Posted on Sunday, 1/01/2006 - 11:42 p.m. PST — by Ohso
Turkey Baster Creationist Courts:
The recent 'reporting' by the myopic seeing eye 'watchdogs' of our Old Media of New Laws and Important / Milestone events in the Radical Gender Feminist / Homosex 'Cannibal Soup' Pander or Perish Pogrom (where one either joins voluntarily as a diner, or involuntarily as dinner), including the Attack on Marriage and Male Fathers, is interesting if only for the significance of what it fails to include or explain, and why
Sitting like the veritable Elephant in the Middle of the Press Room are numerous issues that our myopic watchdogs of the Fourth Estate of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial & Tabloid branches) have decided it is better to largely ignore, or spin only in small sound bites.
For Example; a new flood of Pro-Homosex Pander or Perish Laws, passed like sewer gas by the leftist / radical gender feminist / pro-homosex organ that is the Democrap controlled Weimar Kalifornia Legislature, and signed by our RINO Uberkommandant - Der Arnold, are now ready for Ruthless Enforcement by the Thought Police, BAMN (by Any means Necessary!).
When they actually do mention such Pander or Perish pogroms, the media euphemistically refers to them as anti-discrimination Laws - such as when Pro -Family / Religious / Childrens bookstores are required to hire and publicly promote homo-anal dirty diaper sado masochistic bondage flogging activists as normal and healthy & proper employee representatives.
However, the combination of Monumental Importance and Studied Media Ignorance / Biased Reporting found in the California Turkey Baster Trio of Cases, simultaneously published by the Misandrist (male hating) disgrace of a state supreme court on August 22, 2005 (K.M., v. E.G.: S125643 / Elisa B.v. Superior Court ; S125912 / Kristine H. v. Lisa R.: S126945) - highlights like no other story the same old story of Pro-Homosex propagandizing in service of Misandry (Hatred of Men) that is a media staple year in and male hating year out.
Built on a foundation created by decades of hyper zealous radical Mau Mauing by Dyke (Dyke = Hyper Militant Misandrist) Hatemongers and their allies, as well as ruthless censorship, silencing and punishment of opposition through use of Thought Policing tactics Stalin would admire, these cases represent nothing less than endorsement of Dyke Separatist / Neo-Exterminationist Misandry as State Policy by the California Supreme Court.
It seeks to enshrine in the law a Double Standard Against MEN So Bizarre that it is destroyed by the very contradictions in internal logic of the argument presented; not that this hinders or even mildly embarrasses the Court in its rush to Pander. Stepping through the warped looking glass sold the Court by the twisted systerhood of Separatist / Neo-Exterminationist Dyke Hatemongers, it is easy to see the results of decades of Radical Homosex Indoctrination in the Legal profession, particularly the pathetic farce of rank Misandry that characterizes the Gender field of Legal Education.
But for the student of both science and the law, it is the Courts rending of both in to tattered shreds to shroud its disgrace, that so astounds and bemuses. Long story short - The California Supreme Court has Defined Fatherhood for All Time and it has Nothing to Do with being MALE!
In Fact, in the opinion of Californias Supreme Judges - to be Fatherless is to lack a proper source of Financial Support, and Not a Man who is your Daddy. They have therefore logically deduced that while children may Not Have Three Parents (why, they dont really say), the same children May Have Two Dykes and No Daddy, even if (as in one case) they are Siblings who were intended at conception to be biologically related to each other through the Non-Father/ donor:
"We rejected the suggestion of amicus curiae that both the wife and the surrogate could be the childs mother, stating that a child can have only one mother, but what we considered and rejected in Johnson was the argument that a child could have three parents: a father and two mothers. We did not address the question presented in this case of whether a child could have two parents, both of whom are women." Elisa B. case.
Mind you now - this is Not about Adoption, but rather courts redefining ˜Natural" Parenting (we recognized in In re Nicholas H., supra, 28 Cal.4th 56, that natural as used in the UPA does not always mean biological).
Future posts will discuss in greater detail the language of the decision, and the blatant Rejection of Definitive DNA Science (a legacy of the Adoption of Michael H. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1043 case) in favor of validating the desire of Dykes to Legally Exterminate Men as Fathers - relegating them to the role of un-gendered insemination sources without any parental rights to their children.
In essence The Sperm Donor is Not a Father (and has No Legal Liability) if he does not touch the woman with his penis, and instead uses a Deadbeat Dad Factory / Sperm Bank as intermediary in his desire to produce as many children as possible without any responsibility for them:
As the supreme Turkey Baster Court said: "the California Legislature has afforded unmarried as well as married women a statutory vehicle for obtaining semen for artificial insemination without fear that the donor may claim paternity, and has likewise provided men with a statutory vehicle for donating semen to married and unmarried women alike without fear of liability for child support." (Jhordan C. v. Mary K. (1986)
BUT - and as they say in fashion circles, this is a big but, if the Man Engages in Normal Heterosexual Relations (what they call in Law School Rape because they teach that women are mentally incapable of consenting to Heterosex), even if he Did Not Want Children and was deliberately Lied to by the mother - Well, Use a Penis, Go to Jail is just the new truth de jour in Dyke-topia.
Or as the state supreme court said: "Usually, whether there is evidence of a parent and child relationship under the UPA does not depend upon the intent of the parent. For example, a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman who assures him, falsely, that she is incapable of conceiving children is the father of a resulting child, despite his lack of intent to become a father." K.M. v. E. G. 2005.
There you have it in a nutshell INTENT to Procreate Doesnt Matter - For a Man. 'Donate' as many children as you Want to create, just so long as you dont actually touch the womyn.
Touch her, and it doesnt matter what you intended or what she told you was true - liability is unlimited, and the choice whether to make a Man a Father of a Child, or abort a fetus, is hers alone.
By contrast to the treatment of Intentional Deadbeat Donors, consider how the supreme court treats womyn in analogous situation: "A woman who supplies ova to be used to impregnate her lesbian partner, with the understanding that the resulting child will be raised in their joint home, cannot waive her responsibility to support that child. Nor can such a purported waiver effectively cause that woman to relinquish her parental rights." K.M. V. E. G. 2005.
The majoritys rule validates such agreements when its conditions are satisfied -conditions that include the fact the parties to the agreement Must Be Dykes. Or, as a dissent by one justice read:
"Although the majority denies that its rule depends on sexual orientation the opinion speaks for itself; The majority has chosen to use the term lesbian no less than six times in articulating its holding. Moreover, the majority prevents future courts from applying its holding automatically to persons other than lesbians. I see no rational basis, and the majority articulates none for permitting the enforceability of an ovum donation agreement to depend on the sexual orientation of the parties. Indeed, lacking a rational basis, the rule may well violate equal protection."
Violate Equal Protection! Gosh, how did they ever come up with that one?
After all, California would have to change its Official State Policy of Punishing and Censoring discussion of the topic of Discrimination against the Despised and Disposable Male Minority, just for the rest of us (Males) to be allowed to talk about equal protection...
And I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for such a sea change either.
Best keep quiet about it though wouldnt want to spread any "Ism- Obia"now would we? What with everything else going around and all...
Ohso. "Not merely the validity of experience but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy the heresy of heresies was common sense." George Orwell - 1984 On the Thought Police.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
IVA:
The latest thing being outsourced to India is child-bearing. More and more healthy, career-oriented foreign women are renting wombs from poor Indian women to bear children for them so they do not have to put their jobs on hold to have a baby.
In one district alone, more than 50 economically deprived women are carrying children for foreigners and non-resident Indians, each for a $5,000 payoff.
(Outsourcing Wombs in India)
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Yes, it's OK to homeschool in California A statewide and nationwide message for parents from Campaign for Children and Families President Randy Thomasson
When three Los Angeles judges ordered a family to stop homeschooling on Feb. 28, there was great cause for alarm. The next day, in the WorldNetDaily article breaking the news, I blasted the judges for "actively separating children from their parents."
The ruling is so alarming because the state appeals court judges actually wrote that "parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." The judges said that parents without teaching credentials cannot teach.
This ruling is a radical slam against homeschooling. Making it more crazy, the judge who authored the ruling says he's a Presbyterian elder! Learn more > March 7 Focus on the Family broadcast describing the situation > March 7 advisory statement from Private & Home Educators of California > March 6 update from Home School Legal Defense Association > The Feb. 28, 2008 ruling (18-page PDF)
Despite this intolerant, anti-parent ruling, California homeschoolers must not panic. Homeschooling is still legal in California. Some mainstream media outlets are reporting the story in a way to scare -- not help -- homeschool parents and parents who are exploring homeschooling. Therefore, Campaign for Children and Families is urging the following:
California homeschooling families should continue homeschooling, and parents who are considering homeschooling as a way to exit the immoral government school system should continue with their plans to achieve educational freedom. Here's why:
California state law allows parents without a credential or license to homeschool their own children. This law has not changed and is not likely to change. The only thing that has changed is that some bureaucrats may now use this court ruling to selectively persecute homeschool parents.
How should homeschoolers adjust at this stage of the battle? To prevent new harassment resulting from this terrible ruling, we recommend that each homeschool family purchase guaranteed legal representation from HSLDA for only $115 per year. HSLDA will use the U.S. Supreme Court rulings and California statutes to fight to protect your right to homeschool. Click here to join HSLDA
Here are the facts:
1. Only one family was ordered to stop homeschooling: The Feb. 28 order is limited to one family in Los Angeles which has a 20-year history of litigation in the juvenile courts over the care of their children. This ruling is not likely to be applied to other homeschooling families on a massive scale unless the California Supreme Court upholds it on appeal.
2. California state law permitting homeschooling has not changed: For example, Education Code, Section 48222 states, "Children who are being instructed in a private full-time day school by persons capable of teaching shall be exempted" from the requirement to enroll in government schools. There is no requirement that parents must have a teaching credential in order to teach their children.
Private & Home Educators of California and Family Protection Ministries states the following in their excellent legal fact sheet:
Home educators may establish a private school, based in their home, and must file a private school affidavit with the Superintendent of Public Instruction of California, normally between October 1st and 15th every school year (see Filing A Private School Affidavit at www.pheofca.org.) Children enrolled in a private school are exempt from attendance in a public school. Under this provision [E.C. 48222 and 33190], the following requirements apply to all private schools:
a. The instructors must be capable of teaching. b. The instruction must be in English (see the reverse side of this paper for non-English speaking families). c. The instruction must be in the several branches of study required in public schools. d. Certain pupil and school records must be on file. e. Health Department forms (PM 171A and PM 286B) must be on file. [H.S.C. 124085 and 120375]
Source: Homeschooling in California: Legal Fact Sheet
3. This bad ruling is a new tool for Child Protective Services to harm good parents: Some anti-family bureaucrats may try to use the appeals court ruling against homeschool parents they don’t like. Therefore, every California homeschool family needs to join the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). This is "homeschool insurance" which, for only $115 per year, purchases legal representation (including all attorney fees, expert witness fees, court transcript cost, travel expenses, and all other permissible court costs) for a homeschooling family should they ever be harassed by a government official. HSLDA has an excellent track record of winning for homeschooling families. Learn more and sign up today
4. HSLDA is working to make this bad ruling non-binding: There is a process to ask the California Supreme Court to "depublish" a lower court ruling. Such an order would mean this awful ruling is limited to only the facts in the case, is not binding precedent, and that the family of Phillip and Mary Long would be the only family affected. In addition to this depublishing effort, the case is expected to be appealed to the California Supreme Court. > Read what HSLDA is doing > Add your name to the court record asking that this bad ruling be depublished
So, bottom line, keep homeschooling! The outrage over this terrible court ruling is growing. Along with CCF and others, Arnold Schwarzenegger has issued a news release condemning it. > March 7 Schwarzenegger release > March 7 Campaign for Children and Families release
Parents who are concerned about immorality in the government schools should continue with their plans to do homeschooling or to enroll in church school. Here's how: > Visit www.RescueYourChild.org > How to withdraw your child from public school
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
ENDA the House Debate (FRC)
Last night, after over five hours of debate, the House finally held a much-anticipated vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), comfortably passing it 235-184. While the Democractic leadership was quick to claim it as an historic victory, its key constituency on the issue appeared almost disappointed by the outcome.
Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, made no bones about his frustration, saying, "What should have been one of the most triumphant days in our movement's history is not."
Like others in the homosexual movement, he realizes that the bill's isn't likely to survive a presidential veto--and even if it were, Foreman and others are still seething that the current version no longer contains special protections for transgenders.
Throughout the night, several conservatives, including Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.)--an FRC True Bluer--tried desperately to hold the line on the bill. Rep. Souder, who was one of the most outspoken opponents, argued that religious rights shouldn't "be trumped by sexual 'rights'." He went on to call the bill a "disaster" that "invited litigation and set precedents we will regret."
In the end, 25 Democrats were persuaded to vote against the bill, but 35 Republicans more than made up for it by joining the leftwing majority. The bill now heads to the Senate, where Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) promises to introduce it before year's end.
Additional Resources
The Majority's ENDA Problem: Freedom of Religion, Meet Free Flow of Litigation
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Liberty Counsel Files Brief At California Supreme Court in Landmark Marriage Cases
San Francisco, CA – Yesterday, Liberty Counsel filed a brief at the California Supreme Court in a nationally significant case that will ultimately either protect or destroy the definition of marriage, which has always been the union between one man and one woman. Liberty Counsel’s brief argues that the fundamental constitutional right to marry includes rights and obligations that cannot be eliminated because they come from the inherent nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, rather than from a state-sanctioned union of any two people who love each other.
Fifteen amicus briefs have been submitted in support of Liberty Counsel’s position in Thomasson v. Newsom. Liberty Counsel represents Campaign for California Families. One amicus brief filed in support of Liberty Counsel’s arguments was submitted by the African American Pastors of California, which states: “The analogy to racial discrimination is not only false, it is destructive.â€
Speaking on behalf of those who have experienced real discrimination, the African American Pastors’ brief states that “Marriage is not a ‘socially constructed’ relationship rooted only in the law or in the social or religious conventions of the society in which it is recognized. Nor is it simply a ‘committed relationship’ with a person of one’s choice. The union of a man and a woman in marriage is, and always has been, the fundamental building block upon which families, communities and entire societies are built.â€
On the other hand, an amicus brief asking the California Supreme Court to strike down the marriage law declared that “a high court’s message can have a proselytizing and sobering effect, converting an impetuous popular mind into one more receptive to reason.†This brief urges the Court to become an activist engine for social change by undermining the will of the people. Liberty Counsel’s brief responded to a total of forty-five amicus briefs, including the one just quoted.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “Virtually every court that has considered challenges to traditional marriage has correctly concluded that the matter of marriage should be decided by the people, not by the courts. Courts are not proselytizing engines of radical social change. Marriage between one man and one woman is an historically shared value that transcends time. Untying the knot that holds together traditional marriage will unravel the family, destabilize the culture, and hurt children.â€
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
** The most important language contained in the proposed initiative is: "A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
VOTEYESMARRIAGE.COM CAMPAIGN UPDATE
Aiming for California's November 2008 ballot VoteYesMarriage.com constitutional marriage amendment is the ONLY way to save marriage in California. Do your part today to save America from California...because time is running out!
IN THIS TIMELY UPDATE:
• Where we stand
• The 14 deficient words of Proposition 22
• You can't protect marriage by just protecting the word "marriage"
• Comparing a strong marriage amendment to a very weak one
• Your response
"Individuals in loving same-sex relationships have waited years, sometimes several decades, for a chance to wed, yearning to obtain the public validation that only marriage can give."
-- California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard
"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage are adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal."
-- San Francisco Judge Richard Kramer
"We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women."
-- California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the court majority
"The person or persons who will save marriage in California are financially blessed, very concerned that everything about marriage be protected for a man and a woman, and eager to generously donate to save this sacred institution for future generations."
-- The VoteYesMarriage.com Campaign
Dear Friend of Marriage:
There is rising anticipation that the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the "marriage cases" this January when the court convenes at its home base of San Francisco.
If so, the high court's decision to license same-sex "marriages" and impose them on every community statewide could come as soon as April 2008. We're making this prediction because a majority of the seven justices already support the notion of "gay and lesbian marriages," and have shown no reluctance to redefine the natural family. (See the above quotes from Justices Kennard and Moreno.)
Obviously, Californians must override the judges…and the politicians. For the sake of future generations, we must protect everything about marriage -- marriage licenses, marriage rights, and all legal aspects of marriage -- for one man and one woman in the California State Constitution. But only one California Marriage Amendment will accomplish this: the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment.
Where we stand
Here is where the VoteYesMarriage.com campaign stands right now:
• With the California Supreme Court expected to destroy the civil definition of marriage in the first half of 2008, the VoteYesMarriage.com campaign is persevering and is now aiming for the November 2008 ballot to override the judges and politicians all at once.
How it works: Filing an initiative means that 50 days later a title and summary is issued. Under state law, you now have 150 days to collect over a million or more signatures. The earlier in the year that paid signatures can be collected, the higher up on the ballot a proposition is listed. It's a race with a deadline; therefore it's prudent to raise your funds ahead of time. Initiative campaigns need to meet or exceed their signature goal to succeed. Most initiatives fall short due to not enough funds for professional signature gathering.
• On October 1, the VoteYesMarriage.com campaign filed our rock-solid language with the California Attorney General.
• On November 1, VoteYesMarriage.com refiled our VoteYesMarriage.com amendment with the Attorney General.
• In September, a poll of 800 California "likely voters" found that, if same-sex "marriages" are licensed in California, more voters would support the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment than oppose it. This is very encouraging, because support for natural marriage will only rise when the California Supreme Court destroys marriage in the first half of 2008. Shocked voters will ask "how did this happen?" and "what can be done?" With the voters awakened and energized, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment can pass with majority support.
It's wonderful that VoteYesMarriage.com has a fighting chance to finally protect ALL of marriage for one man and one woman. Our opportunity to authentically protect marriage for future generations has arrived. Our chance will come, of course, when the California Supreme Court drops its "bomb" in early 2008, and the voters respond. Thankfully, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment, the only California marriage amendment that will truly protect marriage, can pass. And it must pass...for the sake of future generations.
The 14 deficient words of Proposition 22How can we fully and permanently protect marriage in California? It's a question on the minds of many pro-family citizens.
We already know that we must override the judges and the politicians by writing, qualifying, and passing a state constitutional marriage amendment. But that's only part of the answer. The legal effect of an initiative -- HOW it's written, and WHAT IT WILL DO once the court challenges have concluded -- is what ultimately matters.
The lessons of the last several years provide the answer of how to write what will be the first, and likely the last, California constitutional marriage amendment.
You must remember history.
You must debate facts.
You must test claims of truth.
Then it will be easy to understand what kind of amendment will truly protect marriage for one man and one woman.
We already know some key facts:
1. In 2000, Californians voted to protect marriage for a man and a woman. Proposition 22, a statutory initiative but not a constitutional amendment, read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
2. From 2001 through 2004, the Democrat-controlled California Legislature systematically awarded all the rights of marriage to homosexual partners, creating "same-sex marriage by another name." This is why today in California homosexual couples have ALL the rights of marriage, and have left marriage between a man and a woman a mere word with no exclusive legal value.
3. In 2005, the California courts ruled that the 14-word text of Proposition 22 only protected the word "marriage" but NOT the rights of marriage. The court said the too-brief text of Prop. 22 did not specifically protect marriage rights, which therefore allowed the State Legislature to pass AB 205, which created Section 297.5 of the Family Code, which awarded virtually all the rights of marriage to homosexual partners:
"Because the plain, unambiguous language of Proposition 22 is concerned only with who is entitled to obtain the status of marriage, and not with the rights and obligations associated with marriage, section 297.5 (which does not grant the legal status of marriage to registered domestic partners) does not add to, or take away from, Proposition 22."
-- Knight v. Superior Court, 128 Cal. App.4th 14, 26 (2005)
That same year, a California judge rationalized that same-sex "marriages" must be legalized, because the Legislature and the Governor had already awarded all the rights and benefits of marriage to homosexuals:
"Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before…The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal."
-- San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer (2005)
4. Therefore, because it explicitly states in its text that the rights, incidents, and benefits of marriage are only for a married husband and wife, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment is the ONLY way to fully and permanently protect marriage for one man and one woman in California . Unlike other proposals, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment securely protects marriage from all attacks -- past, present, and future.
Backed by pro-family constitutional attorneys, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment has the clear, legal language that will satisfy the courts that the people have voted to protect marriage rights for one man and one woman, once and for all. It's full and permanent marriage protection.
You can't protect marriage by just protecting the word "marriage"
Unfortunately, some well-intentioned folks mistakenly believe that placing the 14 deficient words of Proposition 22 into the California Constitution will somehow protect marriage. But that's denying the facts about the past, present, and future.
• Fact about the past: Proposition 22 placed these 14 words into the California Family Code: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Yet this too-short sentence left marriage an empty shell. As the courts have pointed out, Prop. 22 didn't protect marriage rights, marriage benefits, or the moral consciences of businesses, nonprofits and churches. After Proposition 22 passed in 2000, the California Legislature systematically passed a raft of bills that created pseudo-marriages by awarding every marriage right to homosexual couples. The Legislature has forced state contractors and insurance carriers to subsidize homosexual "marriage" benefits. Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court has forced businesses that are open to the public to undermine marriage. Those 14 words of Prop. 22 DID NOT and WILL NOT protect marriage in California, even if they're in the State Constitution.
• Fact about the present: We need no other example for the need to protect everything about marriage -- marriage licenses, marriage rights, and all legal aspects of marriage -- than this year's SB 11. This marriage-destroying bill by San Francisco state senator Carol Migden proposed to award all the rights and benefits of marriage to a man and a woman who are shacking up yet still refuse to get married. Giving everything that belongs to marriage to unmarried individuals would make marriage unpopular and antiquated in the eyes of future generations. SB 11 would functionally abolish marriage. This bill passed the California State Senate this year before stalling in late August, but it will certainly return, as soon as next year. Do you see why we must protect marriage rights and marriage benefits in order to fully and permanently protect marriage?
• Fact about the future: Not only would placing the 14 words of Prop. 22 into the Constitution continue to leave marriage an empty shell devoid of any exclusive legal value, protecting only the word "marriage" will allow the government to someday create a gender-neutral definition of male and female, create polygamous marriages, or completely abolish marriage as a civil institution. Consider that if the government can redefine "parent" and "marriage," there's no stopping them without the clear, specific words of the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment in the California Constitution -- plain, straight-forward language that will protect EVERYTHING about marriage and permit ZERO wiggle-room for judges. This is why spending time and money to protect only the word "marriage," or placing the 14 deficient words of Prop. 22 into the California Constitution, is a complete waste of resources.
Comparing a strong marriage amendment to a very weak one
In the last few years, there have been two dominant ideas about how to protect marriage in California. One proposal is to protect only the word "marriage" by placing the 14 words of Proposition 22 into the California State Constitution. Those words, which sound good but don't do much, are "Only marriage between a man and woman are valid or recognized in California." Yet this phrase will not protect marriage because it's full of holes as has already been shown.
In contrast, the rock-solid VoteYesMarriage.com amendment would protect EVERYTHING about marriage -- marriage licenses, marriage rights, and all legal aspects of marriage -- for only one man and one woman. VoteYesMarriage.com protects marriage past, present, and future.
Here are the clear, precise, and important words that VoteYesMarriage.com would place into the California State Constitution:
Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome.
Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government, or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or decrease statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or require private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or bestow statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable.
A brief comparison of two ideas to protect marriage in California
Protect only the word "marriage"
Yes
No*
Yes
No
from being forced to undermine marriage
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
* Even if the word "marriage" were placed into the California State Constitution, that would not prohibit the California Legislature from statutorily redefining "man" and "woman" as anything-goes "gender." It wouldn't stop politicians from allowing polygamous marriages because "a man" and "a woman" do not define a clear one man/one woman numerical cap. And it certainly wouldn't prevent the California Legislature from eventually abolishing marriage as a civil institution, as is being proposed in New York State. Consider California's gender-bending definition already in the state's Penal, Civil, Government, and Education codes: "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth. Is this the future definition of bride and groom?
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Here Goes 'Mutton': Dolly Creator Rejects Cloning (FRC)
This past weekend, the movement to ban cloning got some help from an unlikely source--the scientist most famous for attempting it. Professor Ian Wilmut, the creator of Dolly the sheep, publicly announced his decision to abandon "therapeutic cloning" and turn his attention to pro-life alternatives such as those being perfected in Japan with adult stem cells.
He believes the "socially acceptable" approach "represents the future for stem cell research," rather than the nuclear transfer method he and his team used 10 years ago in creating Dolly. Although Wilmut was given the go-ahead to pursue human cloning in 2005, the professor has since declined.
His decision, on the heels of last week's news that scientists had successfully cloned primates, should put a serious damper on any enthusiasm for projects that require the creation and destruction of cloned embryos.
For all of the hype surrounding the monkey breakthrough, a couple of key details were lost on the media. For starters, the team leader of the Oregon primate program, Dr. Shoukhrat Mitalipov, admitted that the "efficiency is low" for the research and it is "not yet a cost effective medical option."
Also, some reports estimated that it took over 15,000 monkey eggs to yield just two lines of embryonic stem cells, only one of which is normal. Meanwhile, as scientists waste precious time and resources on a procedure that the majority of the world considers morally unacceptable, pro-life alternatives are effectively treating everything from juvenile diabetes to spinal cord injuries--without the ethical headache.
We can only hope that Wilmut's conversion will pull the wool from the eyes of the public, which should result in Congress turning away from spending more taxpayer money on embryonic stem cell research that is both unethical and ineffective.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Gut and Amend the Bait
In Weimar Kalifornia the tactic discussed below is known as "Gut and Amend" - and is frequently used for 'Pander or Perish' Bills put through at the last minute by the Democrap Power Machine in a legislature truly not fit to pass gas...
Where it is not only perfectly legal - but quite the rage amongst all the Hate Baiting Lavender Mafiosa and their Coprophile Allies.
Ohso
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bait and Switch Doesn't Fool Court (FRC)
In a ruling that reads more like a reprimand of the Pennsylvania legislature, the Commonwealth Court has struck down a five-year-old expansion of the state's "hate crimes" laws by a 4-1 vote.
The suit was brought by Repent America, whose members were arrested in 2004 after they showed up in opposition to a Philadelphia street festival for homosexuals.
Fearing that they would be arrested again for future protests, they argued that the law was unconstitutional--not only because it creates special protections for people based on their sexual orientation, but also because of the political stunt pulled by the legislature to enact it.
Initially, the bill was meant to punish agricultural vandalism, but liberals gutted the proposal at the last minute to include controversial protections for homosexuals.
As such, the court ruled that it violated Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which says that a bill cannot be rewritten in the course of its passage.
"No bill shall be altered or amended... as to change its original purpose." Although state laws typically "enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality," as Judge James Colins wrote, the legislature attempted to impose the policy on voters without their knowledge or input. We applaud the court for using the state's Constitution, not the prevailing political winds, as its guide in overturning this outrageous abuse of power.
Edited 11/19/2007 11:16 pm ET by Ohso1
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
In Convenient Truthiness
For those very few not already aware of it, if only by living in a cave with no contact to the Old Media, the supreme 'sacrament' of the Radical Gender Feminist lobby is the right to choose - to kill children who become inconvenient. ]
This 'right' was first clearly established in a Turkey Baster Court Case that is now a Radical Feminist Icon - except of course that no one is permitted to discuss the real facts of the case because it would be Ungood to say that "Roe v. Wade" is a fraud based on a bogus scam of false rape claims.
While it is known in the Old Media as "Roe v. Wade" - the Plaintiff was (and still is - seeing as she is still alive) a woman named Norma McCorvey, who gave birth to a Live Daughter who knows what it is to be hated, as her death had been desired by more 'Womyn's' advocates than any other - at least up until Reagan and Bush of course...
Anywayyy... In order to garner sympathy for her decisions - first to become deliberately pregnant as a means of manipulating her boyfriend to marry her; and later to kill the child when plan A failed... Norma McCorvey Fabricated an entirely False Claim of Gang Rape - which was used by her Radical Gender Feminist Handlers like a sledge hammer through out the process.
However - as a fate unkind to radical feminist propagandists would have it - Both Women are alive and Both Women are Opponents of Abortion... Which is partly why its partisans try to distance and disavow Norma - and also still stick pins in replicas of Her Daughter.
NOT that anyone is allowed talk about such things in school mind you, as 'tolerance' must trump 'truthiness' or Ungood will be loosed in the world...
And just we cant have that now can we???
Ohso
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Heisman Winner Makes Forward Progress on Life (FRC)
According to his mom, football sensation Tim Tebow came very close to missing his run at the Heisman Trophy. Pam Tebow says it wasn't because of his performance, but because her doctors had advised the couple to abort him.
Back in the '80s, when she and her husband Bob were in the mission field, Pam was diagnosed with a medical condition that could only be treated with drugs that risked harming her unborn child. To avoid "irreparable damage" to her baby, doctors suggested that she abort the future Heisman winner.
She refused. Today, Pam, Bob, and the entire University of Florida football team are glad she didn't. Despite the doctor's prediction, Tim was born completely healthy--and remains so. In his acceptance speech for the Heisman, Tim said, "I just (want) to first start off by thanking my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave me the ability to play football, gave me a great family and support group..."
Sadly, not every unborn child is as fortunate as Tim.
For every baby like him, whose parents embrace the gift of life, there are countless others whose lives are ended before they begin, all in the name of "choice."
Of the 49 million who never lived to realize their potential, imagine the number of future leaders, inventors, doctors--and, yes, even Heisman trophy winners--among them. We are grateful to the Tebow family for sharing their testimony and pray that it helps persuade other women of the inherent value of their unborn children and the great promise that lies within.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Florida Marriage Protection Amendment Certified for 2008 Ballot www.LC.org
In November, Florida voters will have the opportunity to vote on an amendment to guarantee that marriage in that state remains the union of one man and one woman.
The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment has now received more than the required 611,009 certified signatures needed to be placed on the November 2008 ballot. The number of signatures is more than any gathered thus far for marriage amendments in other states.
The marriage amendment states: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." The language of the amendment was drafted by Mat and Anita Staver and is designed to protect marriage as one man and one woman.
In January 2006, Mat Staver presented oral argument in defense of the language, and on March 23, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court in a 7-0 opinion rejected the ACLU’s challenge to the marriage amendment.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
GOP Holds Leadership in Contempt (FRC)
So much for peace and goodwill toward the President's men. As promised, the Senate Judiciary Committee today approved resolutions that hold Karl Rove and Josh Bolton in contempt of Congress for ignoring the committee's subpoenas on the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year. However, what's truly "criminal" is that Chairman Pat Leahy (R-Vt.) insists on putting this investigative witch hunt ahead of pressing committee business, such as filling judicial vacancies.
While he and his liberal friends dawdle on a case that has run its congressional course, America's courts are still in a state of judicial emergency.
]]
More than 45 nominees still await their hearings, which is yet another failure of this leadership to deliver on its promises.
As White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said yesterday, "Democrats have ensured that they will be remembered for pointless investigations instead of much-needed legislation."...
Although Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and company insist that they are most concerned with the well-being of children, it's obvious that playing partisan politics is their real priority.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality - Offending pamphlets quoted ad: 'Man seeking boys ... age not so relevant' 12/15/07 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217
A lifetime ban on public criticism of homosexuality was upheld against a Catholic activist in Canada by his province's superior court.
Bill Whatcott was fined 17,500 Canadian dollars by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission in a complaint by four homosexuals
who charged he "injured" their "feelings" and "self respect" in pamphlets denouncing the "gay lifestyle" as immoral and dangerous, Lifesite News reported.
Saskatchewan's Court of Queens Bench, which hears criminal and civil
cases, upheld a 2006 decision Tuesday by the provincial Human Rights
Commission.
"This fine is for telling the truth [that] homosexual sodomites can
change their behavior and be set free from their sin and depravity
through the forgiveness of sins and shed blood of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ," Whatcott said. A licensed practical nurse, Whatcott regularly campaigns against the political movement that is rapidly advancing homosexual rights in the Canadian legal system, LifeSiteNews said.
"Shame on the Saskatchewan Court of Queens Bench for pandering to homosexual activism and ignoring the truth," he said.
The provincial Human Rights Commission noted Whatcott was "ordered to
discontinue distributing any materials that promote hatred against
people because of their sexual orientation."
The tribunal held that "preventing the distribution of such materials was a reasonable limit on Whatcott's right to freedom of religion and expression as guaranteed by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
Whatcott says his pamphlets used "verbatim" a text from a classified personal advertisement in a local homosexual publication that said, "Man seeking boys … age not so relevant."
LifeSiteNews noted Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren criticized the tribunals as "kangaroo courts" and "star chambers" with "quasi- legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country ... in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn."
A petition to Prime Minister Stephen Harper is being circulated calling for abolishment, or at least curtailment, of the powers of the commissions.
Last month, a Canadian political party leader's posting of a WND
article on homosexuality brought him before the country's Human
Rights Commission to face accusations he was motivated by "hate and
defamation."
Ron Gray of the Christian Heritage Party said he was told directly by
an employee of the Human Rights Commission that the Canadian Human
Rights Act, under which he is being accused, is "about censorship."
Two of the three complaints filed by Edmonton man Rob Wells relate to
the posting of an April 2002 WND story titled "Report: Pedophilia
more common among 'gays.'"
The third complaint against Gray is for several commentaries he wrote
and distributed to party members. One, titled "Sitcom prophet,"
compared the current climate of debate about homosexuality in Canada
to the "Cone of Silence" in the 1960s-era television comedy "Get
Smart."
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
NORTHERN EXPOSURE
Bible standards attacked in 'bastardized courts'
Homosexual advocates claim hurt feelings, demand penalties
By Bob Unruh © 12/25 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Biblical standards are under attack by the "bastardized courts" of Canada, where activists who claim they have "hurt feelings" are demanding – and getting – penalties imposed against those who oppose the homosexual lifestyle, according to a family organization.
The description of the courts, also known as the provincial and national Human Rights Commissions, comes from the Canada Family Action Coalition, which has addressed the problem in an alert to its constituents, and warns the United States is not that far from having similar assaults on traditional family values.
"It has become apparent in the past month how badly the acts are written and how they are being misused to violate the rights of Canadians," the organization said.
"We today have a major national magazine, a federal political party leader and a registered political party, a major Catholic newspaper (Catholic Insight) and an internationally renowned journalist all of whom are being investigated by appointed 'hate speech therapists' from the commissions," the group said.
The journalist is Mark Steyn, according to CFAC spokesman Brian Rushfeldt, and the newest case involves Canada's national Catholic magazine of news, opinion and analysis.
The publication has been told it is being targeted by a complaint from Edmonton resident Rob Wells, who alleges the publication has offended homosexuals.
(Story continues below)
The magazine's editor, Father Alphonse de Valk, dismissed the complaint as unfounded, and said his publication follows the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.
In a typically democratic form of government, basic rights such as freedom of speech, opinion and the press would answer for such concerns, but in Canada, under the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commissions, the result is anyone's guess, Rushfeldt told WND.
The first problem is that the laws setting up the commissions note that if something "indicates discrimination" and "is likely to expose to hatred or contempt" there is a basis for action. But that leaves the determination on what "indicates discrimination" or "is likely to expose to hatred" up to the officials appointed to the commission panels, he said.
The laws also often are interpreted by those who have no training in the law, and the commissions are not bound by the rules of law when they make their decisions, he added.
Catholic Insight reported that Wells' attack on the publication is not his first. In 2006 he tried to close down several websites including concernedchristians.ca because of their Christian content, and he targeted Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage party because the political entity posted articles "motivated by hate" of homosexuals.
Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, the Knights of Columbus in Vancouver, Maclean's magazine and its editor and Steyn also have been targeted, mostly for their writings regarding homosexuality, or the influence of Islam.
Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, told the magazine he never imagined human rights commissions would ultimately be used against freedom of speech, because they were launched in an effort to eliminate discrimination in pay and housing.
But after "sexual orientation" was added as a protected class, the tribunals have been exploited in pursuit of a ban on anything or anyone with less than a full endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle choice.
"The majority of the complaints have been related to homosexuals claiming that they've been offended, that hate is being propagated against them. The majority being targeted are religious sectors of society," Rushfeldt said.
He cited Alberta's provincial requirement as an example. That law requires that, "No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or (b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt bcause of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons."
"You see if my feelings are hurt and I feel discriminated against due to my 'religious orientation' then surely I must have a right and entitlement to have an appointed group of people in the Human Rights Commission at taxpayers' expense, intervene and force the activist to pay me compensation for my feelings. This is really not bullying is it? Or is it more like extortion?" said a commentary by the Family Action organization.
"How can I prove my feeling are hurt? I don't need to prove it. I just say it is so and it is so. Do I need to provide truth? No, not under the functions of the Human Rights Act. … Section 3(1) states that if something 'indicates discrimination' and 'is likely to expose to hatred or contempt' is a basis for action."
Worse yet, the commentary noted, the tribunals may make their own rules and regulations, based on the statutory provision that "the panel is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence in judicial proceedings."
Further, the law says, "No member of the Commission, nor the director of the Commission or any other employee mentioned in section 18, shall be required by any court to give evidence relative to information obtained for the purposes of this Act."
And, "No proceeding under this Act shall be deemed invalid by reason of any defect in form or any technical irregularity."
"The panel (in essence one person perhaps, who is not trained as a judge) can violate the laws respecting evidence and make their own laws in violation of our Charter. That is frightening at any time," the group said.
How could it all apply to the United States? Simple, said Rushfeldt. The "hate crimes" plan that was proposed in Congress could serve as that "one crack" in the wall that would allow such procedures in.
CFAC, which seeks a restoration of Judeo-Christian moral principles in Canada, said the plan advocates tried to "sneak in" by attaching it to a defense appropriations bill recently "was on the verge of some of this kind of stuff."
Rushfeldt said the plan aligned with what now is going on in Canada, even to the point of making people liable for actions by second parties. In Alberta, a man recently was convicted by a Human Rights Commission after writing a letter to the editor opposing homosexuality.
The HRC decision legally linked that writing to an alleged assault on a homosexual two weeks later, even though the attacker never has been arrested or charged.
The Family Research Council has noted the fine print of the U.S. plan would allow the same thing:
"Those who can be found culpable have also been expanded to include not only those who commit the crime but those who may have unknowingly 'inspired' those actions. For example, a pastor can be considered legally culpable if he preaches against the homosexual agenda and a member of his congregation subsequently commits a crime against a homosexual. Thus, the act against the homosexual is considered a crime, as it should be, but so also is the thought against the agenda or conduct," the organization said.
That particular plan has been cited among the top seven acts of Christian-bashing for the year 2007.
Said the Christian Anti-Defamation Coalition, "The 2007 Federal Hate Crimes Bill which threatens religious liberties and lays the groundwork for 'thought crime,' which has no place in American law and violates the concept of equal protection under the law. As has occurred in other nations, these laws pave the way for Christians to be silenced and even arrested because they believe that homosexual acts are sinful."
President Bush
The actual U.S. plan was an amendment to the spending bill, but was stripped out and that delayed at least for now the application of such punishments, before the bill was sent to President Bush.
Michael Marcavage, of Repent America, says his organization has members who were jailed for proclaiming their Christian beliefs on public streets in Philadelphia, because of state regulations similar to the federal proposal.
"It's extraordinarily important that it has been removed from the defense reauthorization bill," he told WND. "But we know that the homosexual lobby is extraordinarily aggressive when it comes to obtaining special protections. That's exactly what this is."
"We must be very vigilant as to what their next move is going to be. They're not going to go away," he said.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
LAW OF THE LAND
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59384
27 December 2007
Prison benefits offered same-sex couples, not marrieds
New law to discriminate against wedded inmates
Prisons in Oregon are preparing to offer inmates who claim a same-sex partnership special privileges specifically denied married inmates, a memo from state officials has confirmed.
The e-mailed memo from Max Williams, director of the Oregon
Department of Corrections, was sent to workers in his department.
The memo referenced two state laws, Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 2007, through which lawmakers created legally recognized partnerships for same-sex duos.
"After the New Year, the Department of Corrections will be
implementing two new laws that were passed by the Legislative Assembly and signed by the governor into law during last year's regular legislative session," the note began. "The new anti- discrimination and family fairness laws, Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 2007, establish and extend new legal protections and benefits to
affected persons."
The memo said lawyers have been in consultation over the changes, and
as a result, "the Department is reviewing and will be amending its
rules as the Department determines is necessary and advisable in
order to comply with the requirements of the new laws."
Specifically, the e-mail said, the department will change its rules so that, "inmates that have entered into a RDP [registered domestic
partnership] will be allowed to live in the same facility and unit,
subject to the needs of orderly operation, safety and security of the
facility."
That just doesn't make sense, or meet the goals of any "fairness" concept, according to one Department of Corrections worker who raised concerns about it.
"The problem I have with this is that the department will not allow heterosexual inmates who are married to live together in the same institution or on the same housing unit," said the employee, whose name was being withheld from publication.
"The new policy gives homosexual RDP inmates the special privilege of living together but denies it for heterosexual married inmates, just
the opposite of what the policy is trying to achieve, and
discriminates against heterosexuals based on their sexual
orientation," the employee continued.
"In Oregon, if you're a homosexual inmate, only then will you be allowed to live with your partner.
"Not only is this a discriminatory policy but it will be an
enforcement nightmare for correctional staff. If the RDP inmates are
allowed to live on the same housing unit, are we going to allow them
to shower together or … let them sleep next to each other? And if we
don't allow them to do those things will we be sued for
discrimination because of their sexual orientation? The whole thing
is just nuts!" the employee said.
The state memo does note that such inmates will not be allowed "to
cell together," but does not define the term.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections initially told WND
that married heterosexual couples wouldn't be offered the option
because the prisons are not coed. But she called back later to say
after consulting with attorneys for the state, the department's
response was that officials were working to implement the state's
laws.
The memo does include instructions that Senate Bill 2 "recognizes and
declares that the opportunity to obtain employment or housing or to
use and enjoy places of public accommodation without discrimination
because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national
origin, marital status, age or disability is a civil right under
Oregon law."
The other legislative plan, House Bill 2007, "grants legal
recognition in Oregon to same-sex domestic partnerships," the memo
continues.
"Establishing a registered domestic partnership (RDP) affords same-
sex couples all the rights and responsibilities that are granted
under state law through a marriage contract," the memo said. "HB 2007
also provides that any privilege, immunity, right, benefit or
responsibility granted or imposed by statute, administrative or court
rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because
the individual is or was married … is granted on equivalent terms,
substantive and procedure, to an individual because the individual is
or was in a domestic partnership."
"Because the Department grants certain privileges and benefits to
inmates on the basis of marriage (e.g., the opportunity to
participate in a ceremony to solemnize a marriage, the opportunity to
possess and wear a plain wedding band), the Department will be
extending these privileges and benefits to inmates that enter into an
RDP in order to comply with the requirements of HB 2007."
The issue also is the subject of a court hearing, scheduled Dec. 28.
The Alliance Defense Fund is seeking a delay in the law until all
votes on the issue are counted, an effort county clerks have refused
to pursue.
An organization called Concerned Oregonians worked on a referendum
that would put HB 2007 and SB 2 before Oregon voters in 2008.
But when the state declared the referendum was five signatures short,
and county clerks refused to correct mistakes that had been made in
the counting, the ADF filed a lawsuit.
In a new column on the issue, Alan Sears, chief of the ADF, noted
that the issue of marriage consisting of – and only of – one man and
one woman is supported overwhelmingly in the United States. Twenty-
seven of 28 states where voters have decided the question, they have
limited marriage to one man and one woman.
"Those seeking to fabricate same-sex 'marriage' have long recognized
the American public is a roadblock to their success. In 1998, after
ADF-allied litigation allowed Alaska citizens to vote on (and pass) a
constitutional amendment barring same-sex unions, the ACLU executive
director declared: 'Today's results prove that certain fundamental
issues should not be left up to a majority vote.'
"When the (new) referendum was submitted to the Oregon Secretary of
State on Sept. 26, signatures exceeded the required number by more
than 6,000. However, the Secretary of State announced there were not
enough signatures to sustain the referendum. The evaluated 'sample'
was said to be only five signatures short. If you wonder how this
could happen, you aren't alone. As it turns out, there is a very
clear explanation – many of the signatures were wrongfully rejected,"
Sears said.
"Signatures were invalidated for allegedly not matching their voter
registration cards, being illegible, or coming from unregistered
voters. But according to ADF attorneys who examined the signatures,
several of those kicked out did match, were legible, and the affected
voters actually were registered. In other words, many valid signers
were ignored," he continued.
Clerks have "adamantly"' resisted efforts by signers to authenticate
their signatures. "One county clerk even told a rejected signer, in
person, and to their face, 'tough nuggets,'" Sears said.
The lawsuit alleges Oregon voters from 12 counties have been
disenfranchised by administrative fiat, because their signatures were
rejected and they were not allowed a procedure to restore them to the
petition.
Bill Burgess, the clerk in Marion County, confirmed the state had
given county clerks instructions to follow a "precedent" and not
correct any incorrectly classified signatures they may have been told
about.
"We also have a legal obligation to follow the guidelines and
precedents of the past and our attorney has told us, and the
Secretary of State has advised us that there is no place in this
petition signature checking process for a person to come in later on
and attest that that was their signature," he told WND.
"There's no direct ban [on corrections]," he said. "Well, it's not
specified, and both the Secretary of State and my legal counsel have
told me not to go there."
The case developed when 54 state lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Ted
Kulongoski rejected the will of the people to approve and sign into
Law HB 2007 and SB 2.
For 148 years Oregon had recognized marriage as the union of a man
and a woman, and voters four times have addressed the issue, most
recently in 2004 when they collected more than a million votes and by
a substantial 57-43 percent margin decided to keep traditional
marriage defined as being between only one man and only one woman.
But the newest legislation simply rejects that vote, and even makes a
move to address such citizen "attitudes," requiring schools to seek
to change the minds of those who don't support homosexual duos.
David Crowe, a leader of Restore America, one of the groups
coordinating the petition effort, told WND that there were a number
of county clerks who colluded with state officials who endorse the
special privileges for homosexuals to prevent people from voting on
the issues.
"It's political," he said. "There are people who are hostile to us in
three or four counties who are in collusion with state officials
behind the scenes, those who we know are not for us."
Crowe said he knew of the instructions from the Secretary of State to
counties not to make any corrections in the tabulation; he said he
had gotten a copy of a state e-mail to that effect.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
into court in handcuffs in April, 2005.
MassResistance
Lawyers for the Lexington Public Schools and David Parker's lawyers have submitted their final briefs to the federal appeals court in Boston.
The hearing for the oral arguments took place on Dec. 5 before the 3-judge appeals panel. Now that the final briefs have been submitted, with each side summing up their positions, a decision is expected within a few weeks.The three-judge federal appeals panel is now preparing to decide the fate of this landmark federal civil rights lawsuit about schools teaching homosexuality in elementary school without parents' knowledge or consent. At issue is whether the ruling by Federal Judge Mark Wolf dismissing the case -- whether that ruling stands, or if not, what happens next.
Last February, Wolf wrote a chilling, outrageous ruling dismissing the case and going further, giving schools virtually unlimited ability to normalize and promote homosexuality in classrooms. The Parkers are appealing this ruling. They seek to have the ruling vacated, and for the trial to be allowed to begin in federal court.
Over the summer, several pro-homosexual groups submitted amicae briefs to accompany the initial briefs by the two parties.
(As we've discussed. There's still an Alice-in-Wonderland quality to this whole thing. Think about it: A panel of federal court judges is seriously and dispassionately deciding whether it's proper to normalize issues homosexual behavior and cross-dressing to elementary school children without their parents' knowledge or consent. In fact, this is madness. It's reminiscent of something out of Red China's insane "Cultural Revolution" from the 1960s.)
Nevertheless, the briefs from each side state their positions pretty clearly:
The schools' brief
Read the school's brief here (Adobe Acrobat format).
The school's legal team consists of lawyers from two big Boston downtown firms, plus the ACLU of Massachusetts and the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a powerful non-profit homosexual law firm.
The school's brief is a virtual blueprint for using the legal process to push homosexuality in the schools. Much of the foundation has been already replicated in other states:
- They make extensive use of "case law" to "prove" that what they are doing is legal and necessary. If anything, this illustrates that if you have the time to do enough research, it's possible to find shreds of case law to back up literally anything. It's quite eerie.
- When the Legislature slipped the term "sexual orientation" into the anti-discrimination and education laws a decade ago, almost no one said much. But now, the homosexual groups are using it as a legal battering ram to force homosexuality into the schools, and punish anyone who disagrees.
- The terms "tolerance" and "diversity" into have found their way into the education system's official goals for what constitutes good citizenship. The schools are now stating certain case law gives them the right to "teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy." Again, the homosexual agenda finds its way in, against parents' wishes.
- We've heard this argument before -- teachers should make the final decisions regarding teaching materials. They say:
- They admit that they intend to push the homosexual agenda into various subjects in elementary school. Thus, they claim it would be "impractical" to allow parents to remove their children.
- And, of course, there's the absurd argument that giving rights to parents would "harm" other students.
- Finally, in their brief they insist that the age of the students doesn't make any difference when it comes to homosexuality or parents' rights. Elementary school-age kids are the same as high-school kids in this regard, they state.
Welcome to the brave new world! From a legal standpoint, only the Parkers and Wirthlins are standing their way. If they have their way in this federal appeals court, watch out America!"The appellate record reveals that Massachusetts law prohibits public schools from discriminating based on sex or sexual orientation, and requires schools to implement curricula aimed at encouraging respect for the human and civil rights of all individuals regardless of, inter alia, sexual orientation. The record further reveals that the defendants' use of the three 'objectionable' books is consistent with the above-mentioned state mandates. The defendants have the First Amendment right to use these books regardless of whether it is a part of the state's core curriculum and regardless of the plaintiffs' allegations of indoctrination."
"Whether King & King or the other books are the most suitable or age-appropriate materials available for teaching Lexington schoolchildren about issues of tolerance and diversity necessarily involves pedagogical and political issues beyond the ken of this Court."
"Under plaintiffs' view, many subjects offered at Estabrook Elementary School may include course work involving 'sexuality, gender identity, and marriage construct.' For example, an art teacher may ask students in art class to draw pictures of their families and describe them to the class in an effort to discuss different types of families. If a student in the art class has same-sex parents, the teacher would have to anticipate the day on which that student would present her drawing to the class, remove students such as the Parker and Wirthlin children from the classroom, create an alternative lesson plan for those students, and make sure another teacher is available to supervise the students removed from the art class. Or a social studies teacher may wish to teach about the civil rights movement, which, in turn, gives rise to a discussion about whether discrimination against gays or lesbians is prohibited. If plaintiffs should obtain the injunctive relief they seek, the social studies teacher would have to anticipate that a student may ask such a question and give parents notice of the potential discussion topic. As the above examples illustrate, the injunctive relief plaintiffs seek is not only burdensome, but also impractical. "
"Further, granting injunctive relief to the plaintiffs will be harmful to students of same-sex parents, and possibly violate those students' constitutional rights. Specifically, students of same-sex parents may feel devalued if other students need to leave the classroom before they can speak about their families. Public schools have a duty not to impinge on the rights of other students." Also . . .
"If Cindy's parents are gay, what lessons does she learn if several of her classmates are escorted from the classroom by a public school official whenever she discusses her home life? Certainly, Cindy does not learn about the goals of tolerance and diversity."
The Parkers' brief
Read the Parkers' brief here (Adobe Acrobat format).
The Parkers' lawyers do a good job of not backing down and stating the obvious rather than subtly implying it. A few quotes from the brief:
What they agree on
Interestingly, both sides agree -- and spend a great deal of time making the point in their briefs -- that the judges should make a decision one way or the other on the motion to dismiss. The judges could choose to "abstain" or "certify", which would force the issue into the state courts, with a possible return to the federal level at a later date. The first portion of both briefs argues against doing that.
What's next
The judges are expected to announce their decision within a few weeks, although there is no official timetable. They could:
1. Sustain Wolf's dismissal. In that case, the only recourse to the Parkers is to go to the US Supreme Court. This is what the school wants.
2. Vacate Wolf's dismissal and send it back to federal court for the trial to begin. This is what the Parkers want.
3. "Abstain" and send it to the state superior court because of the issues surrounding the state notification law or Mass. civil rights statute, with a possible return.
4. "Certify" it by sending to the Mass. SJC for an opinion, with a possible return.
We'll keep you informed!
into court in handcuffs in April, 2005.
MassResistance
Edited 12/30/2007 11:27 am ET by Ohso1
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
LAW OF THE LAND
Prison benefits offered same-sex couples, not marrieds
New law to discriminate against wedded inmates
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59384 27 December 2007
Prisons in Oregon are preparing to offer inmates who claim a same-sex
partnership special privileges specifically denied married inmates, a
memo from state officials has confirmed.
The e-mailed memo from Max Williams, director of the Oregon
Department of Corrections, was sent to workers in his department.
The memo referenced two state laws, Senate Bill 2 and House Bill
2007, through which lawmakers created legally recognized partnerships
for same-sex duos.
"After the New Year, the Department of Corrections will be
implementing two new laws that were passed by the Legislative
Assembly and signed by the governor into law during last year's
regular legislative session," the note began. "The new anti-
discrimination and family fairness laws, Senate Bill 2 and House Bill
2007, establish and extend new legal protections and benefits to
affected persons."
The memo said lawyers have been in consultation over the changes, and
as a result, "the Department is reviewing and will be amending its
rules as the Department determines is necessary and advisable in
order to comply with the requirements of the new laws."
Specifically, the e-mail said, the department will change its rules
so that, "inmates that have entered into a RDP [registered domestic
partnership] will be allowed to live in the same facility and unit,
subject to the needs of orderly operation, safety and security of the
facility."
That just doesn't make sense, or meet the goals of any "fairness"
concept, according to one Department of Corrections worker who raised
concerns about it.
"The problem I have with this is that the department will not allow
heterosexual inmates who are married to live together in the same
institution or on the same housing unit," said the employee, whose
name was being withheld from publication.
"The new policy gives homosexual RDP inmates the special privilege of
living together but denies it for heterosexual married inmates, just
the opposite of what the policy is trying to achieve, and
discriminates against heterosexuals based on their sexual
orientation," the employee continued.
"In Oregon, if you're a homosexual inmate, only then will you be
allowed to live with your partner.
"Not only is this a discriminatory policy but it will be an
enforcement nightmare for correctional staff. If the RDP inmates are
allowed to live on the same housing unit, are we going to allow them
to shower together or … let them sleep next to each other? And if we
don't allow them to do those things will we be sued for
discrimination because of their sexual orientation? The whole thing
is just nuts!" the employee said.
The state memo does note that such inmates will not be allowed "to
cell together," but does not define the term.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections initially told WND
that married heterosexual couples wouldn't be offered the option
because the prisons are not coed. But she called back later to say
after consulting with attorneys for the state, the department's
response was that officials were working to implement the state's
laws.
The memo does include instructions that Senate Bill 2 "recognizes and
declares that the opportunity to obtain employment or housing or to
use and enjoy places of public accommodation without discrimination
because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national
origin, marital status, age or disability is a civil right under
Oregon law."
The other legislative plan, House Bill 2007, "grants legal
recognition in Oregon to same-sex domestic partnerships," the memo
continues.
"Establishing a registered domestic partnership (RDP) affords same-
sex couples all the rights and responsibilities that are granted
under state law through a marriage contract," the memo said. "HB 2007
also provides that any privilege, immunity, right, benefit or
responsibility granted or imposed by statute, administrative or court
rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because
the individual is or was married … is granted on equivalent terms,
substantive and procedure, to an individual because the individual is
or was in a domestic partnership."
"Because the Department grants certain privileges and benefits to
inmates on the basis of marriage (e.g., the opportunity to
participate in a ceremony to solemnize a marriage, the opportunity to
possess and wear a plain wedding band), the Department will be
extending these privileges and benefits to inmates that enter into an
RDP in order to comply with the requirements of HB 2007."
The issue also is the subject of a court hearing, scheduled Dec. 28.
The Alliance Defense Fund is seeking a delay in the law until all
votes on the issue are counted, an effort county clerks have refused
to pursue.
An organization called Concerned Oregonians worked on a referendum
that would put HB 2007 and SB 2 before Oregon voters in 2008.
But when the state declared the referendum was five signatures short,
and county clerks refused to correct mistakes that had been made in
the counting, the ADF filed a lawsuit.
In a new column on the issue, Alan Sears, chief of the ADF, noted
that the issue of marriage consisting of – and only of – one man and
one woman is supported overwhelmingly in the United States. Twenty-
seven of 28 states where voters have decided the question, they have
limited marriage to one man and one woman.
"Those seeking to fabricate same-sex 'marriage' have long recognized
the American public is a roadblock to their success. In 1998, after
ADF-allied litigation allowed Alaska citizens to vote on (and pass) a
constitutional amendment barring same-sex unions, the ACLU executive
director declared: 'Today's results prove that certain fundamental
issues should not be left up to a majority vote.'
"When the (new) referendum was submitted to the Oregon Secretary of
State on Sept. 26, signatures exceeded the required number by more
than 6,000. However, the Secretary of State announced there were not
enough signatures to sustain the referendum. The evaluated 'sample'
was said to be only five signatures short. If you wonder how this
could happen, you aren't alone. As it turns out, there is a very
clear explanation – many of the signatures were wrongfully rejected,"
Sears said.
"Signatures were invalidated for allegedly not matching their voter
registration cards, being illegible, or coming from unregistered
voters. But according to ADF attorneys who examined the signatures,
several of those kicked out did match, were legible, and the affected
voters actually were registered. In other words, many valid signers
were ignored," he continued.
Clerks have "adamantly"' resisted efforts by signers to authenticate
their signatures. "One county clerk even told a rejected signer, in
person, and to their face, 'tough nuggets,'" Sears said.
The lawsuit alleges Oregon voters from 12 counties have been
disenfranchised by administrative fiat, because their signatures were
rejected and they were not allowed a procedure to restore them to the
petition.
Bill Burgess, the clerk in Marion County, confirmed the state had
given county clerks instructions to follow a "precedent" and not
correct any incorrectly classified signatures they may have been told
about.
"We also have a legal obligation to follow the guidelines and
precedents of the past and our attorney has told us, and the
Secretary of State has advised us that there is no place in this
petition signature checking process for a person to come in later on
and attest that that was their signature," he told WND.
"There's no direct ban [on corrections]," he said. "Well, it's not
specified, and both the Secretary of State and my legal counsel have
told me not to go there."
The case developed when 54 state lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Ted
Kulongoski rejected the will of the people to approve and sign into
Law HB 2007 and SB 2.
For 148 years Oregon had recognized marriage as the union of a man
and a woman, and voters four times have addressed the issue, most
recently in 2004 when they collected more than a million votes and by
a substantial 57-43 percent margin decided to keep traditional
marriage defined as being between only one man and only one woman.
But the newest legislation simply rejects that vote, and even makes a
move to address such citizen "attitudes," requiring schools to seek
to change the minds of those who don't support homosexual duos.
David Crowe, a leader of Restore America, one of the groups
coordinating the petition effort, told WND that there were a number
of county clerks who colluded with state officials who endorse the
special privileges for homosexuals to prevent people from voting on
the issues.
"It's political," he said. "There are people who are hostile to us in
three or four counties who are in collusion with state officials
behind the scenes, those who we know are not for us."
Crowe said he knew of the instructions from the Secretary of State to
counties not to make any corrections in the tabulation; he said he
had gotten a copy of a state e-mail to that effect.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Mass Resistance:
Has it come to this? Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire to "marry" another man. Tells audience, "I always wanted to be a June bride."
Mitt Romney's leading role in the crisis that created same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts starting to come under scrutiny across the country. ==="I always wanted to be a June bride," gushed Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire recently at a speech in Florida. Robinson is going to be legally joined to his long-time partner next June.
How can one even comment on something like this?
Read more on our MassResistance blog.
http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/12/bishop-gene-robinson-i-always-wanted-to.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just two days after the infamous Nov. 18, 2003 Goodridge court decision on same-sex marriage, conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt wrote a scathing article in The Weekly Standard reflecting the belief of much of America's conservative movement -- that Gov. Mitt Romney should stand up tall and "Just Say No."
Just Say "No"
Calling Governor Romney and the elected representatives of Massachusetts.
by Hugh Hewitt
11/20/2003
"JOHN MARSHALL has made his decision," Andrew Jackson is said to have remarked in the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision he disliked, "now let him enforce it."
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney would be well advised to ponder that line long and hard over the Thanksgiving holidays. . .Romney should seriously consider indifference. ...The decision is illegitimate, and the appropriate response will be to ignore it. Some law professors will shudder (though two well know in the blogosphere, Eugene Volokh and Glenn Reynolds did not when the subject was kicked around on my program Tuesday; Volokh in fact thinks such inter-branch confrontations are useful in the life of constitutional republics). Editorial writers will shout. Senator Kennedy may even brand Romney a Neanderthal, as he did Justices Brown, Owen, and Judge Kuhl earlier this month. . .
Read entire article here
It's now hard to believe those words were written at all. Romney did just the opposite. The Court had "ordered" the Legislature to "take appropriate action" within six months, but they gave no directive at all to the governor. However, when the six months passed and the Legislature did nothing, Gov. Romney completely caved in. He went ahead and (1) had bogus "Party A and Party B" marriage licenses printed, (2) ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to perform same-sex "marriages" when asked or be fired, and (3) set up training sessions for Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks on how to perform same-sex marriages. Romney got it started, and it hasn't stopped since.
MassResistance report on How Mitt Romney started same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts
Hitting the airwaves
Over the last several weeks this subject seems to have caught fire. We have been on radio stations across America talking about this and educating people about the issue. People are eager to hear about this. And the more they hear, the more they want to know.
For example, on Nov. 6, our own John Haskins did a blockbuster interview on the Sandy Rios show, on WYLL, which covers the Chicago area and surrounding states. John has done a massive amount of legal research on Romney's implementation of same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts and has worked with several legal scholars on it. He has a wealth of knowledge on that subject. This is a particularly powerful interview - you can click the link below to listen:
Listen to the show -- JOHN HASKINS INTERVIEW on Sandy Riow Show -- here.
Download the podcast
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Rhode Warriors Win Big on Marriage (FRC)
Conservatives in the Ocean State continue to celebrate Friday's Supreme Court victory, which was a significant step forward for marriage in a legal system rife with judicial activism. By a 3-2 ruling, the justices refused to grant a "divorce" to a lesbian couple who were married in Massachusetts and now reside in Rhode Island.
Since the state doesn't recognize same-sex "marriage," it stands to reason that it wouldn't legally acknowledge the dissolution of such unions.
In a rare display of judicial restraint, the court said that such matters were for the legislature to decide. Its role is "not to determine policy, but... legislative intent." Meanwhile, it seems the "need" for the dissolution of same-sex unions may be negligible, considering the lack of enthusiasm among homosexuals for these benefit-bearing unions in the first place.
Since the 2000 census (the first to allow Americans to identify themselves as a same-sex partner), only 24% of gay couples in Connecticut have bothered to enter civil unions. The statistics are merely reflecting what FRC has said all along. In the end, this battle isn't for "equal benefits." If it were, homosexuals would be lining up in New England courthouses to apply for them.
The battle is for the very definition of marriage.
We're grateful that the Rhode Island Supreme Court did its part to leave that fight where it belongs--in the hands of the people.
Edited 12/12/2007 10:56 am ET by Ohso1
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2434
Hard of Hearings: Judiciary Committee Fails to Meet Goals (FRC)
For the first time since last October, the Senate Judiciary Committee has agreed to hold a confirmation hearing for one of President Bush's U.S. District Court nominees. Senate liberals sharpened their knives in anticipation of a nasty row over nominee Richard Honaker's pro-life record in the Wyoming legislature.
Honaker, a man with a reputation of integrity both in and out of the public square, was taken to task over his effort to pass a Human Life Protection Act during his time in office. When pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on whether he would uphold the constitutional right to privacy, Honaker vowed to recognize the Supreme Court precedent even on matters of abortion. He acknowledged that the role of a district judge is "absolutely contrary" to the role of a legislator. Unfortunately, the climate of judicial activism is such that senators like Feinstein automatically assume that nominees will legislate from the bench.
President Bush's judicial nominees are strict constructionists who will adhere to the Constitution, not force their ideologies down the throats of an unwilling public. While Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) hones his obstructionist tactics du jour, a coalition of 60 groups--including FRC--has registered its displeasure with the lack of progress in confirming the President's nominees through a letter to the 19 members of the Judiciary Committee.
America is more than a year into the 110th Congress yet the Committee, under Leahy's leadership, has held hearings on just four appeals court nominees, putting them well behind the pace needed to confirm 17 judges by the end of Bush's term. Both Republicans and Democrats have good reason to make this issue a priority. The last time judicial nominees were an election issue, the Committee's Chairman, Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.Dak.), lost his job. These confirmations are among voters' highest priorities, and they should be the Senate's as well.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Senator Leahy, The Stall's in Your Court
On the judicial nomination front, no news is hardly good news. The confirmation process has ground to a complete halt, despite assurances from both parties that they would hold hearings on the President's qualified nominees. Yesterday, I met with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and other leaders to see what could be done to stop the Democrats' filibuster. Both he and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) spoke from the Senate floor yesterday, admonishing their colleagues to lay aside their "decade-old grievances" and treat the nominees fairly. In the last six months, Chairman Pat Leahy has only held one Judiciary Committee hearing. Meanwhile, there are four pending circuit court nominees, Robert Conrad, Steve Matthews, Catharina Haynes, and Gene Pratter, who all have the support of their home state senators yet sit idled--victims of this bitter stalemate. As the animosity grows, so too do the implications for public policy and the presidential race. The Senate must reach some form of bipartisan understanding or face a judicial Armageddon from which the confirmation process may never recover.
Order Your Copy Now Judicial Activism and the Threat to the Constitution
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Vermont Supreme Court Considers Granting Parental Rights To Unrelated Third Party:
Montpelier, VT – Today Liberty Counsel presented oral argument in a case that highlights the conflict between states that recognize same-sex civil unions and those that do not. The case of Miller v. Jenkins involves a conflict between the laws of Virginia and Vermont. David Corry, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, presented the oral argument on behalf of Lisa Miller and her five-year-old daughter, in an attempt to protect Lisa’s parental rights from her former same-sex partner. The court proceedings will be archived on the Court’s web site, http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/audioindex/index.htm.
Lisa is the fit, biological mother of a five-year-old daughter, with whom Janet has neither a biological nor an adoptive relationship. Vermont court granted parental rights to Janet because Lisa and Janet traveled from Virginia to Vermont and entered into a civil union. After Lisa gave birth to her child, the relationship ended when Janet became abusive and Lisa became a Christian. In Virginia, where Lisa and her daughter reside, state law does not recognize same-sex “marriage,” civil unions, or domestic partnerships.
In April, Liberty Counsel will argue the same case before the Virginia Supreme Court. If the Virginia Supreme Court decision conflicts with the Vermont Supreme Court, the case will automatically go to the United States Supreme Court.
Commenting on today’s argument, Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said: "Same-sex unions disrupt the traditional family structure and pit one state against another. Children are the collateral damage of those pressing the same-sex union agenda."
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Actually - the story is not about residents of the Greek Island of Lesbos (lesbians) or Happy Folks, but rather the Separatist / Neo-Exterminationist cult of Dyke Misandry - in gay if not particularly Merry ole England...
Misandry - The Hatred of Men, Masculinity & Normal Heterosexuality - is now government policy there and in Weimar Kalifornia... Ohso
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Lesbian equal parent plans rapped
18 November 2007
The Government has been accused of driving the "last nail in the coffin" of the traditional family with moves to grant gay couples equal parenting rights.
Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith spoke out against plans to allow lesbian couples to become joint legal parents of children conceived used donated sperm or eggs.
His comments, in an article for the Mail on Sunday newspaper, came as the proposals are due to come before the House of Lords in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill on Monday.
The paper claimed that the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, would also speak against the Bill, announced in this month's Queen's Speech to the dismay of family campaigners.
Mr Duncan Smith called for Parliament to reject the Bill, saying it would remove the requirement for a father.
"Another nail will have been hammered into the coffin of the
traditional family," he wrote.
"And another blow will have been struck against fatherhood.
"This move could not have come at a worse time. Just as we are beginning to appreciate the vital role fathers play in the successful upbringing of children, Labour ministers are sending out the utterly wrong signal that fathers don't matter."...
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
The article is Ms.leading in that it claims that Dyke Hatemongers will have "babies without men" - when in fact it is biologically impossible to do so. The Real Purpose of the Legal Extermination of Men - first in Law then in Fact - to meet the agenda of the Separatist / Neo-Exterminationist Cult of Dyke Misandry - the Hatred of Men, Masculinity & Normal Heterosexuality - all in the name of 'tolerance' of course... Ohso
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Churchmen and politicians join forces to oppose lesbians from having test-tube babies without men
By Simon Walters
A unique alliance of senior politicians and churchmen will tomorrow make a historic stand against an attempt by the Government to "drive the last nail in the coffin of the traditional family".
MPs and peers from all parties, backed by both Anglican and Catholic church leaders, will ambush legislation intended to let lesbian couples become parents to test-tube babies without any involvement of a father beyond donating sperm.
The new law would remove the existing requirement on test-tube clinics to ensure that a father is involved in the upbringing of any child they help create.
This current rule, say campaigners, amounts to legal recognition that every child has the right to have a father - and its removal is of huge symbolic importance...
He adds: "Just as we are beginning to appreciate the vital role fathers play in the successful upbringing of children, Labour Ministers are sending out the utterly wrong signal fathers don't matter."
Mr Duncan Smith and his allies say the measure is in line with covert moves by the Government to undermine traditional families by removing terms such as "marriage, father, mother, husband, wife and spouse" from the statute book - and even from official forms...
The most controversial provisions govern IVF treatment. The current duty on the part of clinics to take account of "the welfare of the child" when providing fertility treatment will be retained - but crucially, the reference to "the need for a father" will be removed.
It means lesbian couples can be regarded as joint legal parents of children conceived through the use of donated sperm, eggs or embryos.
In addition the new registration forms refer to "father or second parent".
In the case of lesbian couples, this would allow one woman to be registered as the "mother" and the second woman as "second parent" instead of the sperm donor father.
He has regularly spoken out about the importance of fathers in avoiding a breakdown in family life and argued recently: "If we do not get a lot of role models from fathers, I don't think we're going to turn the tide."...
The Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy- O'Connor, said yesterday: "The Bill proposes to remove the need for IVF providers to take into account the child's need for a father when considering an IVF application.
"This is profoundly wrong as it radically undermines the place of the father in a child's life and makes the natural rights of the child subordinate to the couple's desires."
The campaigners say a new poll commissioned by the charity Christian Action Research and Education shows nearly four out of five people think it is vital to consider a child's need for a father when processing lesbian applicants for IVF treatment.
The new law means that where sperm donor fathers are excluded by lesbian parents, children brought up by lesbian couples and who wish to contact their fathers will have to wait until they are 18 to exercise their legal right to establish their identity.
A number of Labour politicians have also spoken out against... "profoundly msinformed and clearly undermine the best interests of the child".
Campaigners claim the new law is the latest evidence of a secret drive to remove traditional family roles from the statute book... in recent years, a number of measures have been pushed through quietly to achieve this...
Mr Duncan Smith said: "The Government has quietly expunged mention of marriage, spouse, husband and wife from official forms, so deleting the traditional family from the Whitehall mindset."
Find this story at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?
in_article_id=494725&in_page_id=1770
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Homosexual Parents Knock Out Nature in Courts (FRC)
It's not just the definition of marriage that is being attacked by the homosexual movement--it's also the definition of parenthood and of family itself.
This was literally brought home today by an article in the Los Angeles Times regarding two homosexual men who wanted to have a child together. They bought an egg from one woman, rented the womb of another, and mixed their sperm so that they wouldn't know which of them is the biological father.
After "a four-year journey that involved three egg retrievals, 65 eggs, seven fertilization attempts, three surrogates and more than $200,000 in expenses," documented by the Times in a series last year, a surrogate mother fulfilled her contract nine weeks ago by presenting the two men with a baby boy. She "continues to pump and freeze breast milk" and "ships bottles from Massachusetts to Georgia packed in dry ice." One of the two men says that other than that, "we're just going through what all parents go through."
Yet they have gone to such great lengths to ensure that this child will not "go through" the experience that most children enjoy of being raised by both a mother and a father.
It is outrageous that courts in some states have become complicit in this denial of biological reality by allowing homosexual couples to have custody of newborns and birth certificates that mislead about the true parentage of the child.
Additional Resources
Like fathers, like son [LA Times]
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
CRI:
The same-sex marriage case pending in the California Supreme Court once again made headlines this week.
The Associated Press reports: "Gay marriage case gets most 'friend-of-court' briefs in memory." Chief Justice Ronald George has indicated this is the reason why the court is taking so long to decide the issue.
"Friend-of-Court" briefs are also known as amicus briefs. They are submitted by individuals and organizations not a party to a case. These briefs serve to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding the matter.
George stated that since December 2006 the court has received 45 briefs from 145 various organizations.
In 2000, Californians passed Prop 22 to protect against homosexual marriage. This should have been the end of the story because the California constitution prohibits the legislature from overturning a ballot initiative passed by the people. The legislature, however, has flagrantly defied Prop 22 and twice passed homosexual marriage legislation. Governor Schwarzenegger has vetoed both attempts by the legislature to legalize homosexual marriage.
The case currently pending before the California Supreme Court is a direct legal challenge to Prop 22.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
SPECIAL UPDATE: LAWMAKERS ASK AG FOR OPINION ON MOSCOW POLICY (IVA)
As the following story from the Moscow-Pullman Daily News indicates, six Idaho legislators have asked the state's attorney general to issue a legal opinion regarding the constitutionality of Moscow's decision last Monday to
grant spousal benefits to domestic partners, including same-sex couples.
It's worth remembering that the debate here is not over gay rights and the definition of marriage - that debate took place in 2006. The marriage amendment was thoroughly debated in both the Idaho House and Senate, and received more than a two-thirds vote in each chamber. The issue was then a matter of public debate for almost nine months, and was resolved at the ballot box in November when 63% of voters elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to the Idaho constitution and prohibited recognition of marriage counterfeits.
No, this debate is simpler than that: it's about whether an Idaho municipality can flagrantly disregard the constitution and the express will of the people and get away with it.
The IVA hand-delivered a letter to the Attorney General's office on Friday in support of the lawmakers' request, which you can read in full at the link below. Here is the key paragraph:
"On behalf of the 283,286 Idahoans who elevated protection for marriage to the state constitution in 2006, the Idaho Values Alliance stands in support of a request from legislators who ask the office of the Attorney General to conduct a formal investigation into the actions of the Moscow city council, to determine whether its policy of granting benefits to domestic partnerships is unlawful and violates the Idaho state constitution."
Here is the story on the controversy from Saturday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:
Domestic-partner decision draws fire
Six state senators seek legal analysis from attorney general's office
By Tara Roberts, Daily News staff writer
Saturday, December 22, 2007 - Page Updated at 12:00:00 AM
Six Idaho state senators (Note: the request came from three senators and three representatives) have asked the Idaho Attorney General's Office to analyze the Moscow City Council's decision to extend insurance benefits to employees' domestic partners.
Sen. Russ Fulcher, R-Meridian (pictured right), submitted the request Friday afternoon on behalf of Sen. Curt McKenzie, R-Boise, Michael Jorgenson, R-Hayden Lake, Curtis Bowers, R-Caldwell, Phil Hart, R-Athol, and Steven Thayne, R-Emmett.
"We were surprised to see the decision regarding the health insurance policy," Fulcher said. "It appears it would conflict with the marriage amendment, or at least the spirit of it."
Idaho's marriage amendment, passed in 2006, states, "A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."
The City Council passed a resolution Monday extending health insurance benefits from Regence Blue Shield of Idaho to employees' same- and opposite-sex domestic partners and their partners' dependents. Regence began offering the plan in November.
Domestic partners who want to sign up for the plan must file an affidavit with Regence certifying their partnership and meet a list of qualifying criteria, such as shared residence and financial responsibility.
Fulcher said there is an "intuitive conflict" between the benefit plan and the marriage amendment, which led to the legislators' decision to ask the attorney general's office for an analysis.
He said it is too early to speculate what the legislators will do when they get information back.
Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney said she does not believe the decision conflicts with the Idaho Constitution.
"This is a matter of extending to employees an insurance plan that is offered by our insurance provider," Chaney said. "The city is neither defining domestic partnerships nor creating them."
City Attorney Randy Fife said Regence originated the benefit plan, determines what is offered and decides who is eligible, so the plan does not require the city to "recognize" domestic partnerships in the sense of the marriage amendment.
Fife said the city did not change anything in its personnel policy to define or establish domestic partnerships. The city's definition of "immediate family" does not include domestic partners.
"To me, it is not related to whether or not there is a domestic partnership or a relationship that's prohibited by law," Fife said. "It has to do with whether or not the city has the capability of allowing an insurance benefit to be offered to its employees."
Fife said he would review any opinion from the attorney general's office and pass it on to the mayor and City Council to decide how to respond.
Attorney general's office spokeswoman Kriss Bivens Cloyd said the office can respond to legislators' requests with a legal analysis, but it is only an opinion. The legislators can tell the city of Moscow what the opinion is, but the city "can take that into consideration, or they can choose to ignore it."
Bivens Cloyd said an analysis requires much research, so it will be some time before any opinion is offered.
Idaho Values Alliance Executive Director Bryan Fischer on Friday sent a letter to Attorney General Lawrence Wasden in support of the legislators' request for analysis.
IVA began questioning the constitutionality of extending benefits to domestic partners before the City Council made its decision. IVA is the Idaho affiliate of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian nonprofit group.
"I think the city of Moscow must be stopped in its tracks," Fischer said. "If the city is allowed to get away with this, then the constitution of the state of Idaho is a meaningless document."
Fischer said Moscow leaders' arguments that offering the benefit plan doesn't conflict with the constitution are "gobbledygook."
"The city is offering benefits to people in domestic partnerships. That is flatly contrary to the Idaho state constitution," he said.
Chaney acknowledged the subject of domestic partnerships is very emotional for some people. She said the city is not attempting to redefine family, but to recognize that nontraditional families are common.
"The people who would benefit are existing employees, conceivably," she said. "They're people's friends, neighbors, relatives. I think there's this perception that the prospective beneficiaries are kind of scary or evil people, and in fact they're somebody's child."
Tara Roberts can be reached at (208) 882-5561, ext. 234, or by e-mail at troberts@dnews.com.
Moscow-Pullman Daily News: Domestic partner decision draws fire (Subscription)
Idaho Values Alliance: Letter to AG's office re: Moscow city council
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Homo-Anal Activists Attack BOY Scouts Again
Consider the above headline in comparison to the intentionally misleading and sanitized Pro-Homosex Spin headline supplied by the Old Media, and ask whether the Scouts are really against lighthearted gaily happy people -
...or is the truth that are they really opposed to pandering to the Sick Hatreds and Vile Perversions of the Coprophile Cult of Homo-Anal Perversions and the attendant MISANDRY (Hatred of Men, Masculinity & Normal Heterosexuality) that is the core of this depraved and destructive Radical Gender Feminist / Homosex Agenda???
Of course it would Never do for the 'watchdogs' of the Old Media to allow Opposing Viewpoints on this issue, let alone hire 'reporters' who support the Rational, Reasonable, Logical, Fact Based, Intellectually and Morally Valid position of the Scouts.
The example of Weimar Germany, where the Boy Scouts were Destroyed by Homosex Ephebophile 'Chicken Hawks such as Nazi Founder Ernst Rohm and his Stormtroopers - and then enlisted in the Boy Buggery Corps named after a Syphilitic Homo-Anal Prostitute named Hitler, mirrors the current attack in modern Weimar Amerika and the propaganda role played by the 'free press'. Ahem
While the story does mention the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court (in a rare display of respect for the Constitution) Upheld the Right of the Boy Scouts to be free of Pandering to such Sickness and Hatred, it also shows the various efforts (despite Congressional legislation) by local Homosex Radicals to engage in BAMN BAMN (Bash Men, By Any Means Necessary) actions designed to Harm Boys so as to produce Depraved Self Loathing Male Feminists and continue the cycle of Ephebophile Abuse.
Another example of this MISANDRY in the Law can be found at the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento - where the head of 'faculty development' (a pompous bigoted buffoon named john sims) is on record as stating Students who Support the Boy Scouts are lucky that exams in his Constitutional Law Class are anonymous - or he would Deliberately Fail them in order to purify the legal 'profession' of those who agree with this Supreme Court Decision. Kind of like Pro-Active Thought Policing in Academentia, and not much different from that found in the Turkey Baster Creationist Courts.
Ohso
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Check out "ContraCostaTimes.com - City confronts Scouts over anti-gay policy"
City confronts Scouts over anti-gay policy - Philadelphia threatens to end property agreement with organization
By Dafna Linzer WASHINGTON POST 11/20/2007: Citing a local 1982 "fair practices" law, the city solicitor has given the Scouts until Dec. 3 to renounce its policy of excluding gays or forfeit the grand Beaux-Arts building it has rented from the city for $1 a year since 1928.
"While we respect the right of the Boy Scouts to prohibit participation in its activities by homosexuals," the solicitor, Romulo Diaz, said last week, "we will not subsidize that discrimination by passing on the costs to the people of Philadelphia."... The local branch, which operates as the Cradle of Liberty Council, tried to skirt the bylaw in 2004 by issuing a four-line statement, which concluded: "Prejudice, intolerance and unlawful discrimination in any form are unacceptable within the ranks of Cradle of Liberty Council."
The statement satisfied the city until gay rights groups worried that "unlawful discrimination" gave the chapter cover to continue the anti-homosexual hiring practices of
the Boy Scouts of America. "We thought it meant unlawful under the city code," Diaz said. "But when community folks started to complain, we asked for a clarification and got no response."
The Supreme Court ruled seven years ago that the national Boy Scouts, as a private organization, had the right to exclude gays from its ranks. The Boy Scouts also prohibit atheists and agnostics from employment on the grounds that such beliefs are inconsistent with the values of the country's largest youth organization.
Two years ago, Congress passed the Support Our Scouts Act to protect chapters from local government attempts to strip them of access to public facilities in response to the anti-gay policy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The following quotes are from Tammy Bruce -Author of the book "The Death of Right and Wrong" On How Homosex Abuse Creates Homosex Abusers
Although regularly censored by the 'mainstream' media, author Tammy Bruce (www.Tammy Bruce ) long ago provided the essential insights in to the Catholic Church's problems with Ephebophile Chicken Hawks targeting Boys for Homosex Rape - in her book THE DEATH OF RIGHT AND WRONG:
"If the Catholic Church had been as eager to defend its principles as the Boy Scouts have been, so many lives would not have been damaged or destroyed. Frankly, even before the depth of the Catholic Church's problem became known, it was common knowledge that many gay men pursue sexual relationships with adolescent boys.
Why? Based on my experience in the gay community, I believe it's due to the fact that so many gay men had their first sexual experience as an adolescent with an adult male.
That is a traumatic experience, and as long as the wound remains untreated, the victim feels compelled to continually reenact the experience so as to master it or project it on to others...
The other reason actually discussed in the community is that, because of the Aids crisis and the emergence of drug resistant strains of contagions like herpes and gonorrhea, gay men are compelled to seek new, untouched young men."
"Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that's too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood - molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult.
The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the 'coming of age' experience many regard it as being." Tammy Bruce.
Edited 11/20/2007 10:49 am ET by Ohso1
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
IVA;
In a major step forward in the pro-life movement, the godfather of cloning, the man responsible for Dolly the sheep, is now abandoning his pursuit of human cloning just two years after being given a license by the British government to do that very thing.
The reason: he has concluded that ethically benign techniques developed in Japan, which use a patient's own cells, have greater therapeutic potential than embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of innocent human life.
He believes this new approach, which he calls "extremely exciting and astonishing," is the future of stem cell research. Says the London Telegraph, "His announcement could mark the beginning of the end for therapeutic cloning." May it be.
(Dolly creator Prof Ian Wilmut shuns cloning - Telegraph)
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
IVA:
All the leading Democratic candidates for the presidency - Sen. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama - made it clear in last week's CNN debate that they would only nominate judges to the Supreme Court who would pledge to uphold Roe v. Wade.
Edwards, for instance, said, "I would insist that they recognize the right to privacy and recognize Roe v. Wade as settled law."
And all this time we've been told that a nominee's abortion stance should not be a litmus test for appointment to the Supreme Court.
(Leading Democrats Clinton, Obama, Edwards Demand Pro-Abortion Justices)
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Lame Duck Session Takes a Quack at Marriage (FRC)
Early last week I told you about lame duck legislators in New Jersey trying to sneak through two bills, A3685 and S2898, to legalize homosexual "marriage." Despite reportedly being flooded with calls, Democrats in the New Jersey legislature are still at it and I encourage all our Garden State readers to keep up the calls to your state legislators.
With the CNN/YouTube Republican Presidential Debate tonight I am hoping that the candidates will be able to clarify their positions on a federal marriage amendment. A couple of nominees have stated their unwillingness to protect marriage unless a federal court were to level an attack on it; however, this completely ignores the harm a liberal state legislature can wreak on the nation as a whole.
Holding off on a federal amendment till a court dictates your actions, as some candidates suggest, displays a dangerous ambivalence on the subject. Marriage is not a malleable government creation that legislators and bureaucrats can manipulate to make it more "politically correct."
The benefits that marriage between one man and one woman brings to society are why, in turn, governments sought to encourage marriage among their citizens. When society ignores the generational reward such a union brings by easing divorce laws or by altering the complementarity that defines marriage - that society is doomed to failure.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
The Doublethink necessary to Legally Differentiate between the Same Father, and the Same Children with the Same Biological / Genetic Connection - based on whether the Man went to a Government Approved Deadbeat Dad Factory, or used a home remedy to produce them - is as nightmarish a perversion of logic and reason as ever produced by Orwell's Thought Police.
A London man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is being made to pay child support, it was revealed today. Andy Bathie, 37, a firefighter from Enfield, agreed to help Sharon and Terri Arnold after they assured him he would have no involvement in the children's upbringing and no financial commitment. But he is now having his pay docked to pay thousands of pounds in child maintenance even though he has no legal rights over the boy and girl the couple had...
He was stunned when the Child Support Agency contacted him last November to demand payments because the women had split up. Officials made him take a £400 paternity test and began docking his pay. Mr Bathie added: "The only reason these children are here is because they wanted children as a couple which means they should take responsibility. "The CSA admit that mine is an unusual case - this is double standards and I'm having money stolen by the Government."...
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is now warning "DIY" donors they are liable financially unless they donate through a licensed clinic.
Lawyers say an increasing number of men are seeking legal advice after being approached by lesbian couples desperate to conceive but who cannot afford clinic costs...
The legal pitfall for donors Andy Bathie has fallen victim to the legal pitfalls of being a DIY sperm donor.
Had he and the lesbian couple involved gone through the proper authorities then, according to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, he would have been accorded the full protection of current fertility laws.
Men who give sperm through HFEA-licensed clinics have no legal obligation to a child created through the donation process... nor the right to be named on the birth certificate... no financial obligation to pay child support.
Donors were guaranteed the right to remain anonymous throughout the child's lifetime but in 2005 the law changed, allowing children once they turned 18 to write to the HFEA and be told the identity of their real father. The donor still has no legal financial obligation even after his identity becomes known...
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2434
Nuclear Family Hardly Down for the Count, Says Census (FRC)
Those who are quick to say that the traditional family is nearing extinction would be wise to check out the latest report from the Census Bureau. According to the most recent data, a majority of American children (70%) live in two-parent homes and the vast majority (90%) of those live with both of their biological parents. This means that of all American children, 63% are living with both their biological parents (60% married biological parents, 3% cohabiting biological parents). The other bit of good news is that the intact married family is getting stronger among Asian-Americans, where the proportion increased significantly between 2001 and 2004, from 76.4% to 80.5%--making the strongest family ethnic group even stronger yet. The rest of the news is not as optimistic. For all American children in all ethnic groups, there has been a slight decrease (1.4%) between 2001 and 2004 in the proportion living in the married, intact family. White American children are the second strongest group, after Asian-Americans, with 65.9% (down from 67.1%) living with their married, biological parents. Hispanics are next at 57.1 % (down from 58.2%) and African Americans last at 28.2 % (down from 29%). The data come from the SIPP (Survey of Income and Program Participation), a very detailed report produced periodically by the U.S. Census Agency. This chart, drawing on this report (SIPP 2004) and an earlier one (SIPP 2001), was created by FRC Senior Fellow Dr. Patrick [bleep]an.
Additional Resources Chart Showing Percentage of All US Children Living With Married Biological Parents NYT: Most Children Still Live in Two-Parent Homes, Census Bureau Reports >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Send Out the Clones!
The cloning war that started two years ago over a misleading ballot initiative in Missouri may finally be tipping in pro-lifers' favor. Although a campaign of deception by the state's highest officials led to the approval of a clone-to-kill amendment in 2006, the movement to pass a real human cloning ban may have finally gotten the fair shake it needs. Under Missouri law, Cures Without Cloning (CWC) was required to submit its ballot proposal banning all human cloning to the Secretary of State's office. The Secretary was then responsible for writing the summary that would appear on the ballot, if the petition received the number of signatures required to put the initiative before voters. Unfortunately, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan used the opportunity to write a summary with an obvious pro-cloning bias. So transparent were her motives that Circuit Court Judge Patricia Joyce struck down the language yesterday, ruling that the summary was "insufficient and unfair." This is the second time in two months that ballot language from Carnahan has been thrown out in court. With the victory, CWC can finally move forward with its petition drive to put a true cloning ban before Missouri voters this fall. Over in Nebraska, where an equally volatile debate over cloning and stem cell research is taking place, people on both sides of the issue may have finally reached an agreement. The legislative "truce" proposed, LB 606, would ban use of Nebraska funds and facilities for any research that creates or destroys human embryos, including by cloning. However, such research could still be pursued with private funding. We applaud Family First, the Nebraska Catholic Conference, Nebraska Right to Life, and especially those Nebraskans who contacted their state senators to speak up in defense of all human life.
Additional Resources Missouri Cures Without Cloning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
'Not in My Shower' Cleaning up after County Officials
In Montgomery County, Maryland, the same officials who voted to make "gender identity" a state of mind have just gotten a reality check in the form of 32,087 citizen petitions. With the help of over 200 volunteers, Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government and Not in My Shower collected more than enough signatures to hold a public vote on the policy which allows "transgenders" to use public facilities like restrooms and locker rooms regardless of their biological sex.
The new law, which compromises the safety of women and children, was enacted over many protests. It will take officials 22 days to verify the signatures, but reports are that at least 13,000 have already been validated. Unfortunately, the Maryland madness doesn't end there. A new bill is moving quickly through the Maryland House and Senate which could deter women from visiting crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). SB 690 and HB 1146 would force CPCs to provide "disclaimers" to their clients that the information they provide is not necessarily "factually accurate." The proposal was motivated by NARAL, which insists that it visited each of Maryland's CPCs and alleges that the clinics lie to their patients about the safety of contraception and abortion. If any organization is expert on misleading patients, it's NARAL and their friends at Planned Parenthood. Please join us in calling on Maryland's leaders to oppose legislation that makes baseless accusations against pregnancy centers which provide honest and medically-sound service to thousands of women across the state.
Additional Resources Nearly 30,000 seek to turn off coed showers
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
This prisoner needs to move to Idaho, where self mutilating drag queens who amuptate thier healthy normal genitals with razors and flush them down the toiet of their prison cell - are deemed by the 'Law' to be... Perfectly Normal Womyn, who should be permanently swacked with artificial female hormones at government expense, to try and keep them looking that way, Only Different... Ahem
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sex-change killer 'turning manly again' 27 February 2008http://www.metro.co.uk/weird
Sex-change Kosilek: somewhere in between A killer who sued to have a sex change claims her body is becoming more masculine again because she is being denied treatment in prison. Michelle Kosilek, formerly known as Robert, said that for months she has not been allowed to have court-approved hair-removal treatment or access to a specialist to discuss her testosterone levels. She made the complaint as she awaits a ruling in her bid for the surgery.
She stormed: "My breasts have shrunk, genitals have regained previous size and function, facial hair is thicker and scalp hair is thinner, all related to an elevated testosterone level."
Robert Kosilek was sentenced to life in prison in the 1990 murder of his wife... legally changed her name to Michelle in 1993 and has been living as a woman.
In 2002, US District Judge Mark Wolf ruled that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender identity disorder - including hormone treatments, laser hair removal and psychotherapy.
But he but stopped short of ordering sex-reassignment surgery. Kosilek sued again in 2005, saying the treatments were not enough to relieve her anxiety and depression.
The corrections department and its outside health care provider is thought to have spent more than $52,000 on experts to testify about the surgery, which would cost about $20,000.
Though testimony ended almost a year ago, Wolf has given no indication when he will rule in the case. Kosilek says she has not received any laser hair removal or electrolysis since May 2006, and that prison officials have refused to let her see an endocrinologist since October 2007.
She said she has repeatedly told prison authorities that the testosterone blocker Lupron has stopped functioning effectively. In a written response, lawyers for prison officials said Kosilek has continued to receive adequate treatment for gender-identity disorder.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Oregon Trail Takes Unconstitutional Turn (FRC)
In Portland, celebration of the new domestic partnership law is now on hold. Last week, a federal judge approved Alliance Defense Fund's (ADF) request for a temporary injunction of Oregon's law, which was set to take effect on January 1.
At stake in the debate is a citizen referendum that pro-family groups put in motion shortly after Governor Ted Kulongoski (D) signed the bill granting homosexual couples the same rights as married spouses.
Attorneys for ADF argued that the Oregon Secretary of State, as well as several country clerks, invalidated voters' signatures on a citizen petition, causing the referendum to fall five names shy of the number needed for it to appear on the November ballot.
In some instances, officials "falsely determined that signatures did not match their corresponding voter registration cards."
Other signatures were invalidated because the individuals were not registered to vote, even though they were. Oregon's regulations mandate that if a person's signature has been invalidated, the citizen must be notified.
In this instance, few were. Even if the state had a legitimate complaint about some signatures, activists had gathered 6,000 more than the law required.
Try as they might, state officials cannot succeed in sabotaging the democratic process.
We applaud our allies at ADF who, like us, want to insure that no amount of government bullying will silence the voice of the citizenry.
Additional Resources
Judge Halts Implementation of Oregon Homosexual "Domestic Partnership" Law
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Mass Resistance:
Homosexual movement focusing on changing our laws
The same-sex "marriage" win last summer has propelled the homosexual movement in Massachusetts to an unprecedented position of political strength. They've become entrenched in the halls of power at the State House, the executive branch, and throughout government (and in the private sector). They are flush with enormous amounts of cash to spend. They are arrogant and ready to move forward. In the last few months their main lobbying arm, MassEquality (which spends over $100,000 per month just on routine operations) has re-focused.in 2008. Here's what we're fighting.
The next phase of their push to change society kicks in this month as the Legislature goes back into session. It includes some radical changes of our laws to better accommodate the homosexual lifestyle, and to entrench themselves even more in the public schools.
And along with changing our laws, they will be demanding more taxpayer money for a broad range of homosexual-related programs (including school-related programs) in the upcoming state budget. The heinous state-funded Commission for Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth has already started organizing gay activists around the state to harangue legislators for this money.
[And if you live outside of Massachusetts - this will be coming to you eventually!]
Listed below are the major "BAD" bills before the Legislature right now (this is just a general outline; we will be doing more on these):
As usual, many of these are couched in innocuous-sounding language, that to the layman often sounds relatively harmless.
[Also note: In some cases there are multiple bills filed that are similar or even identical. This is done on purpose to try to sneak one of them in.]
BILLS IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:
1. Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes
H1722 - "An Act Relative to Gender Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes"
This "transgender rights and hate crimes" bill is one of the most dangerous bills ever filed. Would protect and promote a range of obscene behaviors in schools, businesses, and public accomodations. It would criminalize any critical response (real or perceived) to any sort of public or private undefined "gender identity and expression" (including bizarre public sexual behaviors). This will change society.
Homosexual lobbying groups across the state are joining together to push this. They've already had a "transgender rights lobby day" at the State House.
MassResistance is about to publish an exhaustive analysis, including the nightmare scenarios this bill would protect and promote, affecting every aspect of daily life.
2. Allow out-of-state gay couples to "marry" in Massachusetts
S1029, S800 - "An Act concerning marriage laws"
Would overturn the 1913 law which blocks out-of-state homosexual couples from "marrying" in Massachusetts. Currently, an out-of-state couple cannot be married in Massachusetts if that marriage is not legal in their home state.
Repealing this law is a major goal of the homosexual movement, in order to spread homosexual "marriage" around the country. Couples from across America would come here, get "married" and then demand (using court challenges) that their home states legally recognize those marriages because of the US Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause.
3. Repeal sodomy laws and other laws regarding morality and order
H1709, S905 - "An Act relative to the reform of archaic laws."
Would repeal the state's sodomy laws and also overturn several other sections of M.G.L. Ch. 272, "Crimes Against Chastity, Morality, Decency, and Good Order," including laws against "resorting to restaurants or taverns for immoral purposes" and committing "unnatural and lascivious acts". Being pushed by homosexual lobby.
4. Officially legalize same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts
H1710, S918 - "An Act to protect Massachusetts families through equal access to civil marriage"
Would legalize homosexual "marriage" in statute, which is still not legal in Massachusetts, as proven by the filing of this bill.
The homosexual lobby is quietly trying to slip this bill through. The Goodridge court decision on same-sex marriage acknowledged that it couldn't change the law. (The Mass. Constitution is very specific that court decisions MAY NOT change laws. Only the Legislature can do that, and it hasn't - so far.)
JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION:
5. Legally push homosexuality, sexuality, abortion counseling, etc., in schools.
H597, S288 - "An Act to provide health education in schools"
This bill is part of Planned Parenthood's 5-year plan to extend sex ed, abortion counseling, and normalization of homosexuality (and even transsexuality) in the public schools. We stopped their similar bill last session, and this time they're back with less offensive sounding version, but it's still very dangerous. Planned Parenthood has worked hard for this, getting dozens of co-sponsors!
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt07/PP_bills/pp_bill_h597.htmlThe bill writes into law "reproduction and sexuality, mental health, family life, and interpersonal relations" as required subjects, and states that the infamous "Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework" shall be used as a guide. Having this written into state law, rather than left to individual school districts to decide, is exactly what Planned Parenthood wants. This is their springboard to push much deeper into the public schools.
They cleverly reference the current parental notification law in the bill, knowing that they can take advantage of the current law's weaknesses to circumvent it.
6. Force "anti-bullying" programs in schools as entrée for homosexual/transgender, hate crimes agenda, etc.
H587, H540, H454, H453, S275 - "An Act relative to bullying"
Local school districts will be required to implement "anti-bullying" programs and procedures, even in schools where "bullying" has never been identified as a problem.
The homosexual lobby has been introducing these "anti-bullying" bills across the country. This innocuous sounding plan is really a ploy by homosexual/transgender movement. They easily use these programs as an entrée for their propaganda and mini-"hate crimes" agenda. With the force of state law, schools are forced to let them in. (Not surprisingly, in the end, they have little actual effect on the alleged problems they are supposed to solve.)
HEALTH CARE FINANCING COMMITTEE:
7. Require all 6th grade girls in Mass. to get controversial HPV vaccine
S102 - "An act requiring immunization of children against human pampilloma virus"
This is another very dangerous bill. Would require all 6th grade girls in Massachusetts be given controversial vaccination for Human Papilloma Virus, a sexually transmitted disease, even if parents object. Being pushed across the country by Merck drug company, in cooperation with various sex-ed groups. Many doctors are extremely concerned that the vaccine's long-term effects on the reproductive system and immune system are still unknown, and it's not adequately tested yet.
Merck has put a lot of money and effort into getting this passed here. They've had very slick lobbying events with all kinds of "experts" singing the praises of this bill. We're also seeing Merck-sponsored radio ads to soften up the public.
At the public hearing, we were very outspoken about the dangers of this, and we also brought testimony from an extremely qualified medical authority, Dr. John Diggs. We think the committee was affected by what we had to say; they clearly hadn't heard it before. They may be trying to re-structure the bill to make it more palatable.
Committee testimony by Dr. John Diggs (Adobe Acrobat format)
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt07/HPV_bill/DiggsTestimony_071107.pdf
Letter to Committee by John O'Gorman
Would use taxpayer dollars to promote Planned Parenthood and abortion services: The Dept. of Public Health "shall establish a program of community based health and sexuality education services provided by comprehensive family planning agencies" to "promote healthy behaviors among adolescents." Another vehicle to use your money to fund Planned Parenthood and help spread their message to vulnerable people in the community. Also used as vehicle for various homosexual programs, to normalize that behavior.http://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt07/HPV_bill/OGormanTestimony.pdf
8. Set up tax-supported Planned-Parenthood style "health" clinics
S96 - "An Act to promote healthy behaviors"
COMING UP: Good bills filed by MassResistance, and other important bills to watch.
3. Homosexual movement launching statewide push to persuade black community to support same-sex "marriage".
One group the homosexual movement in Massachusetts hasn't been able to get to is the black community. It's not surprising. Over the years, MassResistance has worked with many black community leaders, been to black churches, and appeared on Boston black radio stations. We've found that in many ways the black community is more serious about its religious beliefs, they aren't afraid of white liberals, and they're less likely to bow to political correctness. Plus, most blacks see through the dishonesty of equating homosexual behavior and inborn racial characteristics, and understand that this is not a civil rights issue.
As we've seen in the gay press, this really bothers the homosexual movement. They just can't get the black churches to be "welcoming" to perversion. But now the gay lobby, and MassEquality in particular, has lots of money and sophisticated political and communications talent. Will it work? We're betting on the black churches to stand up on this one.
Here's from Sunday's Boston Globe:
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Liberty Counsel - www.LC.org
Voter Guides and Political Activity
On our web site, Liberty Counsel has posted voter guides and other resource materials regarding political activity of pastors, churches and nonprofit organizations. You can access all of these resources for free, just click the "2008 Voter Guides" picture on the front page at www.LC.org.
We also recently created a new DVD entitled "Pastors, Churches and Political Activity." In this DVD, Mathew Staver addresses what pastors and church leaders can and cannot do regarding supporting candidates, legislation and otherwise being involved in important issues facing this Nation. Mathew Staver has advised churches and pastors on political activity for nearly 20 years.
This DVD will educate and encourage pastors regarding how they can take a stand for the future of America. We believe this information is crucial, especially during this election year, when some people and groups want churches to be silent. Some churches have received unsolicited letters claiming they will lose their tax exemption if their pastors speak out on moral or political issues. Such letters are mere scare tactics to silence Christian viewpoints.
Pastors and church leaders can get a free copy of this DVD by calling 800-671-1776.
This DVD also contains written materials, including an updated version of our one-page summary chart on political and legislative activity. This is a chart that pastors have found very useful over the many years since it was first designed by Liberty Counsel. The DVD also has information about Mathew Staver and Liberty Counsel so that the pastors will be assured of the reliability of the materials.
A Special Invitation To Pastors in California, Florida and South Carolina
Several Pastors' Policy Briefings will be held in California, Florida and South Carolina in the next few weeks. Meals and hotel accommodations for the 1-1/2 day events are complimentary. The theme is "Rediscovering God in America."
Conference speakers will vary from event to event, but will include individuals such as Drs. Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Hon. Newt Gingrich, Dr. Charles Stanley, David Barton, John Hagee, Don Wildmon, Dr. Laurence White, Hon. Bob McEwen, Sen. Jim DeMint and Dr. Mat Staver. These briefings are designed to equip and encourage pastors to make a difference in the culture. You can also be involved by praying for the success of these events.
The dates and details for each event are as follows:
January 10-11, San Jose, CA
January 15-16, Columbia, SC
January 21-22, Orlando, FL
Jan 31-Feb 1, San Diego, CA
The Pastors' Policy Briefings have been a source of encouragement and motivation for the many pastors who have attended these events throughout the country. At a recent event in New Hampshire, a pastor who was called upon to deliver the benediction was so moved by the powerful messages that he was initially unable to speak. With a quivering voice, he grasped the pulpit and said that his life had been forever changed. He said he felt like he had been drinking from a fire hydrant for the past day and a half of the event.
America needs her pastors to stand up and boldly preach the gospel and speak the truth. You will hear some of America's finest voices for this hour in our history. We are pleased to participate in these events and we invite you to spread the word to the pastors in your community.
Other Upcoming Events in January with Mathew Staver
In addition to the Pastors' Policy Briefings, Mathew Staver is scheduled to speak in the following locations during January.
Sunday, Jan 13, 8:00, 9:15 & 11:15 a.m. services, Calvary Chapel, Thousand Oaks, CA (Los Angeles area).
Sunday, Jan 20, 6:00 p.m. service - First Church of Christ, Eustis, FL (Orlando area).
Sunday, Jan 27, 9:00 and 10:40 a.m. services, Forest Baptist Church, Troutville, VA (Roanoke area).
Monday, Jan 28, 6:30 p.m., Child Evangelism Fellowship banquet, Frazer United Methodist Church, Montgomery, AL.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Quote of the day: "America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men.
It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society.
It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters." ~ Mother Teresa
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Sisters claim tax rules give better rights to lesbians
By Frances Gibb, Legal Editor The Times 9/12/07O
Two sisters in their eighties who claim that the law treats them less favourably than if they were a lesbian couple are to challenge Britain's inheritance tax rules in Europe today...
They will make a last-ditch appeal before 17 Grand Chamber judges at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, saying that they should have the same legal rights as gay couples in civil partnerships. An ordinary chamber of seven judges ruled against them last December by four to three.
The sisters, who have lived together all their lives, argue that they should be treated no less favourably than civil partners...
The Government says that favourable tax treatment for civil partners is justified, because it encourages committed relationships.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Lesbian suit against Christian school tossed
1/25/08
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59873
'No triable issues': Academy's right to expel 2 girls in 'relationship' confirmed
A California judge has ruled that Christian schools can set standards
for behavior for their students, and impose penalties if they are not
met.
The decision comes from Riverside County Superior Court Judge Gloria
Trask, who found "no triable issues" on claims that a Christian
school discriminated against two girls because of their perceived
sexual orientation, according to a report in the North County Times.
Trask recently dismissed the claims made against California Lutheran
High School in Wildomar by the two girls and their parents.
The case developed in 2005 when the girls, members of the junior
class, were expelled after school officials noticed behavior by the
two that may have indicated a lesbian relationship.
The lawsuit filed by the girls and the parents then alleged the
California Lutheran High School Association – which oversees
operation of the Wildomar school – engaged in discrimination,
invasion of privacy and unfair business practices in its handling and
ultimate dismissal of two juniors.
The students were summoned into the office of Principal Gregory Bork,
the lawsuit claimed, where Bork "individually and separately
interrogated the (students) in a closed room, without the parents'
knowledge or consent ... and asked (them) inappropriate and personal
questions such as whether they loved one another and were lesbians."
"In such a manner, Bork coerced one of the (students) to admit that
she 'loves' the other," a court document stated.
The next day, the parents received a phone call from Bork informing
them the board had decided to expel the students. One day later, the
parents confronted the principal in person and by phone and were told
the two girls could not remain at school "with those feelings."
Bork also wrote a letter to the parents stating "while there is no
open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of
intimacy ... characteristic of a lesbian (relationship). ... Such a
relationship is unchristian. To allow the girls to attend (Cal
Lutheran) ... would send a message to students and parents that we
either condone this situation and/or will not do anything about it.
That message would not reflect our beliefs and principles."
The students, identified in the lawsuit as Jane Doe and Mary Roe,
were expelled in September 2005 for "engaging in homosexual conduct
in violation of the Christian Code of Conduct, including but not
limited to, posing for pictures in suggestive sexual positions."
Lawyers for the students argued the school is not a religious
institution but a fee-taking organization.
But they were opposed by other lawyers, from the Christian Legal
Society and the Alliance Defense Fund who argued on behalf of the
school, because the decision could affect members of the Association
of Faith-Based Organizations.
"Christian schools have the right to make admissions and disciplinary
decisions consistent with their Christian beliefs," said Timothy J.
Tracey, a litigation counsel for the CLS. "To subject Christian
schools to liability under the California anti-discrimination laws
for expelling students who engage in homosexual conduct flatly
violates this right."
"The 14th Amendment protects the right of parents to send their
children to a private religious school that shares their religious
beliefs," the arguments said. "The United States Supreme Court has
long recognized the existence of parents' right to direct their
children's education."
"These parents have chosen to send their children to private
Christian schools because of the unique Christian mission and values
espoused by the schools. Compelling the schools to condone
extramarital sexual conduct contrary to their values and beliefs
eliminates a primary reason why parents choose to send their children
to these Christian schools in the first place – having their children
educated and mentored from a distinctly Christian perspective," the
court filings said.
The state may govern the "basic requirements" of private schools,
through licensing and reporting requirements, but "it cannot
unreasonably interfere with the teaching and educational philosophies
of such schools," the argument said.
The First Amendment's Religion Clause also prevents state anti-
discrimination laws based on moral behavior from applying, the
attorneys argued.
Attorney Kirk Hanson, representing the students, said he would appeal
the dismissal of the case. He said he'll continue to argue the school
is a business and must abide by state discrimination requirements.
"That's (appeals court) where this case would have ended up
regardless," Hanson told the newspaper. "Win or lose at the trial
level, the case is going to be in front of a court of appeal."
But John McKay, a lawyer for the school, said, "The First Amendment
gives Christian schools the right to educate children on the (basis)
of Christian beliefs. We're right on the First Amendment (regarding)
free association."
On a forums page at the newspaper's Internet site, "Edward" supported
the decision.
"It's not right to enroll in a school that has certain defined
beliefs and rules, and then decide you don't want to comply," he
wrote. "Simply enroll in a different school that closer matches your
idealogy (sic). Don't sue to try to make the existing school what you
want it to be."
"This was obviously an attack by the 'diversity' crowd on another
religious institution," added "Watch out." "They are dead set on
destroying any mention of or exercise of religious freedom."
And Peter added, "Think people think …. If you as a parent sign on a
dotted line accepting the rules of the private school, then
disciplinary action against your son or daughter should be expected
when they break the rules. Face the consequences and move on."
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill - Peers vote to sideline role of fathers for IVF children
22 January 2008 http://www.christian.org.uk:80/issues/2007/hte_bill/fathers_22jan08.ht
m
The law currently upholds the 'need for a father' to be considered
prior to fertility treatment. Law to undermine fathers is "irresponsible", says Peer (17/1/08)
On 21 January Peers voted in favour of a change in the law which
undermines the importance of the father to a child born after in-
vitro fertilisation.
The law currently refers explicitly to a child's 'need for a father',
which doctors must consider before providing fertility treatment.
But the Government proposes to replace this with a reference to 'the
need for supportive parenting' in order to give lesbians and single
women easier access to IVF...
During the debate, Baroness Deech told the House of Lords: "Keeping
the requirement to have regard to the child's need for mothers and
fathers is an important case of non-discrimination. It is about
upholding parenting and equal respect for both sexes in their roles.
"It is about avoiding the risk I have referred to on earlier
occasions in this debate that scientific advances in fertility may
dehumanise in particular fathers, who are reduced to mere sperm
donors and who, having done their job, can go away with no regard to
their vital importance in children's welfare."
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
By Miranda Devine http://www.smh.com.au/news/ 1/27/08
To the disgust of some, medical technology is not quite up to making men redundant in the baby-making business. Despite the promise of burgeoning new reproductive opportunities, increasing numbers of women who want to go it alone are finding sperm does not come without strings.
A case in point was the SBS documentary 2 Mums And A Dad, which aired last week, depicting the fraught attempts by two Melbourne lesbians, Kellie and Fiona, and clucky gay sperm donor, Darren, to become a parent threesome. Before Fiona goes into her bedroom to impregnate herself with a syringe full of Darren's bodily fluids, the trio draw up a non-binding parenting contract stating that the women are the permanent carers but that Darren has limited visiting rights, which increase with the baby's age.
The women clearly don't know Darren, 39, very well. He becomes resentful of perceived slights during the pregnancy and his behaviour goes from fawning to passive-aggressive. His desperation to be a father is almost unnerving. "Look at this bundle of joy I've got for the rest of my life," he crows to his mother in England via computer video-link, the day his son Marley is born. Not long into the pregnancy the women realise they have a big problem with Darren, a work colleague with whom they have not socialised and have little in common. The more they see of him, the more controlling and needy he becomes.
One excruciating scene has Darren reading the silent women a laundry list of petty grievances, when suddenly he dashes to heavily pregnant Fiona and proprietorally lays his head on her swollen belly. The look of disgust on
her face as she endures his intrusion is sad.
It is one of the conundrums of the turkey-baster approach - a woman will have the most profound lifelong intimacy with the man whose genes are mingled with hers in their child, and yet she will never have been physically intimate with him, and may even find his very touch repulsive...
The women have been clear from the start: they are the family unit, "mum and mum", and Darren is a marginal extra. In other words, it's all about them. But they don't seem to have thought about how Darren might feel about his incidental role. And how will the boy feel, later, when he comprehends his father's lowly standing within his family?...
Others are not so lucky in the minefield we create as we redefine the concept of family.... A new American book, Knock Yourself Up: No Man? No Problem! is the most celebratory of a new genre of how-to books for lesbians and single women wanting to have a baby without the messiness of a man.
In interviews with this "new breed of single mums", author Louise Sloan exposes a deep well of selfishness from women who aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary in marriage and disregard their child's right to know his father. "There's a reason I'm single," single mother Eva tells Sloan. "Relationships involve a lot of compromise and I want to keep my voice."
How then will she cope with motherhood, which requires boundless selflessness?
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
January 31, 2008
Liberty Counsel Files Brief at Iowa Supreme Court to Protect Traditional Marriage
Des Moines, IA – Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief at the Iowa Supreme Court in a case that will ultimately either protect or destroy the definition of marriage in Iowa, which has always been the union between one man and one woman.
Liberty Counsel’s brief, written by Senior Litigation Attorney Mary McAlister, argues that the fundamental constitutional right to marry includes rights and obligations that cannot be eliminated because they come from the inherent nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, rather than from a state-sanctioned union of any two people who love each other.
In Varnum v. Brien, at various times in 2004 and 2005 six couples applied for marriage certificates to the Polk County Recorder and Polk County Registrar, Timothy Brien, who denied their applications for marriage on the basis of Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. Trial court Judge Robert Hanson ruled the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Brien appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Liberty Counsel submitted an Amicus Brief in support of Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. In previous cases the Iowa Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed that marriage – the union of one man and one woman – is a “most vital social institution.†State marriage laws do not create a bundle of rights called “marriage,†but instead regulate a social institution upon which society has been built and the future of society rests.
Society is not obligated to recognize and bestow benefits upon any group of individuals who profess to love each other. The opposing side is actually trying to deconstruct the institution of marriage at the same time that they are asking to become a part of it. Furthermore, the definition of marriage neither discriminates on the basis of sex or sexual orientation nor deprives anyone of the fundamental right to marry.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “Virtually every court that has considered challenges to traditional marriage has correctly concluded that the matter of marriage should be decided by the people, not by the courts. Courts are not proselytizing engines of radical social change. Marriage between one man and one woman is a historically shared value that transcends time and cultures. Untying the knot that holds together traditional marriage will unravel the family, destabilize the culture, and hurt children.â€
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
CRI:
Protect Marriage Initiative-Signatures Needed!
We are currently caught in an historic attempt to radically alter the meaning and definition of marriage. Marriage must remain strong for future generations. Protecting marriage is a battle worth fighting for!
ProtectMarriage.com is a coalition to preserve marriage between one man and one woman in California. The coalition is currently conducting a petition drive to place the "California Marriage Protection Act" on California's November 2008 ballot.
The "California Marriage Protection Act" will write marriage protections into our constitution itself, therefore preventing the legislature or judges from redefining marriage to accommodate homosexual relationships.
Capitol Resource Family Impact (CRFI) strongly encourages you to visit the ProtectMarriage.com website and print off petitions, circulate them, and return the signed petitions.
Pro-family, pro-marriage Californians must take a strong stand or we will lose this battle!
You can help! Visit ProtectMarriage.com today!
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2434
Marry-land Tackles Same-Sex Question (FRC)
By some coincidence, a committee of the Maryland Senate chose Valentine's Day to hold hearings on several marriage-related bills. A debate is raging across the state in the wake of last year's ruling by Maryland's highest court, which upheld the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Gay rights activists are pushing full-speed ahead on legislation that would legalize same-sex "marriage" in Maryland, a policy that the state's attorney general, Doug Gansler, now publicly supports.
In the hearing at Annapolis, FRC's Vice President for Policy Peter Sprigg attended and submitted written testimony on two of the bills. He endorsed a proposal for "covenant marriage," a voluntary alternative to the standard marriage license which seeks to strengthen the institution of marriage by requiring counseling before marriage and a waiting period or a finding of fault before a divorce.
Peter also opposed a radical bill which would abolish civil marriage altogether, replacing it with "domestic partnerships" for all--opposite-sex and same-sex couples alike. If the sponsors think that reserving the definition of the word "marriage" to churches and religious institutions will somehow make government subsidies for homosexual relationships more palatable, they should think again.
As Peter told the committee in his testimony, "Marriage is not primarily a religious institution or a civil institution. At its heart, marriage is a natural institution, rooted in the order of nature itself. . . . Marriage arose because society needs to reproduce itself, and because children need the mother and father who produce them to cooperate in raising them. . . . Society gives benefits to marriage because of these benefits which marriage gives to society."
Not surprisingly, the testimony in favor of same-sex marriage was long on emotion and short on reasoning, and it focused almost entirely on the individual legal and financial benefits people derive from marriage, rather than on the public purposes of marriage.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Tested Out
Another interesting aspect of the Legal Misandry Machine and its 'Doublethink' approach to the Radical Gender Feminist / Homosex agenda of 'BAMN BAMN' (to Bash Men, By Any Means Necessary) was shown on the ABC World News last night (1/12/08) - in the case of a Man whose Wife gave birth to Twins, Fathered by another... Well, who knows what or what gender.... What with the Legal Abolition of Gender in favor of mutable perceptions to be forced upon unbelievers in the name of an ersatz fraud of 'tolerance.'
Anywayyyyy... The Demand that RAPE (Defined by Radical Feminists in Charge of Gender Law as All Heterosexual Intercourse - Because these Hyper Militant Misandrist Womyn say Normal Women are incapable of consenting to relations with their husbands... Due to their "Oppression by the Patriarchy") be Punished by Payment of Child Support by the "Father" - would seemingly conflict with the corresponding demand that Turkey Baster Babies (those conceived through Heterosexual Procreation - not involving a Penis touching a Womyn) Have No Fathers - and are simply the result of using an Anonymous Genderless 'Donor.'
However, this fails to incorporate the necessary level of Orwellian Doublethink - which allows DNA as Evidence sufficient to Send a Man to the Death Chamber, but Not sufficient to prove he is a Father - unless of course it also incorporates punishment for Heterosexual Relations as a Part of the Charges. In short - Use a Penis, Go to Jail is a fair analysis of the law for those who cannot afford to pay.
The Man in the ABC Story was in a different fix though - as he suspected (and later proved with a Home DNA Test Kit) that the children his wife presented as his were actually someone else's, But still Must Pay Child Support because... Well, because Radical Gender Feminists want to break the relationship between DNA And Parental Responsibility.
Of course the ultimate goal is a Gynotopia / Dyketopia - where Government is the Surrogate Husband, and All Men (meaning Brutish Raping Testosterone Poisoned Pigs - just check out the 'Trojan -tm commercials) must Pay for all Womyn's Choices - as not just as some form of reparations for the evils of the penis, but because it also makes these Misandrist Mau Mau artistes happy to have such sweet revenge on those they Hate so fiercely.
Best keep quiet about it though - wouldn't want to spread any "Ism-Obia" now would we - what with everything else going around and all...
Ohso
Not merely the validity of experience but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. George Orwell - 1984, On the Thought Police.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Judges: 'Gay' exposure OK for kindergarteners
Parents citing religious beliefs vow to take case to U.S. Supreme Court
WorldNetDaily.com 1 February 2008
In a case that could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court, an appeals
panel upheld dismissal of a lawsuit by Massachusetts parents seeking
to prevent discussion of homosexual families in their children's
elementary school classrooms.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday agreed with a judge's
decision last year that a school can expose children to contrary
ideas without violating their parents' rights to exercise religious
beliefs.
"Public schools," wrote Judge Sandra L. Lynch, "are not obliged to
shield individual students from ideas which potentially are
religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no
requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or
even participate in discussions about them."
Lynch reasoned that schools must accept the Massachusetts high
court's groundbreaking 2003 decision ruling "that the state
constitution mandates the recognition of same-sex marriage."
As WND reported in 2006, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed
the civil rights lawsuit by David and Tonia Parker of Lexington,
concluding there is an obligation for public schools to teach young
children to accept and endorse homosexuality.
The Parkers' lead attorney, Jeffrey Denner, declared after
yesterday's ruling the parents are preparing to take the case to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
"We are fully committed to go forward," he said, according to the non-
profit advocacy group MassResistance. "We will continue to fight on
all the fronts that we need to."
David Parker in handcuffs after he challenged an elementary school's
right to teach his young son about homosexuality
David Parker said the ruling "will surely embolden and enable the
schools even more on this if it's not fought."
"There's going to be an accountability, you can count on it," he
said.
The dispute began in the spring of 2005 when the Parkers then-5-year-
old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents
titled, "Who's in a Family?" The optional reading material, which
came in a "Diversity Book Bag," depicted at least two households led
by homosexual partners.
The Parkers filed suit against the Lexington school district in 2006
and later were joined by Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, whose second-
grader's class was read a story about two princes who become lovers.
In another parents-rights case in Massachusetts, Norfolk Superior
Court Judge Patrick F. Brady in December allowed Cohasset Public
Schools to move forward with special education for an eighth-grader
even though the parents opposed the plan.
MassResistance, which has supported the Parkers, contended Lynch's
opinion virtually ignores a major argument made by the Parkers'
attorney, Rob Sinsheimer, "that the basic constitutional protections
of religious belief are being trampled on by the school."
MassResistance notes Lynch uses the state's controversial 1999
Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework to justify homosexual-
oriented "tolerance" lessons in the lower grades, but she "completely
ignores the fact that that document was clearly intended as a non-
mandatory, informal set of guidelines."
The group points out Planned Parenthood is promoting a bill this year
to make the document a formal legal guideline.
MassResistance said that to read the concluding words of Lynch's
ruling "is to experience a real sense of the term 'banality of
evil.'"
Lynch reasoned that "the mere fact that a child is exposed on
occasion in public school to a concept offensive to a parent's
religious belief does not inhibit the parent from instructing the
child differently."
The opinion said the judges cannot see how the Parker's son's "free
exercise right was burdened at all: two books were made available to
him, but he was never required to read them or have them read to him.
Further, these books do not endorse gay marriage or homosexuality, or
even address these topics explicitly, but merely describe how other
children might come from families that look different from one's own.
There is no free exercise right to be free from any reference in
public elementary schools to the existence of families in which the
parents are of different gender combinations."
The panel said the Wirthlin's son "has a more significant claim, both
because he was required to sit through a classroom reading of 'King
and King' and because that book affirmatively endorses homosexuality
and gay marriage. It is a fair inference that the reading of 'King
and King' was precisely intended to influence the listening children
toward tolerance of gay marriage. That was the point of why that book
was chosen and used."
But the judges also dismissed the Wirthlin's argument.
"Even assuming there is a continuum along which an intent to
influence could become an attempt to indoctrinate, however, this case
is firmly on the influence-toward-tolerance end," the opinion
said. "There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no
allegation that Joey was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a
student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free
exercise rights."
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
DNA of Denial
Fans of Presidential Candidate Barack Obama are no doubt pleased that the Orwellian Nightmare of Mandatory 'Doublethink' found in the bizarre decrees of our Turkey Baster Creationist Courts has proven so deviant from even the most basic Logic, Reason or DNA Science, that it is actually become easier to predict the rulings in advance. The consistent Heads We Win / Tails You Lose Bias of the pathetic farce of out 'legal system' in favor of pandering to the sick hatreds and vile perversions of the Radical Leftist / Gender Feminist/Homosex agenda is now the only indicator needed to tell which way the foul wind of legal 'logic' is blowing.
For Example, when he first ran for Senator - Obama was outshone rather severely by Alan Keyes in their televised debate. In fact it was only the intervention of his partisan activists in the audience, staging a strategic bout of laughter at Keyes answers when he scored one of his most important points on Obama, that kept the wonder boy of the left from looking more like a schoolchild being spanked. The issue was Obama's position that Children have No Right to Know Who Their Parents Are - because this would interfere with Radical Homosex demands that Gender Be Abolished and Fatherhood Destroyed, unless they declare otherwise.
The Turkey Baster Baby boom, particularly amongst the types of Separatist / Neo-Exterminationist Dyke Misandrists in power in places like Weimar Kalifornia, has led to such bizarre (at least to the politically incorrect) Contradictions as allowing DNA Tests to Prove Paternity if the goal is to force a Man who engaged in Procreation by Heterosexual Intercourse to pay for his children...
While Simultaneously Banning its use if it Contradicts the Assertion that Two Dykes can Be Co-Mommies Without Any Father At All... Which formerly Male role is now reduced to an anonymous spitwad of sperm from a genderless "Donor."
Indeed, with the pandering to the demands of Mentally Ill Drag Queens & Kings (self mutilating or with original genitals still attached) that their birth certificates be retroactively altered to reflect their current choice of gender (DNA is not recognized by the 'law' as a factor in gender - Perception Alone counts), the reliability of any such documents is about the same as American Drivers licenses manufactured in Mexico, although at least the Mexican documents at least have an air of authenticity.
It is a very brave new world for sure when DNA can be used to send a Man to the Death Chamber, but Not Prove he is the Father of His Children, and this is sold to the 'Vanilla' (clueless voters / taxpayers) by our Old Media as a sign of 'tolerance'... Ahem.
Anywayyyy... During the Keyes / Obama debate the question of whether it was appropriate to promote an intentionally 'Fatherless' society (Fact is - Everyone has a Father, even if they have never met them) was brought up, with Obama all in favor of the Turkey Baster Revolution - and Keyes bringing up such Inconvenient Truths as the potential for Incest (A serious problem for those who want children free of genetic flaws - even if they themselves don't believe in DNA Science) - which was the point where the Obama partisans needed to supply a laugh track to derail the issue.
Thus, while many allegedly 'Fatherless' children (such as those born to 'anonymous donors') would like to know who their Real Parents are for Many Reasons (like Hereditary Medical Issues), the issue of Incest has recently been raised in a real and meaningful manner in gay, if not particularly merry ole England, and as the following story shows - it is Not just a matter of Perception...
Ohso
Not merely the validity of experience but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. George Orwell -1984, On the Thought Police.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Report of married twins spurs push for data
Associated Press January 12, 2008
London -- Twins who were separated at birth got married without realizing they were brother and sister, a lawmaker said, urging more information be provided on birth certificates for adopted children. A court annulled the British couple's union after they discovered their true relationship, Lord David Alton said.
"Everyone has a right to knowledge about their lineage, genealogy and identity. And if they don't, then it will lead to cases of incest," Alton said in a telephone interview Friday.
Alton, an independent legislator who works at Liverpool's John Moores University, first revealed details of the unusual case last month during a five-hour debate about a bill that would change regulations about human embryology.
"I was recently involved in a conversation with a High Court judge who was telling me of a case he had dealt with," Alton said according to a transcript of the Dec. 10 debate. "It involved the normal birth of twins who were separated at birth and adopted by separate parents.
"They were never told that they were twins. They met later in life and felt an inevitable attraction, and the judge had to deal with the consequences of the marriage that they entered into and all the issues of their separation."...
Alton said the siblings' inadvertent marriage raises the wider issue of the importance of strengthening the rights of children to know the identities of their biological parents, including kids who were born through in vitro fertilization. Under British law, only a mother has to be named on a birth certificate. Such certificates also are not required to identify births that result from in vitro fertilization or to identify the sperm donor.
In addition, British law does not require parents to ever tell children that they were the result of donated sperm.
Alton believes this should be changed. Alton said he favors an amendment to the Human Fertility and Embryology bill - which is still being debated in the House of Lords - that would require birth certificates of children born from donated sperm to say that and to identify the genetic father.
Referring to the twins' case, he said: "If you start trying to conceal someone's identity, sooner or later the truth will come out. And if you don't know you are biologically related to someone, you may become attracted to them and tragedies like this may occur."
Edited 2/2/2008 12:01 pm ET by Ohso1
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Kingfish on the Grill
Slick Willie the Lesser (Brown - the fabled "Ayatollah of the Assembly" who inspired the CA Term Limits movement) was recently re-introduced to a grand jury - probing in to the dealings of the 'Dirty Don' of the Democrap Party in Weimar Kalifornia (Der Arnold, Uber Kommandant, Inc.)...
... Meaning None other than the author of the current Proposition known as '93 Reasons Why I Should Rule for Another 4 Years in Charge of the State Senate': Speaker Pro Tem and Co-Author of the Term Limit Destroying Scam known as Poop-93 - Dirty Don Perata.
Anywayyyyy... The Matier and Ross story from the Frisco Crock was just oh so chock full of 'Willie-isms', convenient / lawyerly memory lapses, as well as shocking revelations in the personal hygiene field, all from the leader of one of the larger 'Patronage Armies' in the sordid record of such things kept in Sodom by the Sea where he was 'Da Mayor' - that it just begged comment.
Truly, Any less shameless a professional grifter would probably be squirming on the witness stand when 'grilled' in front of a grand jury, but Slick Willie the Lesser seems to enjoy it all, knowing that as long as he plays coy he can claim with impunity that "I did not have sexual relations with that womyn, Ms Dirty Donna..."
Ohso
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
....................................................................................................
Brown gets grilled in Perata investigation
Phillip Matier,Andrew Ross January 27, 2008 SFGate
The feds were also interested in Perata's alleged efforts on behalf of a company that was trying to get a contract for "waterless toilets" at San Francisco parks and at the airport when Brown was mayor.
"I don't even know what a waterless toilet is," Brown says he told the jurors.
Did you ever meet with Sen. Perata? the federal prosecutor asked.
Yes, replied Brown - several times, on several different topics.
Did you ever keep any notes?
"No," said Brown.
Why not?
"Years ago I realized that my eyesight was failing, so notes don't do me any good," Brown said. "To compensate, I've trained my mind to concentrate on the most important information at a meeting and toss out everything else."
So you can't recall any of your conversations with the senator?
"No," Brown said. Then after a pause, the ever-dapper ex-mayor added. "But I could probably tell you what he was wearing."
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
School Board Settles Lawsuit By Amending Policy and Accepting Student’s Community Service Hours at Church
1/29/08
Long Beach, CA – The Long Beach District School Board has approved a settlement agreement with Christopher Rand, a high school student who was denied credit for community service hours he completed at his church. Chris has now received full credit for the hours. The district administration also rewrote its community service learning policy to allow students to complete mandatory community service hours at either secular or religious organizations, including churches, on the same terms.
In October 2007, Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit against the district because Chris’s school refused to grant credit for more than 70 hours of community service, solely because it was performed at Long Beach Alliance Church. He interacted with the children in the church’s programs, answered questions, assisted with crafts and art projects, supervised activity time to help ensure safety, and performed other duties.
After Chris submitted the required documentation regarding his volunteer service, he was denied credit because the district’s prior community service learning policy stated, “Service to your religious community does not count.â€
If Christopher had given the same service in a secular school or in a nonreligious childcare program, his service would have been credited. Shortly after Liberty Counsel filed suit, the district agreed to award Chris credit for the full 72.5 hours that had previously been rejected.
In addition to giving Chris credit for his community service, the district accepted input from Liberty Counsel in revising its policy to comply with the First Amendment.
Under the new policy, religious organizations will receive the same treatment as other nonprofit organizations in terms of the types of community service work that is permitted. Students are expressly allowed to supervise and assist with leading organized children’s activities, such as those performed by Chris. The district also agreed to pay attorney’s fees and costs to Liberty Counsel.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “When community service is a graduation requirement, schools cannot limit service to secular venues.
Discrimination against performing community service for religious organizations violates the First Amendment and offends the rich religious heritage that made this country great.â€
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell
1. Federal court denies appeal in David Parker case on homosexual programs in elementary school. Outrageous ruling embracing homosexual "tolerance" lessons. (Full report with text of ruling)
2. MassResistance reaction: Time to fight back.
3. David Parker lawsuit had “chilling†effect on schools’ homosexual programs, says homosexual legal advocacy group.
1. Federal court denies appeal in David Parker case on homosexual programs in elementary school. Outrageous ruling embracing homosexual "tolerance" lessons
A three-judge federal appeals panel issued a bizarre and horrific ruling today denying the appeal by David Parker, his wife Tonia, and Rob and Robin Wirthlin in their federal Civil Rights case against the Lexington school system about normalizing homosexuality to elementary school children without parents' knowledge or consent.
The ruling, written Judge Sandra L. Lynch, upholds the dismissal of the case by Federal Judge Mark Wolf, agrees with his reasoning and even goes a bit further.
Lynch's ruling, using an interpretation of Massachusetts statutes and snippets from "case law" to embrace homosexual "tolerance" lessons, largely ignores Constitutional religious guarantees, which was the basis of Parker's legal argument.
Lynch also uses notorious "1999 Curriculum Frameworks" in argument, which is currently just an informal guideline.
Read our full report including text of the ruling here.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsuit/appeal_loss_013108/
Parker's lawyers are already preparing to appeal the case to US Supreme Court.
2. MassResistance reaction: Time to fight back.
David Parker and his lawyers are not giving up. Neither are we. And neither should you. As we mentioned in our writeup (see link above), there's a history of getting beaten badly at first and then winning big in the end.
But we can't just wait for that to happen. It's time for us to start fighting back. (And to stop feeling depressed and beaten down.)
In our last email we wrote: "Coming up next: What YOU can do."
We'd been working hard on that. But yesterday (Thursday) when the David Parker ruling came, we decided to temporarily switch gears and get this news out to you right away. Now we're back to work.
On Sunday we plan to post our huge (currently 75 pages) research study on the H1722 -- the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill" -- and how it will affect you. We've been preparing this for several months. We've put together a lot of pretty chilling material. It will really move you. This is an extremely dangerous bill.
Then early next week watch for our new action links, and more.
So the short answer is: Get ready to fight back. It's time. Watch upcoming emails for more.
3. David Parker lawsuit had “chilling†effect on schools’ homosexual programs, says homosexual legal advocacy group
There's a reason why the homosexual movement has been so hostile and vicious against David Parker and his family: He's been making a difference. By his standing up and filing a lawsuit, their worst nightmare started to come about.
Here's how the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows described it in a recent issue:
Read more here
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/pflag_092407/parker_suit.html
All of us owe David Parker a debt of gratitude and thanks for his sacrifice and for standing up against the aggressive homosexual movement.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
CCF:
Two different California marriage amendments
Tens of thousands of Californians concerned about the homosexual-marriage agenda have received a letter claiming that the "ProtectMarriage" initiative will "stop this nonsense for good." But will it?
There are two different marriage amendments proposed for California. The VoteYesMarriage.com campaign has put together a helpful comparison piece explaining the very different legal effects of the two proposals.
You decide which one will fully and permanently protect marriage. Click here to read the VoteYesMarriage.com ad.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Such Bastions of Tolerance - For Homosex Pederast Perverts at least - are our Courts... Ohso
<>>><>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sex Offender Accused of Raping Boy, 6, in Public Library
By Katie Zezima NY Times 2/2/08
Boston - A convicted sex offender was arrested this week and charged with
raping a 6-year-old boy in the New Bedford public library, feet away from
his mother, who was working on a computer.
The suspect, Corey Saunders, 26, had pleaded guilty to attempted rape of a
child in 2001, but was released from prison in 2006 over the strong
objections of prosecutors and psychiatrists...
Judge Richard Moses of Superior Court had ruled in December 2006 that
prosecutors did not prove in a civil commitment hearing that Mr. Saunders
was a sexually dangerous person and that he should be held in a treatment
program after his sentence was completed. Instead, Mr. Saunders received
probation and was required to register as a Class 3, or high risk, sex
offender.
Paul F. Walsh, the former Bristol County district attorney who handled Mr.
Saunders's case, strongly objected to his release, as did psychiatrists who
testified at the hearing. In an interview, Mr. Walsh said he and others had
feared that Mr. Saunders would commit another crime.
"I was D.A. for 16 years," Mr. Walsh said, "and I put him in the top 10
most dangerous offenders. Everybody knew this guy was just another incident
waiting to happen."
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Presidential Candidates on Judicial Philosophy
In order to educate the public on how various Presidential candidates plan to fulfill the important responsibility of appointing Article III judges, the Federalist Society has posted opinions from four of the major Presidential contenders- including John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. We continue to welcome and will post initial responses from remaining campaigns (Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama), as well as further responses from all.
The debate can be found HERE.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
IVA:
The Canadian government has bizarrely ruled that women who abort their children after 20 weeks will be eligible to claim taxpayer-funded maternity benefits under Canada's employment insurance program. (Maternity Benefits Available for Women Who Abort after 20 Weeks)
Ø A federal court has ruled that schools can expose children to homosexual indoctrination despite the religious objections of parents. Said the judge, "Public schools are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive."
This, of course, is ludicrous, since federal judges have no problem shielding students from prayer in public schools precisely because prayer is "religiously offensive" to some parents. In our judicially active culture, being "offended" is grounds for action for everyone but those who share the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers. Further, the judge ruled that brainwashing kindergartners to accept homosexual behavior is required by the legalization of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. (WorldNetDaily: Judges: 'Gay' exposure OK for kindergarteners
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
"Originally Speaking"
AN ONLINE WRITTEN DEBATE ON
The Presidential Candidates Views on the Judiciary
Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate
In Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate, Federalist Society co-founder Prof. Steven G. Calabresi has compiled an impressive collection of speeches, panel discussions, and debates on Originalism from some of the greatest and most prominent legal experts of the last twenty-five years. This book is now on sale at the Federalist Society's online store.
To learn more and to purchase the book click HERE.On November 4, 2008 American voters will elect the forty-fourth President of the United States. In recent times, Presidents have had the opportunity to appoint close to two hundred Article III judges in a given term, including two Justices to the Supreme Court. These judges serve for life.
In order to educate the public on how various Presidential candidates plan to fulfill this important responsibility, the Federalist Society has invited each of the major Presidential contenders- including John McCain and Mitt Romney, from whom we have received initial submissions, as well as, on the Republican side, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, and on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama- to discuss the kinds of judges he or she would appoint if elected President. We have posted all the material received to date. We continue to welcome and will post initial responses from remaining campaigns, as well as further responses from Senator McCain and Governor Romney.
The debate can be found HERE.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
AB 624-Government Oversight of Private Foundations (Coto)
Last week the Assembly passed the recently amended AB 624 (Coto).
Immediate action is required to defeat this outrageous bill in the Senate.
AB 624 would require all private, corporate, or public foundations with assets of more than $250 million to collect ethnic, gender and sexual orientation data on their board of directors, staff, members and grant recipients.
The bill also requires these philanthropic organizations to report on the percentage of grant dollars awarded to groups where 50% or more of the board members are ethnic minorities or are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. After collecting this data, each group would be forced to publish the information on their web site and include it in their annual report.
Twelve years ago the people of California passed Proposition 209, which prohibited the discriminatory practice of considering an individual's ethnic background in state contracts, education and employment. AB 624 establishes a double standard for the government by forcing private philanthropic organizations-the groups that should be caring for minorities and the poor, not the government-to discriminate where the government is prohibited from doing so.
Even more alarmingly, AB 624 goes much further than typical affirmative action measures; it includes sexual orientation and transgenders as protected classes. This is an egregious abuse of government power in forcing generous, charitable organizations to become politically correct. The government has no business in interfering with these private, citizen-lead organizations.
We must stop AB 624. AB 624 is an incremental measure. This year, it will be wealthy private organization but next year it could be all private organizations and businesses. The next step for liberal lawmakers will be to oversee and censor organizations like CRFI. We must stand up and protect our First Amendment freedoms of speech and association!
Please call and write your senator and express your disapproval of AB 624.
Find Your Senator
Contact Your Senator
Who Voted for AB 624?
Read AB 624
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Just the Facts - The Truth About SB 777
Who Voted for SB 777 in the Senate
Who Voted for SB 777 in the Assembly
Read the Initiative
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
ADF: Rode Island Supreme Court Says ‘No’ to Same-Sex ‘Divorce’
ADF and allies block spread of court-ordered same-sex ‘marriage’
In late 2003, advocates of homosexual behavior thought they had reached the tipping point in their struggle to force their agenda through the American legal system. Armed with a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that fabricated same-sex "marriage," they felt sure that judicial activists in other states would hurry to follow suit.
It didn't turn out that way . . . primarily because those pressing for same-sex unions hadn't counted on the hard work and dedicated efforts of the Alliance Defense Fund and our allies.
Since 1998, ADF attorneys and our allies have racked up an incredible God-given track record for defending marriage: a total of 41 cases, resulting in 33 victories, 2 ties, and 5 cases pending, with Massachusetts being the only "loss."
So much for the tipping point. Now, four years later, frustrated by their failure to achieve their agenda through direct legal attacks on marriage, advocates are pursuing more indirect means to judicially impose same-sex "marriage" on America.
And now, one of their most insidious tactics has gone down to complete—and stunning—defeat.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
IVA: Further reason we can be grateful for the work we did in 2006 to amend Idaho's constitution to protect marriage: In a gross display of judicial activism, a New York court ruled Friday that same-sex marriages performed in jurisdictions outside New York must be recognized as valid marriages in the Empire State.
The ruling will force employers, regardless of their personal moral and religious convictions, to accord same-sex marriages the same rights they give to natural marriages. This almost certainly will lead to a judicial effort to legalize homosexual marriages performed inside the state.
(A Victory for Same-Sex Marriage - New York Times)
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
The California Supreme Court announced Wednesday that oral arguments have finally been scheduled in the same-sex marriage case that will determine the fate of Prop 22. The long-awaited hearing will take place in San Francisco on March 4, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. The California Supreme Court will then render its opinion within 90-days after the oral argument. This means that a decision will be made by June.
Voters approved Prop 22 in 2000, declaring that marriage is for a man and a woman only. This law was challenged in February 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. In August 2004 the weddings were nullified. The case returned to San Francisco Superior Court in 2005 and Judge Richard Kramer ruled that Prop 22 was unconstitutional. The state appeals court overturned Kramer's ruling and the case was then appealed to the California Supreme Court.
The March 4 hearing will be televised live on the California Channel.
Just a few short months after the California legislature passed SB 777 which bans the use of "mom and dad" in the classroom and institutes policies promoting homosexuality and transsexuality, Britain took similar measures.
A guidance policy that was launched last week instructs teachers in Britain to use the word "parents" instead of "mum and dad" because they shouldn't assume that students have heterosexual parents.
The guidance policy also requires teachers to educate students about homosexual relationships and adoption whenever broaching the subject of "marriage." Under the new policy, there is also zero- tolerance for the use of the word "gay" as an insult. It states that this sort of rebuke "leads to bullying of those who do not conform to fixed ideas about gender."
Schools are encouraged to promote homosexual role models and use "every curriculum subject" to stop discriminatory attitudes. For example, English lessons for teenagers could focus on the emotions of the gay Italian soldier, Carlo in Captain Corelli's Mandolin.
The Department for Children, Schools and Families commissioned the gay rights group, Stonewall, to develop this policy.
In California, Capitol Resource Family Impact is doing what we can to combat this outrageous hijacking of our schools and the undermining of traditional marriage. Please join us in working to defeat SB 777.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Liberty Counsel To Argue Landmark Marriage Case At California Supreme Court
San Francisco, CA – The California Supreme Court has set oral argument for March 4 in a case involving the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
Liberty Counsel, which represents the Campaign for California Families (CCF), will participate in the three-hour oral argument, which is set to start at 9 a.m. The Court could ultimately decide whether same-sex couples in California have the right to enter into same-sex "marriages."
This case involves a four-year-old dispute over the constitutionality of California’s marriage laws. In February 2004, Liberty Counsel filed suit on behalf of CCF and its executive director, Randy Thomasson, to stop San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The court ruled that the mayor did not have authority to issue the licenses based upon his personal belief that the marriage laws were unconstitutional. Meanwhile, several same-sex couples and the City and County of San Francisco filed several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the marriage laws.
Those lawsuits and Liberty Counsel’s original action were consolidated and have gone through several court hearings and appeals, until finally reaching the California Supreme Court.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, who presented oral argument in this case before the California Court of Appeal, is scheduled to argue the case before the California Supreme Court.
Staver commented: "California has many common sense reasons for preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Marriage is a universally recognized social institution that forms the bedrock of every civilized society. Allowing same-sex couples to claim marital rights will destroy the unique institution that provides a stable cultural environment for children and their families."
Liberty Counsel - www.LC.org
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Today FRC Senior Fellow Bill Saunders and Vice President of Government Affairs Tom McClusky joined a large roomful of President Bush's stalled appointees to hear President Bush admonish the Democratic Senate on their failure to act on more than 180 of his nominees to various offices in the government and among our federal courts.
Within this number are 28 qualified judicial nominees, the majority of whom have not even been granted a hearing, including some who have been pending for over two years.
These presidential nominees are men and women from all walks of life who have put their lives on hold to serve this nation. Instead of recognizing their willingness to serve, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) have decided to put sand in the gears of government by not giving these men and women a simple up-or-down vote.
The non-judicial nominees include members of the Council of Economic Advisers, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board. Clearly the financial security or safety of Americans is taking a back seat to partisan politics.
![]()
![]()
Fact Sheet: Senate Must Act on Nominations to Federal Courts and Agencies [The White House]
Additional Resources
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Dad and Mom and Mom and... (FRC)
British scientists at Newcastle report they have created human embryos with the DNA from three parents--a father and two mothers.
Supposedly the idea is to replace faulty mitochondria, the little energy-generating sausages in the cell, to prevent genetic diseases, but what the scientists actually plan is a form of human cloning.
The process involves creating an embryo the old-fashioned way, combining an egg and sperm, then ripping the nucleus out of that embryo (which destroys it) and placing the nucleus into a new egg that has healthy mitochondria, creating a new, cloned embryo. The 10 three-parent embryos created were destroyed after a few days, though the researchers may have experimented with hundreds of embryos that were destroyed in their experiments. And their aim to produce children without genetic problems by IVF ignores work in mice that suggests "mixing" of mitochondria from different females can lead to new health problems.
This new report is just another example of human experimentation coming thanks to the "leadership" of "Brave New Britain," including creating cloned human embryos for experiments, producing animal-human hybrids, screening embryos in what amounts to manufacture of designer children, and advancing a proposal for "presumed consent" to use your tissues for cloning and animal-human hybrid production.
They've apparently never met a human experiment they didn't approve!
![]()
![]()
Three-parent embryo formed in lab [BBC News]
Additional Resources
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Space Racist - Kourt Klown Kandidate
Besides - if it furthers the cause of La Raza against the hated hibernian blancos - then Who Dare Object???Fans of Weimar Kalifornia Politics, and particularly the assorted sordid shames of my old home town of Sodom by the Sea, will no doubt be gratified to learn that one of the truly Spaciest Racist Bigots to ever grace the Frisco Bored Stuporvisors - None other than Gerardo Sandoval - is now running for another musical chair - on the Bench of Superior Court.
El Geraldo De La Raza - as he is sometimes known to his relatively rabid fan base, is nationally notorious for his public statements in favor of Abolishing the Military and leaving national defense to the Police and Coast Guard, which he would be happy to provide political oversight for... Ahem.
Anywayyyyy... Gerardo's Race Baiting Habits have not proven an impediment to his rise atop the midden heap of Frisco Insider Politics - and being a termed out hack in one arena just means that you can be an Activist Hack with Full Judicial Immunity for your Racist & Misandrist Travesties in another one.
Best keep quiet about it though - Judge Gerardo does not handle contempt (of himself) well...
Ohso
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross Monday, July 15, 2002 - Matier & Ross Archive
Click Here: Check out "Ex-election chief's intensely personal reason for job fight"
IRISH STEW: Looks like San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval had another attack of foot-in-mouth disease -- his foot in his mouth.
The latest attack came last Monday as Sandoval was questioning Rent Board chief Joe Grubb about the diversity of staff in his agency. Grubb ran down the ethnic and racial makeup of his employees and concluded that, on the whole, the staff is diverse. Sandoval, however, focused on the administrative law judges who hear cases, pointing out that of the nine judges, one is black and the rest are white.
Sandoval, it appeared, was pushing for more Latino representation, and as part of his remarks he said: "The point has been made before, that the Fire Department in San Francisco . . . should not reflect the Dublin phone book, and I think the same should be true of most departments."
It wasn't as eye-popping as Sandoval's last faux pas, when the supervisor suggested picketing the bar mitzvahs of uncooperative businesses leaders -- but still, the Irish in the audience weren't amused.
Edited 2/10/2008 12:21 pm ET by Ohso1
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Space Racist Sandoval - Here Come Da Judicial Activist Bigot. SFGate 3/31/08 - Matier & Ross
Here comes the judge: Rarely does a judge's race draw as much interest - or heat - as the June battle shaping up in San Francisco between Superior Court Judge Thomas Mellon and his chief challenger, Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval.
Sandoval will be termed out in November, and he's turned his attention to knocking off Mellon, a 12-year veteran of the bench. Mellon, it seems, is viewed as vulnerable because A) He's a white Republican and B) He has a courtroom reputation for sometimes being biased and brusque. Still, knocking off an incumbent judge could prove daunting, so Sandoval appears to be using his board status to raise money by the bucket.
He's received a total of more than $100,000 in contributions so far from organized labor, development interests and no fewer than nine City Hall lobbyists and PR firms with regular business before the supervisors. Mellon, by contrast, has reported raising only about $21,000, mostly from fellow judges. But Mellon, a longtime friend of Mayor Gavin Newsom's father, William Newsom, has also enlisted the mayor's chief political strategist, Eric Jaye, to help run his campaign. And if anyone knows how to beat Sandoval, it's Jaye - who helped derail Sandoval's challenge to newcomer Assessor Phil Ting in 2005.
Jaye has wasted little time ripping into Sandoval. Among other things, he says the supervisor has failed to disclose any of his legal clients while seated on the board. Sandoval also paid his wife $20,000 in campaign funds for work on his 2004 re-election, Jaye said.
Jaye also is taking aim at Sandoval's fundraising for his judge's race while on the board. For his part, Sandoval said he was shocked that Democrat Jaye would "spin for the Republican establishment."
As for the specifics of Jaye's attack, Sandoval would say only, "I'm running for judge and have too much respect for that office to respond to these baseless accusations. "I'm going to run a clean campaign based on the issues," he said, "but Judge Mellon is getting very bad advice, and I hope he takes the high road as we move forward." Don't bet on it.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Three Cheers for the Avowed Communist Libertines Unlimited and their deep concern for the Civil Rights of Restroom Romeos & Stall Stallions - if not the Rights of the Rest of Us...
A courtesy Flush - Please!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ACLU: GAY SEX IN PUBLIC RESTROOMS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (IVA)
The ACLU has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Sen. Larry Craig, whose protracted legal strategy is creating an opportunity for the ACLU to create entirely new kinds of mischief. The ACLU's brief assumes that the senator was in fact soliciting for gay sex last summer in a Minneapolis airport restroom, which of course the senator is now vigorously denying.
Problematically, the ACLU argues that the senator was in fact entitled to engage in gay sex with a willing partner in a public restroom stall, since people who use such restrooms have, according to 1970 Minnesota Supreme Court ruling, "a reasonable expectation of privacy."
It's difficult to know what part of the word "public" in the phrase "public restroom" the ACLU and Minnesota judges do not understand. The ACLU says that the intimacy the senator expected to engage in "would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom," an assertion which is ludicrous on its face. Sexual activity in public restrooms has been banned precisely because it is in fact disturbing to other members of the public and to their children.
The city of Boise had to enact a special ordinance because homosexual encounters in public park bathrooms were becoming such a nuisance to families using the park system. Since, the ACLU argues, private homosexual sex is a lawful act, even in a bathroom stall, soliciting for it cannot itself be unlawful.
So we are one activist judge away from having homosexual sex in a public restroom declared a constitutional right. And if it happens, the nation will have the ACLU and a senator from Idaho to thank.
ACLU: Sex in Restroom Stalls Is Private - Yahoo! Singapore News
ACLU amicus brief on behalf of Sen. Larry Craig
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
ACTION ALERT: DANGEROUS "DISCRIMINATION" BILL BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE (IVA)
The Idaho Human Rights Commission (note: "Human Rights" is a code word for the homosexual, feminist and secular fundamentalist agenda) is sponsoring a dangerous amendment (S1283) to Idaho's existing discrimination statute. The amendment proposes that plaintiffs receive an award of attorney's fees if they prevail.
Conveniently for the left, the amendment does not propose that defendants be awarded attorney's fees if they prevail against frivolous and unwarranted discrimination lawsuits.
Thus, the proposed amendment is unjust on its face, and a violation of the principle that all should stand equal before the bar of justice. Under this amendment, defendants will be exposed to risks that plaintiffs do not have to face.
Left-leaning groups such as the ACLU have padded their coffers - often at taxpayer expense - by winning huge attorney's fee awards in politically correct discrimination suits, often handed to them by activist judges who have made the courts unpredictable and turned them into tools of social re-engineering rather than true social justice.
If this amendment passes, it will encourage frivolous and thinly justified discrimination suits against corporations with deep pockets and against government entities which will simply dig into taxpayer wallets for the money to pay the awards.
It will create the likelihood that discrimination suits will no longer be in pursuit of justice but will be fishing expeditions for activist organizations trolling for a huge payday for themselves and their lawyers. It's a trial lawyers' dream, and a nightmare for everyone else.
Further, many businesses will be intimidated into capitulating to the far left agenda simply in order to avoid the huge financial risk involved in a potential discrimination lawsuit.
Consequently, the freedom of employers to select a workforce of their own choosing will be compromised, and they will find themselves making decisions based not on what is best for the work they are trying to do, but based on how they can minimize exposure to activist lawsuits.
And so the values of the secular left will be advanced by threat and intimidation and what amounts to legal extortion.
The existing statute (Idaho code, section 67-5908) is adequate to provide remedies against genuine discrimination. It provides for full restitution for actual damages (including lost wages and benefits) for a victim of unlawful discrimination, and allows for punitive damages of up to $1,000 for each willful violation.
You may email all the members of the Senate State Affairs committee, which will consider this bill this week, by clicking on the link below. Tell them that existing state law is sufficient to serve as a remedy for genuine discrimination, that the amendment is unjust because it exposes defendants to risks plaintiffs do not have to face, and that you have a legitimate concern that the amendment will simply be used as a tool to advance the agenda of the secular left.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
A Dream Not Yet Fulfilled
Today we celebrate a man who contributed greatly to both this nation and to the world. Dr. Martin Luther King's non-violent movement against segregation and injustice in the United States has inspired many to follow in his footsteps to fulfill the deeply rooted "dream" he spoke of, "that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'"
There is irony in that Dr. King's observed birthday today comes the day before the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, which forcibly legalized abortion in the United States. The legalization of abortion was the culmination of a dream of Planned Parenthood founder and icon Margaret Sanger.
In 1939 Ms. Sanger started the "Negro Project." The aim of the program was to restrict, many believe exterminate, the African-American population, under the pretense of "better health" and "family planning." By all accounts her efforts have been highly successful.
Statistics from the Guttmacher Institute (named after Sanger friend and fellow eugenics advocate Alan Guttmacher) show that African-American women account for 32 percent of those getting abortions nationwide, while they make up just 13 percent of the population. Additionally, 94 percent of all abortuaries are located in metropolitan areas, which generally have high African-American populations.
Reverend King's niece, Alveda King, recognizes this genocide and speaks out valiantly against it. We must all work together to make sure that more future leaders like Dr. King are not exterminated before they are born. It is up to us as a society to decide if the dreams of freedom and equality, or the nightmares of Margaret Sanger, will prevail.
![]()
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Lessons on Homosexuals Being ‘Born That Way’ and Erotic Sex Taught to 8th and 10th Graders Challenged by the Thomas More Law Center
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
ANN ARBOR, MI – In oral arguments last week, the Thomas More Law Center asked Maryland state circuit court judge William Rowan III to overturn a Maryland Board of Education ruling that approves of public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, teaching 8th and 10th graders that homosexuality is innate—meaning they are born that way. The schools also show how to use condoms in [bleep] and oral sex.
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represents Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, the Family Leader Network, and the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays. John Garza, of Garza, Regan & Associates of Rockville, Maryland, is acting as local counsel.
Montgomery educators were forced to defend their new sex curriculum that promotes [bleep] sex, homosexuality, bisexuality and transvestitism despite strong opposition from several pro-family groups. The controversial new curriculum was adopted as a result of pressure by homosexual advocacy groups.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This is another example of our public school system being used as an indoctrination arm of homosexual advocacy groups. Promoting the use of condoms in [bleep] and oral sex not only violates Maryland law and court decisions, but endangers the health of any student who tries it. Moreover, teaching students that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ is contrary to the rulings of the Maryland’s highest court and court decisions of other states as well. â€
“The bottom line — this school system is guilty of educational malpractice,†said Thompson.
This challenge to the new sex education curriculum has been in litigation for six years, meandering through the Federal District Courts, Maryland Administrative Panels and finally winding up in front of Judge Rowan III. Initially, a Federal District Court enjoined the county schools from implementing the curriculum in 2005 because the lesson plan criticized religious “fundamentalism. â€
However, following the federal court ruling and injunction, the county board merely omitted the anti-religious references, and began teaching the controversial health curriculum to all 8th and 10th grade classes. The current case involves a judicial appeal of the final State Board decision under a Maryland law that allows final administrative denials to be challenged in the state circuit court.
Brandon Bolling, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who argued the case, asked Judge Rowan to either declare the curriculum illegal or send it back to the state board for another review. “Maryland law says you have to teach something that is factually accurate,†said Bolling. “They are not doing that, therefore it is illegal. â€
That sexual orientation is innate—homosexuals are born that way—is a theory that has been rejected by courts in several states including Maryland. Maryland’s highest appellate court issued an opinion in a 2007 civil union case, holding the proposition that homosexuality is innate is not supported by credible evidence. In fact, not one U.S. court presented with the issue has found homosexuality to be an innate characteristic.
Moreover, although state law does not define the word “erotic,†Bolling argued that a Maryland law which prohibits classroom material that “portrays erotic techniques of sexual intercourse,†makes video demonstrations of the use of condoms in [bleep] and oral sex illegal. Bolling argued that if a sexual act is not done for a procreative purpose, it is an erotic technique.
Thus, the six year battle boils down to two questions posed by Bolling in this latest court skirmish: Can the school board legally teach students that homosexuality is innate despite rulings to the contrary by the state’s highest court? And, can the health lessons discuss sex acts other than copulation?
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2434
'Not in My Shower' Cleaning up after County Officials (FRC)
In Montgomery County, Maryland, the same officials who voted to make "gender identity" a state of mind have just gotten a reality check in the form of 32,087 citizen petitions. With the help of over 200 volunteers, Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government and Not in My Shower collected more than enough signatures to hold a public vote on the policy which allows "transgenders" to use public facilities like restrooms and locker rooms regardless of their biological sex.
The new law, which compromises the safety of women and children, was enacted over many protests. It will take officials 22 days to verify the signatures, but reports are that at least 13,000 have already been validated. Unfortunately, the Maryland madness doesn't end there. A new bill is moving quickly through the Maryland House and Senate which could deter women from visiting crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). SB 690 and HB 1146 would force CPCs to provide "disclaimers" to their clients that the information they provide is not necessarily "factually accurate." The proposal was motivated by NARAL, which insists that it visited each of Maryland's CPCs and alleges that the clinics lie to their patients about the safety of contraception and abortion. If any organization is expert on misleading patients, it's NARAL and their friends at Planned Parenthood. Please join us in calling on Maryland's leaders to oppose legislation that makes baseless accusations against pregnancy centers which provide honest and medically-sound service to thousands of women across the state.
Additional Resources Nearly 30,000 seek to turn off coed showers
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Basic Parental Rights Arrogantly Shot Down by California Court of Appeal
Those of us who support and advocate for parental rights are still overcoming our shock and dismay at the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles' outrageous decision this week against homeschool families.
The court essentially ruled in In re Rachel L. that homeschooling is not constitutionally protected in California and parents must place their children in a traditional school setting to comply with the compulsory attendance law. The court held that homeschooling through enrollment in an "independent study program" is not acceptable.
One of the more troubling portions of the opinion states that the defendants' "children [were] being deprived of an education in a public or private full-time day school setting, or by a credentialed tutor, through the ruse of enrolling them in a private school['s independent study program] and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."
Not only is this ruling an egregious violation of parents' rights to direct the upbringing and education of their own children, it's also a grave infringement of religious freedom rights. The court also held that parents are not entitled to homeschool, even if their religious beliefs dictate that they cannot in good conscience send their children to public school.
The In re Rachel L. ruling is especially troubling in light of SB 777, which was recently passed into law and blatantly shoves pro-homosexual propaganda down the throats of young California children. Numerous parents will remove their children from public schools because SB 777 goes against their religious beliefs. Many of these parents would likely choose to homeschool their children as an alternative. The In re Rachel L. will only serve to discourage these parents, especially those who feel they cannot afford private school.
Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) currently stands by their reading of the law that homeschooling in California through "independent study programs" is a viable and perfectly legal option for families in the Golden State. No doubt, the In re Rachel L. decision will be immediately appealed.
CRI strongly encourages you to sign the parental rights petition at ParentalRights.org. This petition seeks to amend the federal constitution to protect parental rights, including the right to homeschool.
To sign this Parental Rights petition, go here.
To read HSLDA's statement on the In re Rachel L. case, go here.
How to Legally Homeschool in California
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Judge orders homeschoolers into government education Court: Family's religious beliefs 'no evidence' of 1st Amendment violation February 29, 2008 By Bob Unruh © 2008 WorldNetDaily
A California court has ruled that several children in one homeschool family must be enrolled in a public school or "legally qualified" private school, and must attend, sending ripples of shock into the nation's homeschooling advocates as the family reviews its options for appeal.
The ruling came in a case brought against Phillip and Mary Long over the education being provided to two of their eight children. They are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court, because they have homeschooled all of their children, the oldest now 29, because of various anti-Christian influences in California's public schools.
The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates. "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence,'" the court said in the case. "We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"
The words echo the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.
Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens." Specifically, the appeals court said, the trial court had found that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."
The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."
The judges ruled in the case involving the Longs the family failed to demonstrate "that mother has a teaching credential such that the children can be said to be receiving an education from a credentialed tutor," and that their involvement and supervision by Sunland Christian School's independent study programs was of no value. Nor did the family's religious beliefs matter to the court.
Their "sincerely held religious beliefs" are "not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights." "Such sparse representations are too easily asserted by any parent who wishes to homeschool his or her child," the court concluded.
The father, Phillip Long, said the family is working on ways to appeal to the state Supreme Court, because he won't allow the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools, on which WND previously has reported, to indoctrinate his children.
"We just don't want them teaching our children," he told WND. "They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe. They put questions in our children's minds we don't feel they're ready for. "When they are much more mature, they can deal with these issues, alternative lifestyles, and such, or whether they came from primordial slop. At the present time it's my job to teach them the correct way of thinking," he said.
"We're going to appeal. We have to. I don't want to put my children in a public school system that teaches ideologies I don't believe in," he said. A spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association, one of the world's premiere homeschooling advocacy organizations, said the group's experts were analyzing the impact of the decision. "It's a very unfortunate decision," he said.
Randy Thomasson, of Campaign for Children and Families, said under California law parents have the legal right to create a private school in their home and enroll their own children. "Children belong to the parents, not to the state," he said. But he acknowledged that there's a great deal of misinformation about the status of homeschooling in California.
"For years the government school establishment has been lying to parents about the law. Just this week, a Los Angeles Unified school district employee lied to a mother who wanted to homeschool, telling her you must have a license, you must be credentialed and you must follow all the state curriculum. That's three lies in one sentence."
"Now we have judges going crazy and actively separating children from their parents." A legal outline for parents' homeschool rights in California, published by Family Protection Ministries, confirmed Thomasson's description.
The state's legal options for home educators include establishing a private school in their home by filing a private school affidavit with state regulators or enrolling in private school satellite instruction programs or independent study programs, it said.
The Long family had been involved in such a program with Sunland Christian School, but the appeals court took the extraordinary step of banning the family from being involved in that organization any longer, since it was "willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education."
A number of groups already have assembled in California under the Rescue Your Child slogan to encourage parents to withdraw their children from the state's public school system.
It's because the California Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger worked together to establish Senate Bill 777 and Assembly Bill 394 as law, plans that institutionalize the promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and other alternative lifestyle choices.
"First, [California] law allowed public schools to voluntarily promote homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. Then, the law required public schools to accept homosexual, bisexual and transsexual teachers as role models for impressionable children. Now, the law has been changed to effectively require the positive portrayal of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to 6 million children in California government-controlled schools," said Thomasson.
Even insiders joined in the call for an abandonment of California's public districts. Veteran public school teacher Nadine Williams of Torrance said the sexual indoctrination laws have motivated her to keep her grandchildren out of the very public schools she used to support.
The Discover Christian Schools website reports getting thousands of hits daily from parents and others seeking information about alternatives to California's public schools.
WND reported leaders of the campaign called California Exodus say they hope to encourage parents of 600,000 children to withdraw them from the public districts this year.
The new law itself technically bans in any school texts, events, class or activities any discriminatory bias against those who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute.
There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however. Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.
"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values. These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," she said.
Karen England, chief of CRI, told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.
"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."
The California plan still is facing a court challenge on its constitutionality and a possible vote of the people of California if an initiative effort succeeds.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 567
I'll bet you're a barrel of laughs at a party. I'll bet you've got some really good jokes. Come on Share one with us........................................................................................................................................................... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl: This place got a pool? Ty: Pool and a pond....... Pond be good for you.
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 1304
Peas, if he did tell one it would go _______Ohso and Ohso1 walked into a bar and said to himself................
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 567
I could follow his fantasies a little easier if he didn't throw everything but the kitchen sink into his wish list. Wait oh shoot. Now I'm sure I've given him ideas involving turkey basters and the sink. I think he completely misunderstood the cookbook section on boning a chicken.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl: This place got a pool? Ty: Pool and a pond....... Pond be good for you.
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 1304
Most of his posts that I have read sound like he hit his head on the kitchen sink. That or substituted those "Special" mushrooms for the criminis in the cookbook chicken recipe........... P.S. I'm a visual person, the turkey baster remark made me blink.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Quote: No father needed: Clinics offering IVF treatment would no longer be required to consider the need for a father in raising a child. Same-sex couples would be recognised as legal parents, allowing lesbian couples to have children. ..
Artificial sperm use plans ignite embryo row - By Nick Allen
10 March 2008 http://www.telegraph.co.uk
The controversy over legislation on embryology grew last night following proposals to allow babies to be conceived using "artificial" sperm and eggs.
The bill would allow the creation of hybrid animal-human embryos for research
The Government already faces a rebellion by Roman Catholic Cabinet ministers and Labour backbenchers, dozens of whom may vote against the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
The legislation would allow the creation of hybrid animal-human embryos for scientific research.
Yesterday it emerged that ministers are considering supporting an amendment which would allow so-called artificial gametes - sperm and eggs - to be used to create a human pregnancy through IVF.
The technique involves taking embryonic cells from a would-be parent and growing them into sperm in a laboratory.
That would allow groups such as cancer sufferers who have been made infertile by treatment, and women who cannot produce their own eggs, to have children who are genetically related to them.
Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat science spokesman who will table the amendment, said: "There is no good explanation for not allowing this option for people who have survived cancer and cannot have children."
advertisementDawn Primarolo, the public health minister, said the technique could help alleviate the shortage of sperm donors, but she accepted there were "profound ethical questions".
The science is in its early stages and has so far only been used to create pregnancies in mice. It would probably be a decade before a human pregnancy could be achieved.
The campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics said the technique could lead to the "ultimate incest" of a single person being both mother and father of the same child.
The latest development will further anger Roman Catholic Labour MPs who have already rejected a Government offer to allow them to abstain from a vote on the Bill, which is a key part of the legislative programme announced in the Queen's Speech.
It has been championed by Gordon Brown who believes it is vital in the fight to cure conditions such as motor neurone disease and cystic fibrosis.
The Bill will allow for the creation of animal-human embryos - by injecting animal cells or DNA into human embryos or human cells into animal eggs - to be used in medical research and then discarded.
It will also reform the fertility laws, meaning that clinics will not have to consider the "need for a father" before providing IVF treatment. This means lesbian couples could be registered as legal parents.
Labour MPs will be under a three-line whip to back the legislation. The Conservatives have given their MPs a free vote on what they deem an issue of conscience.
Cabinet ministers are normally bound by collective responsibility to vote for any Government Bill but Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, and Paul Murphy, the Welsh Secretary have all threatened to refuse on religious grounds.
Mr Brown is expected to tell them they can abstain but if they vote against they will not remain members of the Government.
The Bill, to be voted on within the next two months, has already been delayed in order to reach a compromise.
What the Bill would permit
Chimera embryos: Scientists would be free to insert human DNA into animal cells, creating hybrid or "chimera" embryos for medical research. Pro-life campaigners claim the process involves destruction of human life and could lead to the birth of a chimera baby.
No father needed: Clinics offering IVF treatment would no longer be required to consider the need for a father in raising a child. Same- sex couples would be recognised as legal parents, allowing lesbian couples to have children.
Embryo screening: Embryos would be screened for genetic abnormalities and matches for siblings with life-threatening illnesses. Selecting an embryo based on gender would be banned.
Information for children: Children conceived from donated sperm or eggs will be allowed, at the age of 16, to ask for information on any half-siblings. They will also be able to check whether they are related to a partner and request details about their donor parent.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Drag 'Justice' 4 All... IVA: Last year, a federal judge ordered Idaho to give free hormone injections to a convicted felon who is convinced that he is a female trapped inside a male body. I suggested at the time that it will not be long before a judge orders Idaho taxpayers to pay for sex change operations for inmates who are convinced they need the surgery to deal with their gender identity disorder. A convicted murderer in Massachusetts is suing the state for sex change surgery, saying that its refusal to pay for his sex-change surgery is "cruel and unusual punishment" and a violation of the Eighth Amendment. He is complaining that his taxpayer funded hair-removal and electrolysis treatments (for hair that is "too light" for the laser treatments) have been stopped in the meantime. All parties are awaiting the judge's ruling, expected at any time. The Department of Correction naturally believes that the surgery would create a security nightmare and make him a target for sexual assault. (Inmate awaiting a sex change says state has stopped treatment - The Boston Globe) IVA
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Religious Intolerance: Catholic Hospital Targeted (CRI)
Seton Medical Center in Daly City, a Bay Area Catholic hospital, refused to allow its facilities to be used for breast-implant surgery on a man who had undergone a sex-change operation. A doctor at the hospital told the transgender patient that "it's not God's will" because "God made you a man."
But after a lawsuit was filed against the Catholic hospital, it recanted and decided to allow the procedure. Although the hospital will now open its facilities to transgender operations, it still maintains that Catholic teaching prohibits sex-change operations.
"Essentially, the hospital is being coerced to violate its core beliefs in order to comply with state law favoring transgender rights over religious liberties," stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "It's a travesty that our state legislators get to pick and choose which freedoms of expression they want to protect the most."
When reporting on this story, a television announcer at the San Francisco news station CBS 5 stated that the transgender patient "has claimed moral victory against Catholics."
"In this case," said the television announcer, "Hastings [the transgender patient] got civil rights to trump religious beliefs."
"Not In My Shower"
Those of us in California can look with hope to Montgomery County, Maryland, where citizens just qualified a voter referendum to overturn a county ordinance that permits transgender males to enter women's restrooms and locker rooms, including the shower area, if they "feel" like they are female.
We are very encouraged and heartily applaud citizens in Maryland who worked to make this happen.
If you want to view more information on this victory, go to the Not In My Shower website.
California's SB 777 would do a similar thing for our own public school restrooms. CRI is currently working on a petition campaign to overturn SB 777 and keep boys and men out of our girls' restrooms!
Please help us! We need you to join in the effort to ensure that this nonsense comes to and end and our girls are safe!
To help us overturn SB 777
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
The Bigoted Misandrist Pimps of Weimar Kalifornia's Turkey Baster Creationist Court are a shining example to the rest of the disgrace that is our alleged 'justice' system... (CRI) California's Powerful Supreme Court
California's state Supreme Court is an unquestionably powerful court. A new study reveals that it is the most influential state court in the nation.
The study published by the University of California, Davis, Law Review counted up the number of times that state high courts' decisions were followed in other states. The California Supreme Court was by far the most influential court.
According to a New York Times report on the study:
"In the 65 years ending in 2005, more than 24,000 state high court cases have been followed at least once. California leads with 1,260 decisions. Washington is next, with 942, and Colorado is third, with 848. New York comes in 10th and is only about half as influential as California, with 627 followed cases. The Kentucky Supreme Court is the least influential high court in the nation, with 177 cases. The median was 453."
As we look to the California Supreme Court to decide the fate of our Defense of Marriage Act (Prop 22) some time before early June, we are even more mindful of how important this decision will be for the future of marriage.
As California goes, so goes the nation. It is crucial for us to stay in the fight.
Thank you for partnering with CRI to advocate for our values here in the Golden State!
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
Readers, there is still time to turn back! You are no doubt aware of the dreaded Obsessive-Compulsive-Disorder. It sucks. And unfortunately, our poor friend Ohso1 has got it bad. Enter his posts at your own risk. I suggest that you take a rope along so you can pull yourself out. Up for the challenge? Then, you are about to enter the world of "Mr. Toads Wild Ride" fasten your seatbelts.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 3150
"Do not go into the light"
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 753
Liberty Counsel Argues at Vermont Supreme Court Tomorrow Over Same-Sex Civil Union
Montpelier, VT – Tomorrow, Liberty Counsel is scheduled to present oral argument in defense of Lisa Miller and her five-year-old daughter at the Vermont Supreme Court. The case is Miller v. Jenkins and concerns the right of Lisa Miller to decide that Janet Jenkins, her former same-sex partner, should not be declared a parent to Lisa’s child. This is a precedent-setting legal battle between Virginia and Vermont over same-sex unions and the right of fit, biological parents against unrelated third parties.
Lisa is the fit, biological mother of a five-year-old daughter, with whom Janet Jenkins has neither a biological nor an adoptive relationship. Under the Vermont civil union law, the Vermont Supreme Court granted parental rights to Janet, who continues in her lesbian lifestyle. In 2000, while living in Virginia, Lisa and Janet entered into a Vermont civil union. Lisa gave birth to her child through artificial insemination from an anonymous donor, but the relationship ended when Janet became abusive and Lisa became a Christian. In Virginia, where Lisa resides, the sta