all-time historic highs and marital dissolution rates have reached all-time historic levels.

The People of California must act – dramatically and quickly – to place a constitutional amendment preserving marriage on the ballot. The meaning of marriage involves much more than a simple question of “equality.” Rather, it involves a broad range of issues that go to the very core of the social processes that make civilization possible. Those who support marriage as the union of a man and a woman are not driven by animus toward those with diverse sexual orientations. On the contrary, they are driven by well-founded concern for the future of their children, grandchildren and generations of Californians yet unborn.

Dr. Wilkins has in a most articulate manner put the California situation in proper perspective. The decision of the court was short-sighted.

California’s Supreme Court Declares Marriage Unconstitutional

California’s Supreme Court refused today to recognize a “compelling state interest” in traditional marriage:

“We cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”

By a 4-3 decision, the court struck down Proposition 22, which defined marriage as one man and one woman. That initiative won by a landslide 61-39 percent margin.

High courts in other jurisdictions, including New York and Maryland, have in fact found a compelling interest for their states to recognize only marriage between one man and one woman. The California court could have done likewise, but chose not to.

Justices voting in the majority were:

Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the opinion. He was appointed by former Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, in 1991.

Justice Joyce Kennard, appointed by Republican Gov. George Deukmejian in 1989.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, appointed in 1994 by Gov. Wilson.

Justice Carlos Moreno, appointed in 2001 by Gov. Gray Davis.

Dissenting:

Justice Marvin Baxter, appointed by Gov. Deukmejian in 1990. He accused the court of substituting “its own social policy views for those expressed by the people.”

Justice Ming Chin, a 1996 Wilson appointee.

Justice Carol Corrigan, a 2005 appointee of current Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Today’s ruling will have unintended consequences. The ruling will allow legal same-sex “marriages” in 30 days and puts men, women and children at risk. Taxpayers will pay out more in social agency costs as a result of today’s decisions. The nations that do allow same-sex “marriage” have shown high rates of domestic violence rates in the homosexual community, and children do not fare well in homes headed by homosexual adults. The safest place for children is in the homes of married parents of opposite gender.

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.