Swamp People, Hippies, Hijabs, and a Gay Couple: See How the Obama Admin Is Branding America Abroad (& the LGBT Adviser Who’s Behind It!)
Last week, President Obama made history by being the first sitting president to publicly support gay marriage. Now, his administration is the first to openly advertise homosexuality around the globe as an “American ideal.” The Blaze has uncovered documents that show how central gay rights themes have been to the administration and how they are being used by the administration to propagate a rebranding of America and its values.
Two years ago, the Travel Promotion Act of 2010 established the Corporation for Travel Promotion, or Brand USA. This “public-private entity“ was tasked with ”rekindling the world’s love affair with the USA – the place, the spirit, and the dream,” according to Brand USA’s CEO Jim Evans. Brand USA is funded by new taxes imposed on tourists visiting the U.S. and is governed by an 11-member board of directors appointed by Obama’s Secretary of Commerce.
Brand USA has recently come out with a series of ads, playing now in the UK, Japan and Canada, that craft a new vision of America for the world to see. The ads are intended to ”open up some minds as to what America really is,” according to Anne Madison, a Brand USA spokesperson.
But the new ads, titled “Land of Dreams,” deviate alarmingly from the patriotic baseball, apple pie and picket fence vision of “traditional” America. In fact, the only cowboy featured in the ad is…raking a beach?
CONTINUE READING AND SEE THE AD: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/swamp-people-hippies-burkas-and-a-gay-couple-see-how-the-obama-administration-is-branding-america-abroad-the-lgbt-adviser-whos-behind-it/
Showing posts with label lesbian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lesbian. Show all posts
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Friday, May 4, 2012
NC Marriage Protection Amendment
Vote For Marriage On May 8--Placing the Marriage Amendment in the North Carolina Constitution will keep the courts and legislature from redefining marriage. Bill Brooks discusses why this is an important issue for North Carolina voters—“ A good friend said to me, “I’m having a hard time getting my head around this whole Marriage Amendment issue. Who would believe that we would ever be considering such a thing as same-sex ‘marriage’ and an amendment to the Constitution to prevent it?” I couldn’t agree more, but the fact is, on May 8, voters in North Carolina will go to the polls and decide if they want to reserve to themselves the final say on the definition of marriage, or whether they want the courts and legislature to be able to redefine this fundamental institution.
Given the continual push by homosexual advocates for same-sex “marriage,” coupled with the demand for special rights for homosexuals, it is wise to remove the power to redefine marriage from the hands of courts and the General Assembly.
READ MORE: http://ncfamily.org/FNC/1204-FNC-Commentary.pdf
District Attorneys Refute Deceptive Ads--As the battle over the Marriage Protection Amendment heats up during the last week before the May 8 primary, homosexual advocacy groups are desperately resorting to scare tactics in their efforts to defeat the proposed Constitutional amendment that would protect the institution of marriage in North Carolina as between one man and one woman .
These tactics include a new 30-second ad that erroneously claims that the Marriage Protection Amendment could potentially interfere with legal protections for unmarried domestic violence victims in the state. The ad features Wake County Assistant District Attorney Amily McCool pointing to pictures of female domestic violence victims that she pulls from a large stack of case folders on her desk. “Amendment one could take away protections for domestic violence victims," she claims.
These claims were refuted yesterday by a coalition of law enforcement officials, district attorneys and family law attorneys who responded in a joint statement that, “the proposed amendment will not impact legal protections against domestic violence for unmarried women and others.” The statement, which was released at a May 1 press conference at the General Assembly, includes the signatures over a dozen individuals from the law enforcement and legal community in North Carolina, including several current and former District Attorneys, a former Superior Court judge, and two sheriffs.
READ MORE: http://ncfamily.org/stories/120502s1.html
Given the continual push by homosexual advocates for same-sex “marriage,” coupled with the demand for special rights for homosexuals, it is wise to remove the power to redefine marriage from the hands of courts and the General Assembly.
READ MORE: http://ncfamily.org/FNC/1204-FNC-Commentary.pdf
District Attorneys Refute Deceptive Ads--As the battle over the Marriage Protection Amendment heats up during the last week before the May 8 primary, homosexual advocacy groups are desperately resorting to scare tactics in their efforts to defeat the proposed Constitutional amendment that would protect the institution of marriage in North Carolina as between one man and one woman .
These tactics include a new 30-second ad that erroneously claims that the Marriage Protection Amendment could potentially interfere with legal protections for unmarried domestic violence victims in the state. The ad features Wake County Assistant District Attorney Amily McCool pointing to pictures of female domestic violence victims that she pulls from a large stack of case folders on her desk. “Amendment one could take away protections for domestic violence victims," she claims.
These claims were refuted yesterday by a coalition of law enforcement officials, district attorneys and family law attorneys who responded in a joint statement that, “the proposed amendment will not impact legal protections against domestic violence for unmarried women and others.” The statement, which was released at a May 1 press conference at the General Assembly, includes the signatures over a dozen individuals from the law enforcement and legal community in North Carolina, including several current and former District Attorneys, a former Superior Court judge, and two sheriffs.
READ MORE: http://ncfamily.org/stories/120502s1.html
Monday, April 30, 2012
Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage
Why a Marriage Amendment?
by Diane Rufino, April 21, 2012
My state of North Carolina is the latest state to face a possible erosion of traditional marriage. The question will be: How will its people react? Marriage is a solid bedrock foundation of communities - the source of modeling, morality, and values. The lessons children learn go far beyond the mere words that parents speak.
Redefining marriage as a genderless institution has consequences. First, public schools will be legally required to teach same-sex marriage on an equal footing with traditional marriage. It will therefore take away the most fundamental right that parents have - to raise their children according to values they hold dear and according to their rights of religious conscience. James Madison said: "Conscience is the most sacred of all property - our greatest possession."
Look at the situation in the schools in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004. One can find the book "King & King" by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland in their elementary school libraries. The book tells the story of a queen who decided it was time for her son, the prince, to marry. He rejects every princess she offers. Finally the last candidate enters, and the prince feels "a stir in his heart." But it was for one princess’s brother, Prince Lee. The two men marry and the book reads: "Everyone lives happily ever after." On the last page, the two princes kiss, with a red heart covering their mouths.
The book glorifies the idea that it’s perfectly OK to have same-sex marriage.
A grade school boy in California returned home from school and asked his mother: "Mom, am I gay?" She wanted to know why he would ask such a question. He told her that his teacher told the class that "anyone can be gay." Children shouldn't be confronted with such questions. They shouldn't have to entertain such possibilities or have to deal with such unnecessary confusion. Growing up is hard enough.
Parents have a tough enough time raising their children with proper values and morals and they can't keep fighting with a school system that wants social change rather than social stability. Providing a definition to the institution of marriage in NC would help ensure that teachers assign classic reading and not books like "King & King."
Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage
by Diane Rufino, April 29, 2012
Years ago, and indeed, the whole of history, will show that marriage has always been intended to bind a man and woman together in a special union for the purpose of procreating and raising children. It was not until 2001 that countries have begun allowing same-sex marriage. And the historical tradition makes sense.
In the Bible we learn the roots of marriage. In Genesis 2:7 we learn: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In verse 18, God said: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper." And so we learn, in verses 21-22 that "the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and as he slept, he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh. And the rib He had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto him."
In 1 Corinthians 11:8-10, the Bible teaches "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to hold a special place... "
Genesis 2:23-24 reads: "Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
The "helper" that God created for Man was a woman and not another man. It was woman that was intended to complement Man, not another man. The word “helper” that was used in the Bible to describe Eve means “to surround, to protect or aid, help.” Eve was created to be alongside Adam as his "other half," to be his aid and his helper. A man and woman, when married, become "one flesh." This oneness is manifested most fully in the physical union of sexual intimacy and then the mixing of a half complement of DNA from the father and a half complement of DNA from the mother to form "one complete" genetic offspring. A child.
The New Testament adds a warning regarding this oneness. "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:6). It is from these Biblical roots that marriage has become so strong a union and one that society is cautioned to protect.
Even more fundamental are the scientific and biological laws that underlie the purpose and uniformity of life and existence here on Earth. Scientific laws are essential to life because only then can actions and natural events be explained and even predicted. Predictable scientific laws are the basis for free will. Biology teaches that all species are guided by certain biological imperatives, which are the requirements absolutely necessary to perpetuate their existence and their species. This is the core principle explaining Darwinian evolution.
In order for a species to persist, it must, by definition, reproduce to ensure the continuation of their species. Without reproduction the species ceases to exist. The capacity for reproduction and the drive to do so are universal among living organisms, and as we know, they are expressed in a multitude of ways by the spectrum of living organisms. The urge to procreate is an involuntary and unconscious biological drive which first emerged as an inherent property of living cells and is echoed in the upper levels of organization of multi-cellular organisms. Self-preservation and reproduction are the strongest of biological imperatives. And it is for that purpose that we protect marriage as an institution and pay so much attention to the family structure and gender interactions. There is clearly a productive gender interaction and a counterproductive gender interaction. The former serves the interests of the laws of nature and the latter frustrates them. Left alone, without any cooperation from heterosexual unions, homosexuality would be an evolutionary cul-de-sac.
Understanding that homosexuals love the children that they raise together (but not conceived from their union) and want the best for them, their conduct is not of a natural design and their interaction as a "married couple" cannot satisfactorily stand in the place of a proper heterosexual married couple. Gender interactions, gender roles, gender inclinations, tendencies, proclivities, etc are all the crucial "unspoken" lessons that children need to learn to take their place in an ordered society. Each parent, wired biologically and genetically through their gender, offers his/her child something unique and teaches something invaluably which guides that child through childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood so he/she can follow in the same natural footsteps. Children in a non-traditional household (same-sex parents) are programmed differently and suffer psychological confusion that may or may not manifest itself later in life. Physicians, scientists, and psychologists all understand that the mental and psychological development of a child is fragile and even as an adolescent, proper processing by the brain is often not possible because development of the brain and its connections are not complete. Any biological programming which could serve to compromise the integrity of the species, its effectiveness to procreate, and its survival runs afoul of the laws of nature. Eroding the blessed institution of marriage, protected for the purpose of procreation and the proper raising of children, and allowing and erasing gender requirements by its nature is against the normal and natural evolution of a species and its continuance of life.
There is no fundamental right to marriage. It is not included in the Constitution's Bill of Rights for a reason... It was not considered one of those basic rights that would prohibit government regulation. Judge N. Randy Smith, of the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (in San Francisco), was correct in his dissenting opinion of the Prop 8 appeal: "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children. He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8. [pg. 195]
[What was Proposition 8? Proposition 8 - titled "Constitutional Amendment Initiative: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" on the California voter ballot and called the "California Marriage Protection Act" by proponents - was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state election. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provided that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases which held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, a statute which had passed in California in 2000. But, as an ordinary statute, it was easily invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008].
Biblical and biological emphasis aside, I believe the Marriage Amendment as drafted in North Carolina for the primary vote on May 8th should not prohibit all legal unions between same-sex couples where legitimate contractual and property rights are involved, but only those that involve the raising of children. If two homosexual men or two women want to live together in a "committed type of relationship" and want enter into a contract for the purpose of protecting property rights (such as insurance, etc), then there should be laws to protect those contracts - just as it would protect other contracts. Opponents of the NC Marriage Amendment are correct that contract rights are a fundamental right and ones very much on the minds of our Founding Fathers. But the spirit of the Marriage Amendment is to define the institution of marriage as that between a man and a woman and to ensure that only such a union is acceptable for to bringing forth children and raising them so that there is a proper vehicle to instill historically moral and biological (gender) values.
It is unfortunate that the gay and lesbian agenda requires the erosion of such a fundamentally important institution and requires courts to get involved in a matter that was intended to be beyond the reach of judges. We all heard of the old saying that when groups are unsuccessful in getting favorable legislation the legitimate way, they take their chances with liberal judges... and often win. That is a sad state of affairs, especially considering that the strength of our nation rests on the fact that it is a constitutional republic... a nation of laws and not of men. For those who don't or can't appreciate the harm in getting the courts involved in the definition of marriage, check out the article written by Dr. Earl Taylor, current president of the National Center of Constitutional Studies, in April 2004 in which he discusses the topic of marriage and the US Constitution. In his article, he asks the question - With the deplorable state of the wickedness and depravity which surrounds us now, should the Constitution be amended to define the institution of marriage? He looked to renowned law professor Richard Wilkins for advice. Wilkins writes that years ago he would have suggested to leave the Constitution alone. But, he notes, these are troubling times and now urges people to push for a constitutional definition of marriage. He is quite serious when he states "Unless the people clearly establish the constitutional meaning of marriage, the judges will do it for us – and, in the process, erode the very idea of a written Constitution, expand judicial power and upset the vital balance of power established by the Framers of the United States Constitution.”
Richard Wilkins - law professor, former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, and the founder and managing director of Defend Marriage (a project of United Families International) - explained why a constitutional amendment might be necessary:
"Ten years ago, I would have explained that amending the Constitution to define marriage is clearly wrong - for at least three important reasons. First, the Constitution says nothing about marriage. Second, marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people within their respective states. Third, and finally, the last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts. Why tempt the judges by inserting a new topic into the Constitution? But that was then and this is now. Now, when I hear devotees of the Constitution repeat arguments that are almost a part of my DNA, I shake my head in disbelief. The very concerns that, ten years ago, would have prompted my opposition to a marriage amendment now compel my support.
The Constitution says nothing about marriage. But judges have. (Likewise, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, but that hasn't stopped judges from manufacturing a reference). Federal courts have managed to intrude in areas where the Constitution gives them no license to tread.
It clearly appears that the Constitution was written to leave questions like marriage to the States. Any constitutional scholar can attest to that. Yet an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same" has not been enough to prevent judges from giving us an entirely new Constitution. In its decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court, for the first time in history, announced that the Constitution prohibits state legislatures from treating homosexuality any differently than heterosexuality. Specifically, the Court said that challengers, Lawrence and Garner (homosexual lovers) were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas opposed the decision. But the majority did something extraordinary in that case; it did something it historically refrains from doing. It reversed its earlier decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which held that the Constitution confers no fundamental right for homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy.
Professor Wilkins asks: "What does this decision and this new Constitution do to marriage?" He points to the state of Massachusetts as a perfect example. He said: "The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered that question. Relying on the high Court's decision in Lawrence , the Massachusetts court has allowed same-sex marriage. It merely relied on the reasoning of the US Supreme Court in that decision to interpret its own state constitution." The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, in unilaterally issuing marriage licenses contrary to controlling California law, likewise relied upon the reasoning of Lawrence to defend the legality of his actions.
Our Constitution, which once said nothing about marriage, now appears to says a lot about marriage. (Just interview the mayor of San Francisco. Why did he issue marriage licenses not authorized by California law? 'The Constitution demands it,' he said.) Wilkins asserts: "The last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts."
Marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people to decide in their respective states. And again the judges have taken that power away. As Professor Wilkins wrote: "Whatever the Constitution once provided has changed. All rules related to marriage have now been subsumed by a ‘constitutional analysis’ previously unknown to the law. State legislatures, and the people they represent, no longer control the meaning of marriage or the hundreds and thousands of legal rules associated with marriage. All such questions, henceforth, will be governed by decisions of state and federal courts. And, in light of the expansive ‘constitutional analysis’ adopted in Lawrence, those decisions will be guided neither by the words of the Constitution nor the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people."
Wilkins went on to write:
“In light of the foregoing, anyone concerned about preserving the structure and content of the American Constitution should understand why the words ‘marriage’ and ‘constitutional amendment’ need to be linked, to save the social viability of marriage, and integrity of the Constitution itself.”
The United States Supreme Court has demonstrated that it is capable of transcending not only the wording of the Constitution but the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people. Even though the Constitution says nothing about 'sexual liberty;' even though the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people do not support an unrestrained 'right' for consenting adults to engage in any kind of sex they want; the Court has created this very right out of thin air. Lawrence created this 'right,' not by relying upon the wording of the Constitution or the traditions and practices of American society, but by invoking (and I am not making this up) the 'meaning of life' and 'mysteries of the universe.'
The judges are now so powerful that they feel free to invent the Constitution as they move along. (If the definition of marriage - an understanding as old as time - violates constitutional strictures, one wonders what centuries' old legal notions the "mysteries of the universe" will invalidate next.) In light of these astonishing developments, it is absolutely clear why so many people are putting the words 'marriage' and 'constitution' in the same sentence. An amendment is necessary to preserve not only the social viability of marriage, but the political integrity of the Constitution."
But the Constitution provides for limited jurisdiction of the federal courts. In fact, the U. S. Constitution states:
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." (Article 3.2.2, emphasis added)
Some Constitutional devotees have relied on this clause to indicate all Congress has to do is pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But this is not what it says. As Dr. Skousen, author of such books as The 5000 Year Leap, The Making of America, and The Naked Communist, explains: "This provision was not designed to give Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but simply to make decisions on many topics conclusive after a hearing in the lower courts. It was the purpose of the Founders to protect the Supreme Court from being submerged by a mountain of trivial cases when it should be concentrating its attention on matters of national importance." ( The Making of America, p. 612. See quotes from the Founders on pages 612-613 to support this position)
Even if Congress were to pass a law limiting the kinds of cases which could be appealed to the Supreme Court, it may have the opposite effect. Imagine not being able to appeal sensitive cases to the Supreme Court. That would make the lower court decisions final. The lower courts have been just as active in destroying the Constitution as the Supreme Court has been, and there are so many more of them! (Examples include abortion, flag burning, homosexuality, and pornography cases).
A much better solution is to begin to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to the eleven kinds of cases outlined in Article III of the Constitution. However, this still would not undo the damage of past cases.
And so Professor Richard Wilkins believes the only course left is for the good people of the United States to amend the Constitution to define the institution of marriage according to traditional values. He believes that the traditional family is the vehicle of the decent, moral, and productive values of a free society. He believes that if this vehicle is destroyed - if the family is destroyed - then we will see increased anarchy and eventually the country will be ripe for revolution or submission to government indoctrination. (In fact, he believes that there are forces out to destroy the traditional family for this very reason). He explains why the time is ripe for a constitutional amendment:
"1. A Constitutional amendment will restore the crucial understanding that American government operates under a written Constitution.
As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous decision of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, America is governed by 'a written constitution' and 'the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' (Emphasis by Justice Marshall.) Because the Constitution binds the courts as well as any other branch of government, judges should adhere to the text of the Constitution and interpret and apply its terms consistently with the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Any other course, as Chief Justice Marshall noted in Marbury , 'would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.'
Modern courts have dangerously ignored the teachings of Marbury. The 'new Constitution,' announced by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, frees judges from any need to tie their decisions to either the words of the Constitution or the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Many people applaud the idea of a 'living Constitution;' a document that transcends words, definitions and the restrictive bonds of history and tradition. But a document as fluid, unfettered and free as the 'new Constitution' unveiled in Lawrence bears little resemblance to the Constitution that, for most of its 215-year history, has demanded that the people (and not the courts) resolve society's controversial moral and social debates.
Under the 'new Constitution' announced in Lawrence, the more divisive, difficult and debatable the controversy, the more likely it is that a court - rather than a legislature - will settle the matter. Why? Because (according to the judges, the law professors and other elites) the 'meaning of life' and the 'mysteries of the universe' become more and more important as social debates become more and more divisive, difficult and debatable.
Of course, this is not the Constitution the Framers intended. It is not what the written text demands. But it is what the courts have now decreed. We need an amendment on marriage, not only to protect marriage, but to demonstrate to the courts that they exceeded their power in constitutionalizing marriage in the first place.
Modern courts feel free to ignore or alter constitutional text at will. A constitutional amendment on marriage, by forcefully rejecting the judges' latest excursion from constitutional text and history, will forcibly (and quite properly) remind the judges that their role is to adjudicate, not legislate. A constitutional amendment is necessary to revive the idea which provides 'the very foundation of all written constitutions;' that is, that the Constitution is 'a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' Marbury v. Madison (emphasis in original).
2. A constitutional amendment will restore the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government.
Under the 'new Constitution' drafted by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, state legislatures may not 'demean' the sexual practices of 'consenting adults' that are closely connected to individual views regarding 'the meaning of life' and 'mysteries of the universe.' (For those of you who either aren't familiar with legal lingo or simply like people to write clearly: legislatures may not suggest that there are any differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality.) To reach this result, of course, the Supreme Court had to ignore the words of the Constitution and the history and traditions of the American people. In their place, the Justices have given us a poem - a poem as vague, expansive or restrictive as the next metaphor or lyrical couplet favored by five members of the Supreme Court.
This departure from text, history and tradition is a serious matter. It dramatically upsets the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government. If government action encroaches upon core constitutional values (as contained in clear constitutional text construed in light of actual American practice, experience and tradition) the judiciary must act. But the Founders intended the judicial role to be exceptional and rarely invoked. Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist Papers, proclaimed the judiciary the 'least dangerous branch' because it does not create policy but merely exercises 'judgment.' The really difficult questions, Hamilton and the other Founders thought, would be left to the people.
Modern social activists (and too many judges) have either forgotten or chosen to ignore that most governmental decisions are not controlled (and can't be controlled) by the precise language of the Constitution. If the 'correct' answers to pressing questions are fairly debatable, those questions must be - indeed, can only be - resolved by legislative action.
The expanding reach of American constitutional law has rendered the public increasingly oblivious to its role as the primary source of decision-making power under the United States Constitution. By inventing and enforcing 'rights' nowhere evident in the language of the Constitution or the history and traditions of the American people, lawyers, judges and law professors have slowly eroded democratic decision making, reducing or eliminating the people's popular control over an ever-expanding range of fairly debatable controversies.
The Constitution was not drafted, nor was it intended, to turn over marriage and marital policy to the federal courts. But, because the courts have now concluded otherwise, a constitutional amendment is needed to restore democratic balance. Without a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court - and not the people - ultimately will determine what marriage means. With all due respect to the Honorable Court, this is too important a decision to be made by five people in black robes.
The question is: What does the Constitution demand? I fully understand the concerns of those who assert that, since the Constitution has never addressed marriage before, it should not be amended to address marriage now. But whatever the Constitution said (or did not say) about marriage for the past 215 years, whatever the history, traditions and practices of the American people confirm (or do not confirm) about the meaning of marriage, marriage is in the Constitution. The Founders did not do it. But the courts have.
By placing marriage in the Constitution, the judges have taken marriage out of the hands of the people. The judges have done violence to the very idea of a written Constitution, have eroded legislative power, and have significantly expanded their own power. It is now up to the people, by constitutional amendment, to remedy these errors. A constitutional amendment is needed, not only to preserve marriage, but to restore constitutional order."
Steve Farrell writes: "We can’t turn over the fate of the family to nine folks in robes. Judicial tyranny is not for you and not for me. It’s time to reign these judges in, and remind them that constitutions are set up to preserve the values of a society, not overthrow them."
References:
Richard Wilkins, Marriage and the Constitution: Why We Need an Amendment
Earl Taylor Jr, "Marriage and the Constitution", NCCS, April 2004. Referenced at: http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/apr04nl.html
W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, 1985; The National Center for Constitutional Studies.
Steve Farrell, "Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?," Newsmax, March 3, 2004. Referenced at: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/3/134302.shtml
Steve Farrell, "Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?," Federal Observer, April 29, 2012. Referenced at: http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=7369
"California Proposition 8," Wikipedia. Referenced at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8
Diane Rufino, "Perry v. Schwartzenegger: California Becomes the Latest Battleground for Gay Marriage Rights," August 2010. Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article was originally written as a response to an article written in the Fayetteville Observer which bashed the NC Marriage Amendment (Amendment 1). In fact, I submitted the first few paragraphs of my article in response to that article. I was inspired to do so by Pastor Jeff Long, who had emailed me and who himself had responded with a powerful message, which is attached below.
Response to Article in Fayetteville Observer Bashing the Marriage Amendment --
Jeffrey Long (Former NC Public Health Study Commissioner)
Another ANTI-Marriage Amendment opinion piece which denies social realities unfolding all around us which threaten to bring a negative "sea change" to North Carolina society and culture in days to come if we do NOT reinforce OUR state law by putting it in our constitution--as 30 other states have already!
Virginia adopted a Marriage Amendment more restrictive than ours in 2006. The Old Dominion is not in social turmoil as a result, nor are perceived "inconveniences" imposed upon homosexuals there appearing to be so insuperable because they are not allowed to be called "marrieds," nor accorded official status, benefits and privileges traditionally given to espoused men and women.
Plus, upon constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court of that state has since upheld it!
The Obama Administration has now unilaterally determined that its Justice Dept. will not defend any more cases under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Bill Clinton. This blatant act of Executive non-feasance now sets the stage for the perfect storm of judicial activism which will ensue shortly--most likely after the November election--in which our little statute restricting state recognition to only man-woman marriage will be gobbled up as has been the fate of similar laws in other states (cf,: Prop 22 in California).
When Proposition 8 was passed in a referendum vote by a majority of Californians, homosexuals were allowed to have their state recognized "civil unions." BUT, in short order this did not prove to be enough for them as they walked off in a snit and demanded full recognition and DEFINITION IN LAW as marrieds with marriage licenses identical to that of men and women.
A case was promptly brought by deep-pocketed homosexual activists against Prop 8 which succeeded in getting it overturned. The case was presided over by homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, who unethically did not recuse himself from sitting in judgment, and in a case of bald judicial activism he wrote an opinion overturning it.
<> (Wiki)
A three-judge panel of the most liberal federal appeals court in the nation, the Ninth District, took up the appeal and by a 2 to 1 vote upheld Walker's decision. However.....
<< Judge N. Randy Smith, noted in his dissent that states do legitimately prohibit sexual relationships condemned by society such as incest, bigamy, and bestiality, and impose age limits for marriage without violating constitutional rights.[195] He stated that "gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class" and are thus not entitled to the courts' increased scrutiny of laws that affect them.[195] He wrote, "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children.[195] He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8.[196]
<>
In the meantime, statesmen in 30 states who years ago wisely foresaw these types of shenanigans on the horizon, began reinforcing their own marriage laws by incorporating them in their own constitutions. And they succeeded in doing this with a show of overwhelming support of their states' voters, in some cases by over 70%.
North Carolina voters must move now to protect our families and children from a movement which is well-funded and which is bent on redefining marriage as a genderless institution and which will (is already in other places and on many college campuses) bring in its wake demands for acceptance and approval of pedophilia, transgenderism, self-mutilation, etc., not to mention give official government sanction to reprehensible disease- (read: AIDS) transmitting activities -- NONE of which we want to see incentivized in the Tar Heel State!
This is why not only a religious person, but a rational and sound thinking--and yes, a truly compassionate voter --will VOTE FOR the Marriage Amendment on May 8th
by Diane Rufino, April 21, 2012
My state of North Carolina is the latest state to face a possible erosion of traditional marriage. The question will be: How will its people react? Marriage is a solid bedrock foundation of communities - the source of modeling, morality, and values. The lessons children learn go far beyond the mere words that parents speak.
Redefining marriage as a genderless institution has consequences. First, public schools will be legally required to teach same-sex marriage on an equal footing with traditional marriage. It will therefore take away the most fundamental right that parents have - to raise their children according to values they hold dear and according to their rights of religious conscience. James Madison said: "Conscience is the most sacred of all property - our greatest possession."
Look at the situation in the schools in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004. One can find the book "King & King" by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland in their elementary school libraries. The book tells the story of a queen who decided it was time for her son, the prince, to marry. He rejects every princess she offers. Finally the last candidate enters, and the prince feels "a stir in his heart." But it was for one princess’s brother, Prince Lee. The two men marry and the book reads: "Everyone lives happily ever after." On the last page, the two princes kiss, with a red heart covering their mouths.
The book glorifies the idea that it’s perfectly OK to have same-sex marriage.
A grade school boy in California returned home from school and asked his mother: "Mom, am I gay?" She wanted to know why he would ask such a question. He told her that his teacher told the class that "anyone can be gay." Children shouldn't be confronted with such questions. They shouldn't have to entertain such possibilities or have to deal with such unnecessary confusion. Growing up is hard enough.
Parents have a tough enough time raising their children with proper values and morals and they can't keep fighting with a school system that wants social change rather than social stability. Providing a definition to the institution of marriage in NC would help ensure that teachers assign classic reading and not books like "King & King."
Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage
by Diane Rufino, April 29, 2012
Years ago, and indeed, the whole of history, will show that marriage has always been intended to bind a man and woman together in a special union for the purpose of procreating and raising children. It was not until 2001 that countries have begun allowing same-sex marriage. And the historical tradition makes sense.
In the Bible we learn the roots of marriage. In Genesis 2:7 we learn: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In verse 18, God said: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper." And so we learn, in verses 21-22 that "the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and as he slept, he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh. And the rib He had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto him."
In 1 Corinthians 11:8-10, the Bible teaches "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to hold a special place... "
Genesis 2:23-24 reads: "Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
The "helper" that God created for Man was a woman and not another man. It was woman that was intended to complement Man, not another man. The word “helper” that was used in the Bible to describe Eve means “to surround, to protect or aid, help.” Eve was created to be alongside Adam as his "other half," to be his aid and his helper. A man and woman, when married, become "one flesh." This oneness is manifested most fully in the physical union of sexual intimacy and then the mixing of a half complement of DNA from the father and a half complement of DNA from the mother to form "one complete" genetic offspring. A child.
The New Testament adds a warning regarding this oneness. "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:6). It is from these Biblical roots that marriage has become so strong a union and one that society is cautioned to protect.
Even more fundamental are the scientific and biological laws that underlie the purpose and uniformity of life and existence here on Earth. Scientific laws are essential to life because only then can actions and natural events be explained and even predicted. Predictable scientific laws are the basis for free will. Biology teaches that all species are guided by certain biological imperatives, which are the requirements absolutely necessary to perpetuate their existence and their species. This is the core principle explaining Darwinian evolution.
In order for a species to persist, it must, by definition, reproduce to ensure the continuation of their species. Without reproduction the species ceases to exist. The capacity for reproduction and the drive to do so are universal among living organisms, and as we know, they are expressed in a multitude of ways by the spectrum of living organisms. The urge to procreate is an involuntary and unconscious biological drive which first emerged as an inherent property of living cells and is echoed in the upper levels of organization of multi-cellular organisms. Self-preservation and reproduction are the strongest of biological imperatives. And it is for that purpose that we protect marriage as an institution and pay so much attention to the family structure and gender interactions. There is clearly a productive gender interaction and a counterproductive gender interaction. The former serves the interests of the laws of nature and the latter frustrates them. Left alone, without any cooperation from heterosexual unions, homosexuality would be an evolutionary cul-de-sac.
Understanding that homosexuals love the children that they raise together (but not conceived from their union) and want the best for them, their conduct is not of a natural design and their interaction as a "married couple" cannot satisfactorily stand in the place of a proper heterosexual married couple. Gender interactions, gender roles, gender inclinations, tendencies, proclivities, etc are all the crucial "unspoken" lessons that children need to learn to take their place in an ordered society. Each parent, wired biologically and genetically through their gender, offers his/her child something unique and teaches something invaluably which guides that child through childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood so he/she can follow in the same natural footsteps. Children in a non-traditional household (same-sex parents) are programmed differently and suffer psychological confusion that may or may not manifest itself later in life. Physicians, scientists, and psychologists all understand that the mental and psychological development of a child is fragile and even as an adolescent, proper processing by the brain is often not possible because development of the brain and its connections are not complete. Any biological programming which could serve to compromise the integrity of the species, its effectiveness to procreate, and its survival runs afoul of the laws of nature. Eroding the blessed institution of marriage, protected for the purpose of procreation and the proper raising of children, and allowing and erasing gender requirements by its nature is against the normal and natural evolution of a species and its continuance of life.
There is no fundamental right to marriage. It is not included in the Constitution's Bill of Rights for a reason... It was not considered one of those basic rights that would prohibit government regulation. Judge N. Randy Smith, of the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (in San Francisco), was correct in his dissenting opinion of the Prop 8 appeal: "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children. He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8. [pg. 195]
[What was Proposition 8? Proposition 8 - titled "Constitutional Amendment Initiative: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" on the California voter ballot and called the "California Marriage Protection Act" by proponents - was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state election. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provided that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases which held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, a statute which had passed in California in 2000. But, as an ordinary statute, it was easily invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008].
Biblical and biological emphasis aside, I believe the Marriage Amendment as drafted in North Carolina for the primary vote on May 8th should not prohibit all legal unions between same-sex couples where legitimate contractual and property rights are involved, but only those that involve the raising of children. If two homosexual men or two women want to live together in a "committed type of relationship" and want enter into a contract for the purpose of protecting property rights (such as insurance, etc), then there should be laws to protect those contracts - just as it would protect other contracts. Opponents of the NC Marriage Amendment are correct that contract rights are a fundamental right and ones very much on the minds of our Founding Fathers. But the spirit of the Marriage Amendment is to define the institution of marriage as that between a man and a woman and to ensure that only such a union is acceptable for to bringing forth children and raising them so that there is a proper vehicle to instill historically moral and biological (gender) values.
It is unfortunate that the gay and lesbian agenda requires the erosion of such a fundamentally important institution and requires courts to get involved in a matter that was intended to be beyond the reach of judges. We all heard of the old saying that when groups are unsuccessful in getting favorable legislation the legitimate way, they take their chances with liberal judges... and often win. That is a sad state of affairs, especially considering that the strength of our nation rests on the fact that it is a constitutional republic... a nation of laws and not of men. For those who don't or can't appreciate the harm in getting the courts involved in the definition of marriage, check out the article written by Dr. Earl Taylor, current president of the National Center of Constitutional Studies, in April 2004 in which he discusses the topic of marriage and the US Constitution. In his article, he asks the question - With the deplorable state of the wickedness and depravity which surrounds us now, should the Constitution be amended to define the institution of marriage? He looked to renowned law professor Richard Wilkins for advice. Wilkins writes that years ago he would have suggested to leave the Constitution alone. But, he notes, these are troubling times and now urges people to push for a constitutional definition of marriage. He is quite serious when he states "Unless the people clearly establish the constitutional meaning of marriage, the judges will do it for us – and, in the process, erode the very idea of a written Constitution, expand judicial power and upset the vital balance of power established by the Framers of the United States Constitution.”
Richard Wilkins - law professor, former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, and the founder and managing director of Defend Marriage (a project of United Families International) - explained why a constitutional amendment might be necessary:
"Ten years ago, I would have explained that amending the Constitution to define marriage is clearly wrong - for at least three important reasons. First, the Constitution says nothing about marriage. Second, marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people within their respective states. Third, and finally, the last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts. Why tempt the judges by inserting a new topic into the Constitution? But that was then and this is now. Now, when I hear devotees of the Constitution repeat arguments that are almost a part of my DNA, I shake my head in disbelief. The very concerns that, ten years ago, would have prompted my opposition to a marriage amendment now compel my support.
The Constitution says nothing about marriage. But judges have. (Likewise, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, but that hasn't stopped judges from manufacturing a reference). Federal courts have managed to intrude in areas where the Constitution gives them no license to tread.
It clearly appears that the Constitution was written to leave questions like marriage to the States. Any constitutional scholar can attest to that. Yet an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same" has not been enough to prevent judges from giving us an entirely new Constitution. In its decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court, for the first time in history, announced that the Constitution prohibits state legislatures from treating homosexuality any differently than heterosexuality. Specifically, the Court said that challengers, Lawrence and Garner (homosexual lovers) were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas opposed the decision. But the majority did something extraordinary in that case; it did something it historically refrains from doing. It reversed its earlier decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which held that the Constitution confers no fundamental right for homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy.
Professor Wilkins asks: "What does this decision and this new Constitution do to marriage?" He points to the state of Massachusetts as a perfect example. He said: "The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered that question. Relying on the high Court's decision in Lawrence , the Massachusetts court has allowed same-sex marriage. It merely relied on the reasoning of the US Supreme Court in that decision to interpret its own state constitution." The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, in unilaterally issuing marriage licenses contrary to controlling California law, likewise relied upon the reasoning of Lawrence to defend the legality of his actions.
Our Constitution, which once said nothing about marriage, now appears to says a lot about marriage. (Just interview the mayor of San Francisco. Why did he issue marriage licenses not authorized by California law? 'The Constitution demands it,' he said.) Wilkins asserts: "The last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts."
Marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people to decide in their respective states. And again the judges have taken that power away. As Professor Wilkins wrote: "Whatever the Constitution once provided has changed. All rules related to marriage have now been subsumed by a ‘constitutional analysis’ previously unknown to the law. State legislatures, and the people they represent, no longer control the meaning of marriage or the hundreds and thousands of legal rules associated with marriage. All such questions, henceforth, will be governed by decisions of state and federal courts. And, in light of the expansive ‘constitutional analysis’ adopted in Lawrence, those decisions will be guided neither by the words of the Constitution nor the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people."
Wilkins went on to write:
“In light of the foregoing, anyone concerned about preserving the structure and content of the American Constitution should understand why the words ‘marriage’ and ‘constitutional amendment’ need to be linked, to save the social viability of marriage, and integrity of the Constitution itself.”
The United States Supreme Court has demonstrated that it is capable of transcending not only the wording of the Constitution but the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people. Even though the Constitution says nothing about 'sexual liberty;' even though the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people do not support an unrestrained 'right' for consenting adults to engage in any kind of sex they want; the Court has created this very right out of thin air. Lawrence created this 'right,' not by relying upon the wording of the Constitution or the traditions and practices of American society, but by invoking (and I am not making this up) the 'meaning of life' and 'mysteries of the universe.'
The judges are now so powerful that they feel free to invent the Constitution as they move along. (If the definition of marriage - an understanding as old as time - violates constitutional strictures, one wonders what centuries' old legal notions the "mysteries of the universe" will invalidate next.) In light of these astonishing developments, it is absolutely clear why so many people are putting the words 'marriage' and 'constitution' in the same sentence. An amendment is necessary to preserve not only the social viability of marriage, but the political integrity of the Constitution."
But the Constitution provides for limited jurisdiction of the federal courts. In fact, the U. S. Constitution states:
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." (Article 3.2.2, emphasis added)
Some Constitutional devotees have relied on this clause to indicate all Congress has to do is pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But this is not what it says. As Dr. Skousen, author of such books as The 5000 Year Leap, The Making of America, and The Naked Communist, explains: "This provision was not designed to give Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but simply to make decisions on many topics conclusive after a hearing in the lower courts. It was the purpose of the Founders to protect the Supreme Court from being submerged by a mountain of trivial cases when it should be concentrating its attention on matters of national importance." ( The Making of America, p. 612. See quotes from the Founders on pages 612-613 to support this position)
Even if Congress were to pass a law limiting the kinds of cases which could be appealed to the Supreme Court, it may have the opposite effect. Imagine not being able to appeal sensitive cases to the Supreme Court. That would make the lower court decisions final. The lower courts have been just as active in destroying the Constitution as the Supreme Court has been, and there are so many more of them! (Examples include abortion, flag burning, homosexuality, and pornography cases).
A much better solution is to begin to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to the eleven kinds of cases outlined in Article III of the Constitution. However, this still would not undo the damage of past cases.
And so Professor Richard Wilkins believes the only course left is for the good people of the United States to amend the Constitution to define the institution of marriage according to traditional values. He believes that the traditional family is the vehicle of the decent, moral, and productive values of a free society. He believes that if this vehicle is destroyed - if the family is destroyed - then we will see increased anarchy and eventually the country will be ripe for revolution or submission to government indoctrination. (In fact, he believes that there are forces out to destroy the traditional family for this very reason). He explains why the time is ripe for a constitutional amendment:
"1. A Constitutional amendment will restore the crucial understanding that American government operates under a written Constitution.
As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous decision of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, America is governed by 'a written constitution' and 'the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' (Emphasis by Justice Marshall.) Because the Constitution binds the courts as well as any other branch of government, judges should adhere to the text of the Constitution and interpret and apply its terms consistently with the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Any other course, as Chief Justice Marshall noted in Marbury , 'would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.'
Modern courts have dangerously ignored the teachings of Marbury. The 'new Constitution,' announced by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, frees judges from any need to tie their decisions to either the words of the Constitution or the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Many people applaud the idea of a 'living Constitution;' a document that transcends words, definitions and the restrictive bonds of history and tradition. But a document as fluid, unfettered and free as the 'new Constitution' unveiled in Lawrence bears little resemblance to the Constitution that, for most of its 215-year history, has demanded that the people (and not the courts) resolve society's controversial moral and social debates.
Under the 'new Constitution' announced in Lawrence, the more divisive, difficult and debatable the controversy, the more likely it is that a court - rather than a legislature - will settle the matter. Why? Because (according to the judges, the law professors and other elites) the 'meaning of life' and the 'mysteries of the universe' become more and more important as social debates become more and more divisive, difficult and debatable.
Of course, this is not the Constitution the Framers intended. It is not what the written text demands. But it is what the courts have now decreed. We need an amendment on marriage, not only to protect marriage, but to demonstrate to the courts that they exceeded their power in constitutionalizing marriage in the first place.
Modern courts feel free to ignore or alter constitutional text at will. A constitutional amendment on marriage, by forcefully rejecting the judges' latest excursion from constitutional text and history, will forcibly (and quite properly) remind the judges that their role is to adjudicate, not legislate. A constitutional amendment is necessary to revive the idea which provides 'the very foundation of all written constitutions;' that is, that the Constitution is 'a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' Marbury v. Madison (emphasis in original).
2. A constitutional amendment will restore the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government.
Under the 'new Constitution' drafted by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, state legislatures may not 'demean' the sexual practices of 'consenting adults' that are closely connected to individual views regarding 'the meaning of life' and 'mysteries of the universe.' (For those of you who either aren't familiar with legal lingo or simply like people to write clearly: legislatures may not suggest that there are any differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality.) To reach this result, of course, the Supreme Court had to ignore the words of the Constitution and the history and traditions of the American people. In their place, the Justices have given us a poem - a poem as vague, expansive or restrictive as the next metaphor or lyrical couplet favored by five members of the Supreme Court.
This departure from text, history and tradition is a serious matter. It dramatically upsets the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government. If government action encroaches upon core constitutional values (as contained in clear constitutional text construed in light of actual American practice, experience and tradition) the judiciary must act. But the Founders intended the judicial role to be exceptional and rarely invoked. Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist Papers, proclaimed the judiciary the 'least dangerous branch' because it does not create policy but merely exercises 'judgment.' The really difficult questions, Hamilton and the other Founders thought, would be left to the people.
Modern social activists (and too many judges) have either forgotten or chosen to ignore that most governmental decisions are not controlled (and can't be controlled) by the precise language of the Constitution. If the 'correct' answers to pressing questions are fairly debatable, those questions must be - indeed, can only be - resolved by legislative action.
The expanding reach of American constitutional law has rendered the public increasingly oblivious to its role as the primary source of decision-making power under the United States Constitution. By inventing and enforcing 'rights' nowhere evident in the language of the Constitution or the history and traditions of the American people, lawyers, judges and law professors have slowly eroded democratic decision making, reducing or eliminating the people's popular control over an ever-expanding range of fairly debatable controversies.
The Constitution was not drafted, nor was it intended, to turn over marriage and marital policy to the federal courts. But, because the courts have now concluded otherwise, a constitutional amendment is needed to restore democratic balance. Without a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court - and not the people - ultimately will determine what marriage means. With all due respect to the Honorable Court, this is too important a decision to be made by five people in black robes.
The question is: What does the Constitution demand? I fully understand the concerns of those who assert that, since the Constitution has never addressed marriage before, it should not be amended to address marriage now. But whatever the Constitution said (or did not say) about marriage for the past 215 years, whatever the history, traditions and practices of the American people confirm (or do not confirm) about the meaning of marriage, marriage is in the Constitution. The Founders did not do it. But the courts have.
By placing marriage in the Constitution, the judges have taken marriage out of the hands of the people. The judges have done violence to the very idea of a written Constitution, have eroded legislative power, and have significantly expanded their own power. It is now up to the people, by constitutional amendment, to remedy these errors. A constitutional amendment is needed, not only to preserve marriage, but to restore constitutional order."
Steve Farrell writes: "We can’t turn over the fate of the family to nine folks in robes. Judicial tyranny is not for you and not for me. It’s time to reign these judges in, and remind them that constitutions are set up to preserve the values of a society, not overthrow them."
References:
Richard Wilkins, Marriage and the Constitution: Why We Need an Amendment
Earl Taylor Jr, "Marriage and the Constitution", NCCS, April 2004. Referenced at: http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/apr04nl.html
W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, 1985; The National Center for Constitutional Studies.
Steve Farrell, "Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?," Newsmax, March 3, 2004. Referenced at: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/3/134302.shtml
Steve Farrell, "Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?," Federal Observer, April 29, 2012. Referenced at: http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=7369
"California Proposition 8," Wikipedia. Referenced at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8
Diane Rufino, "Perry v. Schwartzenegger: California Becomes the Latest Battleground for Gay Marriage Rights," August 2010. Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article was originally written as a response to an article written in the Fayetteville Observer which bashed the NC Marriage Amendment (Amendment 1). In fact, I submitted the first few paragraphs of my article in response to that article. I was inspired to do so by Pastor Jeff Long, who had emailed me and who himself had responded with a powerful message, which is attached below.
Response to Article in Fayetteville Observer Bashing the Marriage Amendment --
Jeffrey Long (Former NC Public Health Study Commissioner)
Another ANTI-Marriage Amendment opinion piece which denies social realities unfolding all around us which threaten to bring a negative "sea change" to North Carolina society and culture in days to come if we do NOT reinforce OUR state law by putting it in our constitution--as 30 other states have already!
Virginia adopted a Marriage Amendment more restrictive than ours in 2006. The Old Dominion is not in social turmoil as a result, nor are perceived "inconveniences" imposed upon homosexuals there appearing to be so insuperable because they are not allowed to be called "marrieds," nor accorded official status, benefits and privileges traditionally given to espoused men and women.
Plus, upon constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court of that state has since upheld it!
The Obama Administration has now unilaterally determined that its Justice Dept. will not defend any more cases under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Bill Clinton. This blatant act of Executive non-feasance now sets the stage for the perfect storm of judicial activism which will ensue shortly--most likely after the November election--in which our little statute restricting state recognition to only man-woman marriage will be gobbled up as has been the fate of similar laws in other states (cf,: Prop 22 in California).
When Proposition 8 was passed in a referendum vote by a majority of Californians, homosexuals were allowed to have their state recognized "civil unions." BUT, in short order this did not prove to be enough for them as they walked off in a snit and demanded full recognition and DEFINITION IN LAW as marrieds with marriage licenses identical to that of men and women.
A case was promptly brought by deep-pocketed homosexual activists against Prop 8 which succeeded in getting it overturned. The case was presided over by homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, who unethically did not recuse himself from sitting in judgment, and in a case of bald judicial activism he wrote an opinion overturning it.
<
A three-judge panel of the most liberal federal appeals court in the nation, the Ninth District, took up the appeal and by a 2 to 1 vote upheld Walker's decision. However.....
<< Judge N. Randy Smith, noted in his dissent that states do legitimately prohibit sexual relationships condemned by society such as incest, bigamy, and bestiality, and impose age limits for marriage without violating constitutional rights.[195] He stated that "gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class" and are thus not entitled to the courts' increased scrutiny of laws that affect them.[195] He wrote, "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children.[195] He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8.[196]
<
In the meantime, statesmen in 30 states who years ago wisely foresaw these types of shenanigans on the horizon, began reinforcing their own marriage laws by incorporating them in their own constitutions. And they succeeded in doing this with a show of overwhelming support of their states' voters, in some cases by over 70%.
North Carolina voters must move now to protect our families and children from a movement which is well-funded and which is bent on redefining marriage as a genderless institution and which will (is already in other places and on many college campuses) bring in its wake demands for acceptance and approval of pedophilia, transgenderism, self-mutilation, etc., not to mention give official government sanction to reprehensible disease- (read: AIDS) transmitting activities -- NONE of which we want to see incentivized in the Tar Heel State!
This is why not only a religious person, but a rational and sound thinking--and yes, a truly compassionate voter --will VOTE FOR the Marriage Amendment on May 8th
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Obama to use foreign aid to promote homosexual agenda abroad
The Obama administration is announcing a wide-ranging effort to use U.S. foreign aid to promote rights for gays and lesbians abroad, including combating attempts by foreign governments to criminalize homosexuality.
In a memorandum issued Tuesday, President Barack Obama directed U.S. agencies working abroad, including the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, to use foreign aid to assist gays and lesbians who are facing human rights violations. And he ordered U.S. agencies to protect vulnerable gay and lesbian refugees and asylum seekers.
"The struggle to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons is a global challenge, and one that is central to the United States' commitment to promoting human rights," Obama said in a statement.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is also expected to speak about the announcements in Geneva later Tuesday.
CONTINUED: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2011/12/06/us-to-use-foreign-aid-to-promote-homosexual-agenda-abroad/?subscriber=1
In a memorandum issued Tuesday, President Barack Obama directed U.S. agencies working abroad, including the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, to use foreign aid to assist gays and lesbians who are facing human rights violations. And he ordered U.S. agencies to protect vulnerable gay and lesbian refugees and asylum seekers.
"The struggle to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons is a global challenge, and one that is central to the United States' commitment to promoting human rights," Obama said in a statement.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is also expected to speak about the announcements in Geneva later Tuesday.
CONTINUED: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2011/12/06/us-to-use-foreign-aid-to-promote-homosexual-agenda-abroad/?subscriber=1
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
NCFRW LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Grassroots Alert from Joyce Krawiec
jrkrawiec@aol.com
Marriage Amendment
August 17, 2011
We have been waiting and working for a very long time for a vote on a Marriage Amendment in NC. It is now time to turn up the heat. We need to make calls to legislators, email those legislators, write letters to legislators and mail to their home districts.
When speaking with legislators remember to stay positive and stay on message.
Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Don't get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It's just common sense.
THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:
Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:
"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don't have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."
Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." It causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don't use it. Say we're against "redefining marriage" or in favor of "marriage as the union of husband and wife" NEVER "banning same-sex marriage."
It appears that we are safe in the Senate and we will concentrate our efforts on the House. The Legislators that we are contacting are as follows with some history on a few: I have called each one of these, more than once. I am identifying the conversation with the ones that I was able to reach.
Rep. William Brisson (Bladen and Cumberland Counties) new district will be parts of Bladen and Sampson counties also. William.Brisson@ncleg.net -(910) 862-7007 - Mailing address: P.O. Box 531, Dublin, N.C. 28332 - has sponsored marriage amendment and he is an absolute must to have with us. He has indicated that he will vote "yes" but we need to make certain he doesn't cave.
Rep. James Crawford - (Granville, Vance, Person) Jim.Crawford@ncleg.net- (252) 492-0185 Mailing address: 509 College St, Oxford, N.C. 27565 -has been a primary sponsor many times. I spoke with him and he told me that he has promised the governor he wouldn't vote against her again. (he voted for 7 veto overrides) He believes in the amendment and wants to see it passed. He may reconsider his commitment to the governor. I reminded him, respectfully, that he doesn't represent the governor, he represents his NC citizens within his district.
Rep. Beverly Earle - (Mecklenburg) Beverly.Earle@ncleg.net - (704) 333-7180 Mailing address: 312 S. Clarkson St., Charlotte, N.C. 28202
Rep. Elmer Floyd - (Cumberland) - Elmer.Floyd@ncleg.net (910) 488-6903 Mailing address: 207 Courtney St, Fayetteville, N.C. 28301
Rep. Rosa Gill - (Wake) - Rosa.Gill@ncleg.net - (919) 821-0425 Mailing address: 2408 Foxtrot Rd, Raleigh, N.C. 27610 - I spoke with her and she didn't seem to know that marriage was not already protected. She didn't think an amendment is necessary.
Rep. Ken Goodman - (Montgomery, Richmond, Scotland, Hoke, Robeson) Ken.Goodman@ncleg.net - (910) 997-2712 - Mailing address: 832 Williamsburg Dr, Rockingham, N.C. 28379 - I spoke with him. He said judges have not overruled the NC laws and he didn't think an amendment was necessary. He said he is libertarian enough to think that it's not the govt's business. Remind him that statutes can be thrown out by a judge, an amendment can't.
Rep. Charles Graham - (Robeson) Charles.Graham@ncleg.net - (910) 739-3969 - Mailing address: 479 Bee Gee Rd, Lumberton, N.C. 28358 - he is from a very socially conservative district, Lumbee Indian area.
Rep. Dewey Hill - (Brunswick, Columbus, Bladen, Robeson) - Dewey.Hill@ncleg.net - (910) 642-6044 - Mailing address: P.O. Box 723, Whiteville, N.C. 28472 - I talked with him and he appears to be solidly in favor of. He told me he plans to vote" for". We need to make certain he stays firm and thank him also.
Rep. Marvin Lucas - (Cumberland) - Marvin.Lucas@ncleg.net - (910) 497-2733 - Mailing address: 3318 Hedgemoor Cr, Spring Lake, N.C. 28390 - has never sponsored, his position is unknown.
Rep. Frank McGuirt - (Anson, Union) - Frank.McGuirt@ncleg.net - (704) 233-4618 - Mailing address: P.O. Box 613, Wingate, N.C. 28174 - he is a new legislator, appointed to fill a vacant seat. His old district is heavily Democrat, new district is heavily Republican so he needs to feel the heat. I spoke with him and he said he believes marriage is 1 man, 1 woman, but he doesn't think we need an amendment.
Rep. Marian McLawhorn - (Pitt) - Marian.McLawhorn@ncleg.net - (252) 524-3113 - Mailing address: P.O. Box 399, Grifton, N.C. 28530 - she has never sponsored, position unknown.
Rep. Annie Mobley - (Bertie, Gates, Hertford, Perquimans, Pasquotank) - Annie.Mobley@ncleg.net
(252) 332-5463 - Mailing address: 353 South Church Rd, Ahoskie, N.C. 27910 - I spoke with her. She is a possible YES but said she has some problems with the amendment. I asked what made her uncomfortable. She asked if I would call her back next week, she was going to a meeting and would be tied up this week...so she is, obviously, thinking.
Rep. Bill Owens - (Camden, Currituck, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Chowan, Tyrell) - Bill.Owens@ncleg.net
- (252) 335-0167 - Mailing address: 113 Hunters Trail East, Elizabeth City, N.C. 27909 - he has never cosponsored but indicated to me that he was leaning YES.
Rep. Garland Pierce - (Hoke, Robeson, Scotland, Richmond) - Garland.Pierce@ncleg.net - (910) 369-2844 - Mailing address: 21981 Buie St, Wagram, N.C. 28396 - has co-sponsored 3 times. Said he is in favor of amendment but would not commit to vote for it. He is a Baptist minister.
Rep. Timothy Spear - (Chowan, Dare, Hyde, Washington, Beaufort) - Tim.Spear@ncleg.net - (252) 797-4481 - Mailing address: 612 Mt. Tabor Rd, Creswell, N.C. 27928 - We must have him. He said he is a solid YES, but he will be under tremendous pressure.
Rep. William Wainwright - (Craven, Lenoir, Greene) - William.Wainwright@ncleg.net - (252) 447-7379 - Mailing address: P.O. Box 33, Havelock, N.C. 28532 - has never sponsored and his position is unknown. He indicated that he had not made a decision and that everyone should vote their conscience.
Rep. Winkie Wilkins - (Durham, Person, Granville) - Winkie.Wilkins@ncleg.net - (336) 599-7336 - Mailing address: 210 Fair Oaks Dr, Roxboro, N.C. 27574 - Indicated to me that he was leaning YES, but told someone else that he was probably NO.
Rep. Larry Womble - (Forsyth) - Larry.Womble@ncleg.net (336) 784-9373 - Mailing address: 1294 Salem Lake Rd, Winston Salem, N.C. 27107 - has never sponsored, position unknown. I spoke with him and he said he had not decided yet. He also said that we already had a marriage amendment. I explained that we did not.
Rep. Michael Wray - (Northampton, Vance, Warren, Halifax) - Michael.Wray@ncleg.net - (252) 535-3297 - Mailing address: P.O. Box 904, Gaston, N.C. 27832 - He has co-sponsored 3 times and has indicated that he is leaning YES.
WE MUST HAVE AT LEAST 4 OF THESE DEMOCRATS TO VOTE "YES" ON MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.
PLEASE CALL THEM AND EMAIL...IF YOU LIVE IN THEIR DISTRICT, OR KNOW SOMEONE WHO DOES, PLEASE GET AS MANY CONTACTS GENERATED AS POSSIBLE.
WE ALSO NEED LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. I HAVE PREPARED A SAMPLE AND WILL DO MORE. YOUR MEMBERS CAN JUST COPY AND PASTE OR EDIT AS DESIRED AND SEND IN TO YOUR LOCAL PAPERS.
TIME IS SHORT ON THIS ONE. WE MUST ACT NOW. WE HAVE A COALITION MEETING EACH MONDAY. I WILL UPDATE YOU AGAIN SOON.
Talking Points for Discussion and Letters:
NC is the only southern state that has not protected marriage in its' Constitution. Currently, our marriage statutes, that define marriage as between a man and a woman, can be overturned by a court.
Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.
Marriage is uniquely beneficial to society because it is the foundation of the family and the basic building block of a civilized and productive society. Marriage benefits are overwhelming, according to all statistics. It is not merely a private contract, but a social institution of great public value to families, children, our economy and the entire state.
We all have heard the positive benefits of marriage to children: Lower poverty rates, less likely to commit suicide, less than half as likely to commit crime, less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock, better development academically and socially, and the list goes on.
According to Heritage Foundation, marriage decline costs Americans $112 Billion per year. This should make marriage stability one of the most important issues facing America today.
Even if one doesn't believe the institution of marriage came down from Mt. Sinai carved in stone, we know in our hearts and minds, that marriage is the institution that defines a family and is the cornerstone for all of society.
It should be protected and nurtured.
NC Federation of Republican Women
Dena Barnes, President
www.ncfrw.com
jrkrawiec@aol.com
Marriage Amendment
August 17, 2011
We have been waiting and working for a very long time for a vote on a Marriage Amendment in NC. It is now time to turn up the heat. We need to make calls to legislators, email those legislators, write letters to legislators and mail to their home districts.
When speaking with legislators remember to stay positive and stay on message.
Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Don't get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It's just common sense.
THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:
Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:
"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don't have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."
Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." It causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don't use it. Say we're against "redefining marriage" or in favor of "marriage as the union of husband and wife" NEVER "banning same-sex marriage."
It appears that we are safe in the Senate and we will concentrate our efforts on the House. The Legislators that we are contacting are as follows with some history on a few: I have called each one of these, more than once. I am identifying the conversation with the ones that I was able to reach.
Rep. William Brisson (Bladen and Cumberland Counties) new district will be parts of Bladen and Sampson counties also. William.Brisson@ncleg.net -(910) 862-7007 - Mailing address: P.O. Box 531, Dublin, N.C. 28332 - has sponsored marriage amendment and he is an absolute must to have with us. He has indicated that he will vote "yes" but we need to make certain he doesn't cave.
Rep. James Crawford - (Granville, Vance, Person) Jim.Crawford@ncleg.net- (252) 492-0185 Mailing address: 509 College St, Oxford, N.C. 27565 -has been a primary sponsor many times. I spoke with him and he told me that he has promised the governor he wouldn't vote against her again. (he voted for 7 veto overrides) He believes in the amendment and wants to see it passed. He may reconsider his commitment to the governor. I reminded him, respectfully, that he doesn't represent the governor, he represents his NC citizens within his district.
Rep. Beverly Earle - (Mecklenburg) Beverly.Earle@ncleg.net - (704) 333-7180 Mailing address: 312 S. Clarkson St., Charlotte, N.C. 28202
Rep. Elmer Floyd - (Cumberland) - Elmer.Floyd@ncleg.net (910) 488-6903 Mailing address: 207 Courtney St, Fayetteville, N.C. 28301
Rep. Rosa Gill - (Wake) - Rosa.Gill@ncleg.net - (919) 821-0425 Mailing address: 2408 Foxtrot Rd, Raleigh, N.C. 27610 - I spoke with her and she didn't seem to know that marriage was not already protected. She didn't think an amendment is necessary.
Rep. Ken Goodman - (Montgomery, Richmond, Scotland, Hoke, Robeson) Ken.Goodman@ncleg.net - (910) 997-2712 - Mailing address: 832 Williamsburg Dr, Rockingham, N.C. 28379 - I spoke with him. He said judges have not overruled the NC laws and he didn't think an amendment was necessary. He said he is libertarian enough to think that it's not the govt's business. Remind him that statutes can be thrown out by a judge, an amendment can't.
Rep. Charles Graham - (Robeson) Charles.Graham@ncleg.net - (910) 739-3969 - Mailing address: 479 Bee Gee Rd, Lumberton, N.C. 28358 - he is from a very socially conservative district, Lumbee Indian area.
Rep. Dewey Hill - (Brunswick, Columbus, Bladen, Robeson) - Dewey.Hill@ncleg.net - (910) 642-6044 - Mailing address: P.O. Box 723, Whiteville, N.C. 28472 - I talked with him and he appears to be solidly in favor of. He told me he plans to vote" for". We need to make certain he stays firm and thank him also.
Rep. Marvin Lucas - (Cumberland) - Marvin.Lucas@ncleg.net - (910) 497-2733 - Mailing address: 3318 Hedgemoor Cr, Spring Lake, N.C. 28390 - has never sponsored, his position is unknown.
Rep. Frank McGuirt - (Anson, Union) - Frank.McGuirt@ncleg.net - (704) 233-4618 - Mailing address: P.O. Box 613, Wingate, N.C. 28174 - he is a new legislator, appointed to fill a vacant seat. His old district is heavily Democrat, new district is heavily Republican so he needs to feel the heat. I spoke with him and he said he believes marriage is 1 man, 1 woman, but he doesn't think we need an amendment.
Rep. Marian McLawhorn - (Pitt) - Marian.McLawhorn@ncleg.net - (252) 524-3113 - Mailing address: P.O. Box 399, Grifton, N.C. 28530 - she has never sponsored, position unknown.
Rep. Annie Mobley - (Bertie, Gates, Hertford, Perquimans, Pasquotank) - Annie.Mobley@ncleg.net
(252) 332-5463 - Mailing address: 353 South Church Rd, Ahoskie, N.C. 27910 - I spoke with her. She is a possible YES but said she has some problems with the amendment. I asked what made her uncomfortable. She asked if I would call her back next week, she was going to a meeting and would be tied up this week...so she is, obviously, thinking.
Rep. Bill Owens - (Camden, Currituck, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Chowan, Tyrell) - Bill.Owens@ncleg.net
- (252) 335-0167 - Mailing address: 113 Hunters Trail East, Elizabeth City, N.C. 27909 - he has never cosponsored but indicated to me that he was leaning YES.
Rep. Garland Pierce - (Hoke, Robeson, Scotland, Richmond) - Garland.Pierce@ncleg.net - (910) 369-2844 - Mailing address: 21981 Buie St, Wagram, N.C. 28396 - has co-sponsored 3 times. Said he is in favor of amendment but would not commit to vote for it. He is a Baptist minister.
Rep. Timothy Spear - (Chowan, Dare, Hyde, Washington, Beaufort) - Tim.Spear@ncleg.net - (252) 797-4481 - Mailing address: 612 Mt. Tabor Rd, Creswell, N.C. 27928 - We must have him. He said he is a solid YES, but he will be under tremendous pressure.
Rep. William Wainwright - (Craven, Lenoir, Greene) - William.Wainwright@ncleg.net - (252) 447-7379 - Mailing address: P.O. Box 33, Havelock, N.C. 28532 - has never sponsored and his position is unknown. He indicated that he had not made a decision and that everyone should vote their conscience.
Rep. Winkie Wilkins - (Durham, Person, Granville) - Winkie.Wilkins@ncleg.net - (336) 599-7336 - Mailing address: 210 Fair Oaks Dr, Roxboro, N.C. 27574 - Indicated to me that he was leaning YES, but told someone else that he was probably NO.
Rep. Larry Womble - (Forsyth) - Larry.Womble@ncleg.net (336) 784-9373 - Mailing address: 1294 Salem Lake Rd, Winston Salem, N.C. 27107 - has never sponsored, position unknown. I spoke with him and he said he had not decided yet. He also said that we already had a marriage amendment. I explained that we did not.
Rep. Michael Wray - (Northampton, Vance, Warren, Halifax) - Michael.Wray@ncleg.net - (252) 535-3297 - Mailing address: P.O. Box 904, Gaston, N.C. 27832 - He has co-sponsored 3 times and has indicated that he is leaning YES.
WE MUST HAVE AT LEAST 4 OF THESE DEMOCRATS TO VOTE "YES" ON MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.
PLEASE CALL THEM AND EMAIL...IF YOU LIVE IN THEIR DISTRICT, OR KNOW SOMEONE WHO DOES, PLEASE GET AS MANY CONTACTS GENERATED AS POSSIBLE.
WE ALSO NEED LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. I HAVE PREPARED A SAMPLE AND WILL DO MORE. YOUR MEMBERS CAN JUST COPY AND PASTE OR EDIT AS DESIRED AND SEND IN TO YOUR LOCAL PAPERS.
TIME IS SHORT ON THIS ONE. WE MUST ACT NOW. WE HAVE A COALITION MEETING EACH MONDAY. I WILL UPDATE YOU AGAIN SOON.
Talking Points for Discussion and Letters:
NC is the only southern state that has not protected marriage in its' Constitution. Currently, our marriage statutes, that define marriage as between a man and a woman, can be overturned by a court.
Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.
Marriage is uniquely beneficial to society because it is the foundation of the family and the basic building block of a civilized and productive society. Marriage benefits are overwhelming, according to all statistics. It is not merely a private contract, but a social institution of great public value to families, children, our economy and the entire state.
We all have heard the positive benefits of marriage to children: Lower poverty rates, less likely to commit suicide, less than half as likely to commit crime, less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock, better development academically and socially, and the list goes on.
According to Heritage Foundation, marriage decline costs Americans $112 Billion per year. This should make marriage stability one of the most important issues facing America today.
Even if one doesn't believe the institution of marriage came down from Mt. Sinai carved in stone, we know in our hearts and minds, that marriage is the institution that defines a family and is the cornerstone for all of society.
It should be protected and nurtured.
NC Federation of Republican Women
Dena Barnes, President
www.ncfrw.com
Friday, April 15, 2011
ACLU Targets School Web Filters
The American Civil Liberties Union has partnered with Yale Law School in launching a nationwide campaign to force schools to stop filtering "web content geared toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities."
http://ncfamily.org/stories/110413s1.html
http://ncfamily.org/stories/110413s1.html
Thursday, December 23, 2010
THE LAMEST DUCK EVER! OBAMA IS SO PROUD!
Dec 23, 2010
The Lamest Duck
President Obama at a White House press conference on Dec 22, 2010 was jubilant that the so-called "lame-duck" Congress delivered victories for him on a number of initiatives. "Obama said Congress had its 'most productive post-election period' in decades." "And it comes on the heels of the most productive two years that we've had in generations." (Bloomberg News) Recall that when Republicans were the "lame duck" Congress they passed zero legislation.
President Obama's only one regret is that the DREAM Act did not pass, but he has vowed to continue again with the next Congress. A true picture of "accomplishments" includes a 2011 annual budget that was not passed but temporary extensions were granted to keep the government running, a 2010 unemployment rate of 9.8%, and a deficit of $1.3 trillion.
Most Recent Congressional Actions
Senate--New START Treaty.
On Dec 22 the Senate ratified the new START treaty, a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. The vote was 71 to 26 and 3 did not vote. Senator Burr voted against it and Senator Hagan voted for the treaty. Eleven Republicans broke rank and voted with the Democrats and they are: Senators Alexander (TN), Brown (MA), Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Gregg (NH), Isakson (GA), Johanns (NE), Lugar (IN), Murkowski (Alaska), and Snowe (ME).
A key problem with the treaty is that it allows Russian coordination over U.S. plans for a global missile defense system. Interestingly, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently warned the U.S. Senate that the New START treaty "cannot be reopened, becoming the subject of new negotiations," according to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010
The legislation passed on Dec 18, which allows gays and lesbians in the military services to openly flaunt their sexual preferences. The vote was 65 to 31 with 4 not voting. All Democrats voted for the repeal, except Senator Manchin (D-WV) who did not vote. Both Senator Burr and Senator Hagan voted for the repeal.
Eight Republican Senators voted with the Democrats including Senators Burr, Kirk (IL), Ensign (NV), Brown (MA), Voinovich (OH), Murkowski (Alaska), Collins and Snowe (ME).
Senator Burr's vote was a surprise since he did not indicate his support for the repeal previously, and initially agreed with Republicans in a procedural vote in bringing the measure to the floor. However, when the final vote was taken he voted for repeal. Politico reported that Senator Burr said, "It's just that we've had a generational change and I have vehemently objected to making a policy change of this magnitude at this time. When cloture was passed, that settled that," "It's not accepted practice anywhere in our society, and it only makes sense. But again, I was vehemently opposed to the timing of this."
[In checking Senator Burr's website several times, no comment is posted concerning his vote, as of Dec 23, 2010. His office is closed for Christmas, but they will be contacted for a comment upon reopening.]
According to Politico, Senator Collins said, "I didn't expect eight. I was delighted but surprised with the vote from Sen. Burr. I think that was a gutsy vote and I was delighted. But he was not someone who I thought to lobby on the issue." [A lot of people were surprised.]
Gay-rights leaders and White House officials were on hand to congratulate themselves for legislation which just a week ago was thought to be dead. Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is "historic," according to Obama and reported by Politico. Joe Solmonese, president of the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign said, "Today, we pulled out a victory from what was almost certain defeat just a few days ago."
Pat Buchanan believes this is a "political payoff" to the "homosexual rights lobby," at the "expense of our military." Among the military most opposed to the repeal are combat veterans who "warn that this will create grave problems of unit cohesion and morale." Buchanan also stated, "Marines have been sacrificed by the Democratic Party and Barack Obama to the homosexual lobby, with the collusion of no fewer than eight Republican senators."
Continuing Appropriations Act 2011
On Dec 21, the Senate passed a fiscal year (FY) 2011 funding bill to keep the government running through March 4, 2011. Senator Burr voted against it and Senator Hagan voted for it. The funding continues at the FY 2010 levels since the Congress has not passed a 2011 budget. The 2010 budget deficit is about $1.3 trillion, but the accumulated debt is nearly $13.9 trillion while the debt ceiling is at $14.3 trillion, according to the Wall Street Journal.
9/11 Healthcare Bill
The Senate unanimously approved the bill on Dec 22 for first responders who became ill as a result of 9/11. The $4.3 billion bill funds healthcare for the first responders at $1.8 billion and allows $2.5 billion to "re-open the Victim's Compensation fund," according to Senator Gillibrand's (D-NY) office. [Note: Exact cost figures are slightly different in other publications, but approximate these.]
House of Representatives
Food and Drug Administration Food Safety Modernization Act
On Dec 22, the House agreed with the Senate amendments and passed legislation in a vote of 215 to 144 with 74 not voting.
NC Representatives voting for the act: G.K. Butterfield (D-1st), Bob Etheridge (D-2nd), David E. Price (D-4th), Mike McIntyre (D-7th), Larry Kissell (D-8th), Heath Shuler (D-11th), Melvin L. Watt (D-12th), and Brad Miller (D-13th).
NC Representatives voting against it: Virginia Foxx (R-5th), Sue Myrick (R-9th), and Patrick T. McHenry (R-10th). Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-3rd), and Howard Coble (R-6th) did not vote.
9/11 Health and Compensation Act
The House passed legislation to fund the healthcare of 9/11 responders on Dec 22, and the vote tally was 206 to 60 with 168 not voting.
NC Representatives voting for the act: G.K. Butterfield (D-1st), Bob Etheridge (D-2nd), David E. Price (D-4th), Larry Kissell (D-8th), Melvin L. Watt (D-12th), and Brad Miller (D-13th).
NC Representatives voting against it: Virginia Foxx (R-5th), Sue Myrick (R-9th), and Patrick T. McHenry (R-10th). Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-3rd), Howard Coble (R-6th), Mike McIntyre (D-7th), Patrick T. McHenry (R-10th), and Heath Shuler (D-11th) did not vote.
Continuing Appropriation Bill 2011
On Dec 21, the House agreed with the Senate on a $250 billion bill to keep the government running through March 4, 2011. The vote was 193 to 165 with 75 not voting.
NC Representatives voting for the bill: G.K. Butterfield (D-1st), Bob Etheridge (D-2nd), David E. Price (D-4th), Larry Kissell (D-8th), Melvin L. Watt (D-12th), Heath Shuler (D-11th), and Brad Miller (D-13th).
NC Representatives voting against it: Virginia Foxx (R-5th), Mike McIntyre (D-7th), Sue Myrick (R-9th), and Patrick T. McHenry (R-10th). Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-3rd) and Howard Coble (R-6th) did not vote
The Lamest Duck
President Obama at a White House press conference on Dec 22, 2010 was jubilant that the so-called "lame-duck" Congress delivered victories for him on a number of initiatives. "Obama said Congress had its 'most productive post-election period' in decades." "And it comes on the heels of the most productive two years that we've had in generations." (Bloomberg News) Recall that when Republicans were the "lame duck" Congress they passed zero legislation.
President Obama's only one regret is that the DREAM Act did not pass, but he has vowed to continue again with the next Congress. A true picture of "accomplishments" includes a 2011 annual budget that was not passed but temporary extensions were granted to keep the government running, a 2010 unemployment rate of 9.8%, and a deficit of $1.3 trillion.
Most Recent Congressional Actions
Senate--New START Treaty.
On Dec 22 the Senate ratified the new START treaty, a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. The vote was 71 to 26 and 3 did not vote. Senator Burr voted against it and Senator Hagan voted for the treaty. Eleven Republicans broke rank and voted with the Democrats and they are: Senators Alexander (TN), Brown (MA), Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Gregg (NH), Isakson (GA), Johanns (NE), Lugar (IN), Murkowski (Alaska), and Snowe (ME).
A key problem with the treaty is that it allows Russian coordination over U.S. plans for a global missile defense system. Interestingly, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently warned the U.S. Senate that the New START treaty "cannot be reopened, becoming the subject of new negotiations," according to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010
The legislation passed on Dec 18, which allows gays and lesbians in the military services to openly flaunt their sexual preferences. The vote was 65 to 31 with 4 not voting. All Democrats voted for the repeal, except Senator Manchin (D-WV) who did not vote. Both Senator Burr and Senator Hagan voted for the repeal.
Eight Republican Senators voted with the Democrats including Senators Burr, Kirk (IL), Ensign (NV), Brown (MA), Voinovich (OH), Murkowski (Alaska), Collins and Snowe (ME).
Senator Burr's vote was a surprise since he did not indicate his support for the repeal previously, and initially agreed with Republicans in a procedural vote in bringing the measure to the floor. However, when the final vote was taken he voted for repeal. Politico reported that Senator Burr said, "It's just that we've had a generational change and I have vehemently objected to making a policy change of this magnitude at this time. When cloture was passed, that settled that," "It's not accepted practice anywhere in our society, and it only makes sense. But again, I was vehemently opposed to the timing of this."
[In checking Senator Burr's website several times, no comment is posted concerning his vote, as of Dec 23, 2010. His office is closed for Christmas, but they will be contacted for a comment upon reopening.]
According to Politico, Senator Collins said, "I didn't expect eight. I was delighted but surprised with the vote from Sen. Burr. I think that was a gutsy vote and I was delighted. But he was not someone who I thought to lobby on the issue." [A lot of people were surprised.]
Gay-rights leaders and White House officials were on hand to congratulate themselves for legislation which just a week ago was thought to be dead. Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is "historic," according to Obama and reported by Politico. Joe Solmonese, president of the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign said, "Today, we pulled out a victory from what was almost certain defeat just a few days ago."
Pat Buchanan believes this is a "political payoff" to the "homosexual rights lobby," at the "expense of our military." Among the military most opposed to the repeal are combat veterans who "warn that this will create grave problems of unit cohesion and morale." Buchanan also stated, "Marines have been sacrificed by the Democratic Party and Barack Obama to the homosexual lobby, with the collusion of no fewer than eight Republican senators."
Continuing Appropriations Act 2011
On Dec 21, the Senate passed a fiscal year (FY) 2011 funding bill to keep the government running through March 4, 2011. Senator Burr voted against it and Senator Hagan voted for it. The funding continues at the FY 2010 levels since the Congress has not passed a 2011 budget. The 2010 budget deficit is about $1.3 trillion, but the accumulated debt is nearly $13.9 trillion while the debt ceiling is at $14.3 trillion, according to the Wall Street Journal.
9/11 Healthcare Bill
The Senate unanimously approved the bill on Dec 22 for first responders who became ill as a result of 9/11. The $4.3 billion bill funds healthcare for the first responders at $1.8 billion and allows $2.5 billion to "re-open the Victim's Compensation fund," according to Senator Gillibrand's (D-NY) office. [Note: Exact cost figures are slightly different in other publications, but approximate these.]
House of Representatives
Food and Drug Administration Food Safety Modernization Act
On Dec 22, the House agreed with the Senate amendments and passed legislation in a vote of 215 to 144 with 74 not voting.
NC Representatives voting for the act: G.K. Butterfield (D-1st), Bob Etheridge (D-2nd), David E. Price (D-4th), Mike McIntyre (D-7th), Larry Kissell (D-8th), Heath Shuler (D-11th), Melvin L. Watt (D-12th), and Brad Miller (D-13th).
NC Representatives voting against it: Virginia Foxx (R-5th), Sue Myrick (R-9th), and Patrick T. McHenry (R-10th). Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-3rd), and Howard Coble (R-6th) did not vote.
9/11 Health and Compensation Act
The House passed legislation to fund the healthcare of 9/11 responders on Dec 22, and the vote tally was 206 to 60 with 168 not voting.
NC Representatives voting for the act: G.K. Butterfield (D-1st), Bob Etheridge (D-2nd), David E. Price (D-4th), Larry Kissell (D-8th), Melvin L. Watt (D-12th), and Brad Miller (D-13th).
NC Representatives voting against it: Virginia Foxx (R-5th), Sue Myrick (R-9th), and Patrick T. McHenry (R-10th). Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-3rd), Howard Coble (R-6th), Mike McIntyre (D-7th), Patrick T. McHenry (R-10th), and Heath Shuler (D-11th) did not vote.
Continuing Appropriation Bill 2011
On Dec 21, the House agreed with the Senate on a $250 billion bill to keep the government running through March 4, 2011. The vote was 193 to 165 with 75 not voting.
NC Representatives voting for the bill: G.K. Butterfield (D-1st), Bob Etheridge (D-2nd), David E. Price (D-4th), Larry Kissell (D-8th), Melvin L. Watt (D-12th), Heath Shuler (D-11th), and Brad Miller (D-13th).
NC Representatives voting against it: Virginia Foxx (R-5th), Mike McIntyre (D-7th), Sue Myrick (R-9th), and Patrick T. McHenry (R-10th). Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-3rd) and Howard Coble (R-6th) did not vote
Friday, September 3, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Morning Bell: The Obama Elite vs The American People
Morning Bell: The Obama Elite vs The American People
Posted August 5th, 2010 at 9:49am in Family and Religion, Rule of Law with 0 comments Print This Post
This Tuesday voters in Missouri, by a 40-point margin, approved a ballot measure rejecting the individual mandate at the core of President Barack Obama’s health care law. Asked what the vote meant to the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “Nothing.” Yesterday in San Francisco, federal judge Vaughn Walker gave the exact same weight to a California ballot measure that affirmed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Specifically Judge Walker overturned the California Marriage Protection Act after concluding, as a matter of fact, that the majority of Californians who voted to protect marriage were bigots who had no rational basis to define marriage on their own terms. Here are just some of the “facts” Judge Walker found:
•Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
•The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships.
•The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian.
•The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes.
•Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted.
How did Judge Walker arrive at these “facts”? By agreeing with everything the same-sex marriage proponents’ “experts” said while ruling that the traditional marriage witness was “unreliable” and “provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.” In so doing, Walker not only ignored the views of millions of Californians, but by basing his decision on the 14th Amendment, he also ignored the factual determinations of every single popular vote that has been held on the issue in the past two decades. According to Judge Walker’s reasoning every single one of these Americans is a bigot whose opinion on marriage has no place under Judge Walker’s Constitution.
From the beginning, it was clear that Judge Walker was more interested in making a political statement than upholding the rule of law. That is why after Judge Walker ruled that the trial could be broadcast live, the Supreme Court took the remarkable step of overturning his decision, writing in January: “Not only did [Judge Walker's court] ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.”
Clearly that Supreme Court would have rightly viewed with great skepticism every sentence of Judge Walker’s spurious ruling. But that Court will not be deciding this case. Today the Senate will vote on whether to confirm President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The same Elena Kagan who manipulated the law and facts to deny military recruiters equal access to Harvard law students because she did not personally approve of our military’s personnel policies regarding same-sex relationships.
The same Elena Kagan who was simply ”not sympathetic” to the claim of a petitioner that his 2nd amendment rights were violated, and was actively involved in President Clinton’s gun control agenda. The same Elena Kagan who advised President Clinton that it would be a “disaster” if the full medical truth was revealed about partial-birth abortion, endangering the gruesome procedure.
The facts are becoming quite clear. Kagan, Walker, Gibbs, and Obama all give the same weight to the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box: “Nothing.” We’ll see today if the Senate agrees.
Quick Hits:
•Using the powers of the Civil Rights Division, the Obama Justice Department is giving large sums of money to leftist activist groups that are not discrimination victims and are not connected to a particular suit.
•The Senate on Wednesday cleared the way for a $26 billion bailout for government unions, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said she would call back the House to vote on the bill.
•Government-owned General Motors gave $41,000 to politicians last year including $36,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus.
•President Obama told the AFL-CIO Executive Council yesterday that he will “keep on fighting to pass” card check legislation that would eliminate workers’ rights to a secret ballot vote on joining a union and give government bureaucrats the power to set compensation and make major business decisions at newly unionized companies.
•As President Obama refuses to lift a job-killing moratorium, a new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 64% of U.S. voters now believe offshore oil drilling should be allowed, an eight-point jump from mid-July.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/morning-bell-the-obama-elite-vs-the-american-people/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Posted August 5th, 2010 at 9:49am in Family and Religion, Rule of Law with 0 comments Print This Post
This Tuesday voters in Missouri, by a 40-point margin, approved a ballot measure rejecting the individual mandate at the core of President Barack Obama’s health care law. Asked what the vote meant to the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “Nothing.” Yesterday in San Francisco, federal judge Vaughn Walker gave the exact same weight to a California ballot measure that affirmed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Specifically Judge Walker overturned the California Marriage Protection Act after concluding, as a matter of fact, that the majority of Californians who voted to protect marriage were bigots who had no rational basis to define marriage on their own terms. Here are just some of the “facts” Judge Walker found:
•Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
•The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships.
•The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian.
•The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes.
•Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted.
How did Judge Walker arrive at these “facts”? By agreeing with everything the same-sex marriage proponents’ “experts” said while ruling that the traditional marriage witness was “unreliable” and “provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.” In so doing, Walker not only ignored the views of millions of Californians, but by basing his decision on the 14th Amendment, he also ignored the factual determinations of every single popular vote that has been held on the issue in the past two decades. According to Judge Walker’s reasoning every single one of these Americans is a bigot whose opinion on marriage has no place under Judge Walker’s Constitution.
From the beginning, it was clear that Judge Walker was more interested in making a political statement than upholding the rule of law. That is why after Judge Walker ruled that the trial could be broadcast live, the Supreme Court took the remarkable step of overturning his decision, writing in January: “Not only did [Judge Walker's court] ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.”
Clearly that Supreme Court would have rightly viewed with great skepticism every sentence of Judge Walker’s spurious ruling. But that Court will not be deciding this case. Today the Senate will vote on whether to confirm President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The same Elena Kagan who manipulated the law and facts to deny military recruiters equal access to Harvard law students because she did not personally approve of our military’s personnel policies regarding same-sex relationships.
The same Elena Kagan who was simply ”not sympathetic” to the claim of a petitioner that his 2nd amendment rights were violated, and was actively involved in President Clinton’s gun control agenda. The same Elena Kagan who advised President Clinton that it would be a “disaster” if the full medical truth was revealed about partial-birth abortion, endangering the gruesome procedure.
The facts are becoming quite clear. Kagan, Walker, Gibbs, and Obama all give the same weight to the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box: “Nothing.” We’ll see today if the Senate agrees.
Quick Hits:
•Using the powers of the Civil Rights Division, the Obama Justice Department is giving large sums of money to leftist activist groups that are not discrimination victims and are not connected to a particular suit.
•The Senate on Wednesday cleared the way for a $26 billion bailout for government unions, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said she would call back the House to vote on the bill.
•Government-owned General Motors gave $41,000 to politicians last year including $36,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus.
•President Obama told the AFL-CIO Executive Council yesterday that he will “keep on fighting to pass” card check legislation that would eliminate workers’ rights to a secret ballot vote on joining a union and give government bureaucrats the power to set compensation and make major business decisions at newly unionized companies.
•As President Obama refuses to lift a job-killing moratorium, a new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 64% of U.S. voters now believe offshore oil drilling should be allowed, an eight-point jump from mid-July.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/morning-bell-the-obama-elite-vs-the-american-people/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Friday, July 23, 2010
'Lose Christianity or face expulsion'
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A lawsuit against Augusta State University in Georgia alleges school officials essentially gave a graduate student in counseling the choice of giving up her Christian beliefs or being expelled from the graduate program.
School officials Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley, Paulette Schenck and Richard Deaner demanded student Jen Keeton, 24, go through a "remediation" program after she asserted homosexuality is a behavioral choice, not a "state of being" as a professor said, according to the complaint.
Also named as defendants in the case that developed in May and June are other administrators and the university system's board of regents.
The remediation program was to include "sensitivity training" on homosexual issues, additional outside study on literature promoting homosexuality and the plan that she attend a "gay pride parade" and report on it.
Where has higher education in America gone? Find out in "Freefall of the American University"
The lawsuit, filed by attorneys working with the Alliance Defense Fund, asserted the school cannot violate the Constitution by demanding that a person's beliefs be changed.
"ASU faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education program, not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," the law firm explained.
School spokeswoman Kathy Schose today declined to address the allegations in the case but agreed to discuss the counselor teaching program in general.
She cited the American Counseling Association's code of ethics and said students would be required to adopt its provisions.
"There is a code of ethics that govern counselors," she said. "They have to abide by the code of the profession."
Ethics codes generally govern behavior, and Schose denied the school was attempting to alter any student's beliefs or moral values.
But the lawsuit specifically charges the faculty members targeted Keeton's biblically based belief system and values, not her behavior regarding the treatment of any clients, which had not yet happened.
"Schenck told Miss Keeton that it was unethical for her to believe that her convictions should also be shared by other persons. … Schenck explained that while Miss Keeton was free to have points of view about how she personally should conduct and define herself, she may not believe that others should adopt the standards she personally is convinced are true," the lawsuit said.
Anderson-Wiley confirmed that Miss Keeton will not be able to successfully complete the remediation plan and thus complete the ASU counseling program unless she commits to affirming the propriety of gay and lesbian relationships if such an opportunity arises in her future professional efforts," it continued.
ADF Senior Counsel David French contended a public university student "shouldn't be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that's exactly what's happening here."
"Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform," he said. "Abandoning one's own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop. Jennifer's only crime was to have the beliefs that she does."
Keeton's own e-mail response to the faculty members who allegedly were pressuring her to adopt a pro-homosexual belief system defines the dispute.
"At times you said that I must alter my beliefs because they are unethical. … other times you said that I can keep my beliefs so long as they are only personal and I don't believe that anyone else should believe like me. But that is just another way of saying that I must alter my beliefs, because my beliefs are about absolute truth. ….. in order to finish the counseling program you are requiring me to alter my objective beliefs and also to commit now that if I ever may have a client who wants me to affirm their decision to have an abortion or engage in gay, lesbian, or transgender behavior, I will do that. I can't alter my biblical beliefs, and I will not affirm the morality of those behaviors in a counseling situation," she wrote.
Faculty members had demanded she "attend at least three workshops … which emphasize … diversity training sensitive toward working with GLBTQ populations." They also wanted her to "develop" her knowledge of homosexuality by reading 10 articles and increasing her exposure to homosexuals and lesbians by attending "the Gay Pride Parade."
According to the complaint documentation, which also seeks a preliminary injunction in the case, Keeton asked Anderson-Wiley how her Christian convictions are any less acceptable than those of a Buddhist or Muslim student. Anderson-Wiley responded, "Christians see this population as sinners."
The complaint alleges Anderson-Wiley specifically told Keeton she was being asked to alter some of her beliefs. The "remediation" program included a statement that Keeton would be dismissed from the program if she chose not to comply, the lawsuit said.
"Unless and until defendant's unconstitutional speech-regulating policies and threatened … actions against Miss Keeton are enjoined, Miss Keeton will suffer and continue to suffer irreparable injury to her constitutional rights," the lawsuit said.
Among the alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments are viewpoint discrimination, compelled speech, equal protection and freedom of speech, it said.
"By conditioning Miss Keeton's continued enrollment in the ASU school counselor masters degree program on her waiver of rights to speech and free exercise of religion … by requiring that she alter her beliefs and speech, and that she … commit to affirm in a hypothetical future context the ethical propriety of transgender and homosexual identification and behavior by others, as well as other values and behaviors she now disapproves, and which violate her religion convictions, defendants have imposed an unconstitutional condition on Miss Keeton," the complaint alleges.
"The First Amendment never permits the government to penalize beliefs in this manner," the complaint said.
The ADF said it also is litigating a case involving a Georgia counselor fired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because she would not agree to affirm homosexual behavior. While an earlier similar case at Missouri State has been resolved, there is another in which Eastern Michigan University is defendant on similar allegations.
In the Missouri State case, a social work professor, Frank Kauffman, eventually was placed on leave as part of a settlement of the lawsuit brought on behalf of student Emily Brooker. The student had refused his assignment to lobby on behalf of homosexual adoptions because it violated her religious beliefs. She then was brought up on ethics charges in the school.
The settlement also included monetary damages and the removal of the charges against her from her record. The school's own commissioned conclusion in the case found "many students and faculty stated a fear of voicing differing opinions. … In fact, 'bullying' was used by both students and faculty to characterize specific faculty."
In the still-pending case involving Eastern Michigan, lawmakers there considered calling top school officials on the carpet after they expelled from a counseling program a Christian student who refused to argue in support of the homosexual lifestyle.
As WND reported, trouble began for master's program student Julea Ward when she refused to accept a client whose issue concerned a homosexual relationship.
The school expelled her from the counseling program March 12, 2009, for refusing to abrogate her own personal religious beliefs and support the homosexual lifestyle.
Since then, Ward has brought a lawsuit through the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom.
Members of the Michigan Senate shortly later approved legislation that includes a provision calling on university counseling programs to evaluate and affirm how they can accommodate the religious beliefs of students.
State Rep. Tom McMillin told WND at the time the case was "extremely alarming," and there was growing support for an effort to penalize universities that don't accommodate religious beliefs.
"This is a state-taxpayer-supported university," he said. "She's got a court case. Hopefully that will be resolved."
In the case, the judge refused to dismiss the complaint, determining there were "genuine issues of material fact" about the school's "true motivations" for dismissing Ward from the program. Further, the judge concluded, the student's actions to avoid in advance a counseling session for which she had reservations probably followed professional ethical guidelines.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=182441
'Lose Christianity or face expulsion' -- Georgia student told to read 'gay' lit, attend 'pride parade,' change beliefs
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A lawsuit against Augusta State University in Georgia alleges school officials essentially gave a graduate student in counseling the choice of giving up her Christian beliefs or being expelled from the graduate program.
School officials Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley, Paulette Schenck and Richard Deaner demanded student Jen Keeton, 24, go through a "remediation" program after she asserted homosexuality is a behavioral choice, not a "state of being" as a professor said, according to the complaint.
Also named as defendants in the case that developed in May and June are other administrators and the university system's board of regents.
The remediation program was to include "sensitivity training" on homosexual issues, additional outside study on literature promoting homosexuality and the plan that she attend a "gay pride parade" and report on it.
Where has higher education in America gone? Find out in "Freefall of the American University"
The lawsuit, filed by attorneys working with the Alliance Defense Fund, asserted the school cannot violate the Constitution by demanding that a person's beliefs be changed.
"ASU faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education program, not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," the law firm explained.
School spokeswoman Kathy Schose today declined to address the allegations in the case but agreed to discuss the counselor teaching program in general.
She cited the American Counseling Association's code of ethics and said students would be required to adopt its provisions.
"There is a code of ethics that govern counselors," she said. "They have to abide by the code of the profession."
Ethics codes generally govern behavior, and Schose denied the school was attempting to alter any student's beliefs or moral values.
But the lawsuit specifically charges the faculty members targeted Keeton's biblically based belief system and values, not her behavior regarding the treatment of any clients, which had not yet happened.
"Schenck told Miss Keeton that it was unethical for her to believe that her convictions should also be shared by other persons. … Schenck explained that while Miss Keeton was free to have points of view about how she personally should conduct and define herself, she may not believe that others should adopt the standards she personally is convinced are true," the lawsuit said.
Anderson-Wiley confirmed that Miss Keeton will not be able to successfully complete the remediation plan and thus complete the ASU counseling program unless she commits to affirming the propriety of gay and lesbian relationships if such an opportunity arises in her future professional efforts," it continued.
ADF Senior Counsel David French contended a public university student "shouldn't be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that's exactly what's happening here."
"Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform," he said. "Abandoning one's own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop. Jennifer's only crime was to have the beliefs that she does."
Keeton's own e-mail response to the faculty members who allegedly were pressuring her to adopt a pro-homosexual belief system defines the dispute.
"At times you said that I must alter my beliefs because they are unethical. … other times you said that I can keep my beliefs so long as they are only personal and I don't believe that anyone else should believe like me. But that is just another way of saying that I must alter my beliefs, because my beliefs are about absolute truth. ….. in order to finish the counseling program you are requiring me to alter my objective beliefs and also to commit now that if I ever may have a client who wants me to affirm their decision to have an abortion or engage in gay, lesbian, or transgender behavior, I will do that. I can't alter my biblical beliefs, and I will not affirm the morality of those behaviors in a counseling situation," she wrote.
Faculty members had demanded she "attend at least three workshops … which emphasize … diversity training sensitive toward working with GLBTQ populations." They also wanted her to "develop" her knowledge of homosexuality by reading 10 articles and increasing her exposure to homosexuals and lesbians by attending "the Gay Pride Parade."
According to the complaint documentation, which also seeks a preliminary injunction in the case, Keeton asked Anderson-Wiley how her Christian convictions are any less acceptable than those of a Buddhist or Muslim student. Anderson-Wiley responded, "Christians see this population as sinners."
The complaint alleges Anderson-Wiley specifically told Keeton she was being asked to alter some of her beliefs. The "remediation" program included a statement that Keeton would be dismissed from the program if she chose not to comply, the lawsuit said.
"Unless and until defendant's unconstitutional speech-regulating policies and threatened … actions against Miss Keeton are enjoined, Miss Keeton will suffer and continue to suffer irreparable injury to her constitutional rights," the lawsuit said.
Among the alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments are viewpoint discrimination, compelled speech, equal protection and freedom of speech, it said.
"By conditioning Miss Keeton's continued enrollment in the ASU school counselor masters degree program on her waiver of rights to speech and free exercise of religion … by requiring that she alter her beliefs and speech, and that she … commit to affirm in a hypothetical future context the ethical propriety of transgender and homosexual identification and behavior by others, as well as other values and behaviors she now disapproves, and which violate her religion convictions, defendants have imposed an unconstitutional condition on Miss Keeton," the complaint alleges.
"The First Amendment never permits the government to penalize beliefs in this manner," the complaint said.
The ADF said it also is litigating a case involving a Georgia counselor fired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because she would not agree to affirm homosexual behavior. While an earlier similar case at Missouri State has been resolved, there is another in which Eastern Michigan University is defendant on similar allegations.
In the Missouri State case, a social work professor, Frank Kauffman, eventually was placed on leave as part of a settlement of the lawsuit brought on behalf of student Emily Brooker. The student had refused his assignment to lobby on behalf of homosexual adoptions because it violated her religious beliefs. She then was brought up on ethics charges in the school.
The settlement also included monetary damages and the removal of the charges against her from her record. The school's own commissioned conclusion in the case found "many students and faculty stated a fear of voicing differing opinions. … In fact, 'bullying' was used by both students and faculty to characterize specific faculty."
In the still-pending case involving Eastern Michigan, lawmakers there considered calling top school officials on the carpet after they expelled from a counseling program a Christian student who refused to argue in support of the homosexual lifestyle.
As WND reported, trouble began for master's program student Julea Ward when she refused to accept a client whose issue concerned a homosexual relationship.
The school expelled her from the counseling program March 12, 2009, for refusing to abrogate her own personal religious beliefs and support the homosexual lifestyle.
Since then, Ward has brought a lawsuit through the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom.
Members of the Michigan Senate shortly later approved legislation that includes a provision calling on university counseling programs to evaluate and affirm how they can accommodate the religious beliefs of students.
State Rep. Tom McMillin told WND at the time the case was "extremely alarming," and there was growing support for an effort to penalize universities that don't accommodate religious beliefs.
"This is a state-taxpayer-supported university," he said. "She's got a court case. Hopefully that will be resolved."
In the case, the judge refused to dismiss the complaint, determining there were "genuine issues of material fact" about the school's "true motivations" for dismissing Ward from the program. Further, the judge concluded, the student's actions to avoid in advance a counseling session for which she had reservations probably followed professional ethical guidelines.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=182441
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Obama Administration to Expand Family Medical Leave Act to Gay and Lesbian Employees
Posted By Eve Zibel On June 22, 2010 @ 4:32 pm In "Don't Ask Don't Tell", Family Medical Leave
7 Comments
The Labor Department is poised to announce new regulations this week that order U.S. employers to give gay employees equal treatment under the law, allowing those workers unpaid time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Critics say the Obama administration is going too far. “They're trying to redefine marriage and family by these arbitrary policies with no debate by congress, no public discussion about it," says Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family.
Gay rights activists, who strongly supported President Obama’s campaign, wish the administration would go further. “It's not repealing the defense of marriage act, it's a small step but it's an important one," says Brian Moulton of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
The announcement comes as the president declares June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender month, with an event Tuesday night at the White House to celebrate it. But even as some are ready to fete the occasion, the president is already creating a new firestorm, with his recent Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations which referenced families that include “two mothers” and “two fathers,” respectively, a move conservatives criticized and called “divisive.” Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said the president “was just trying to be inclusive of all sorts of families.”
But at an event celebrating Father’s Day on Monday, Obama talked, as he has before, about how he missed having both a father and a mother present while growing up. "He [Obama’s father] left my family when I was two years old. And while I was lucky to have a wonderful mother and loving grandparents who poured everything they had into me and my sister, I still felt the weight of that absence. It's something that leaves a hole in a child's life that no government can fill,” Obama said.
President Obama has said he does not support same-sex marriage, but Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family says the latest effort by the Labor Department is a unilateral move by the Obama White House designed to eventually bypass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
“This is just one more example of where the Obama administration is really bypassing the defense of marriage act that defines marriage as one man and one woman,” Earll told Fox News.
Moulton of HRC, a group working on behalf of the LGBT community, says the latest move by the administration is a step in the right direction, toward perhaps an eventual repeal of DOMA. “Certainly it's not medical leave to take care of a partner, it's not repealing the defense of marriage act, it's a small step but it's an important one.”
Meanwhile, it’s not just the Family Medical Leave Act the Obama administration is handling that pertains to the LGBT community. The White House is also focused on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – something the president said he would work on in his State of the Union address earlier this year.
“We would like to see it happen sooner, I think we keep moving along a pace and the Pentagon will finish its review and we are hopeful and confident president is going to move toward that certification as soon as possible,” says Moulton.
Critics feel that the military’s policy on gay service members will be one more step toward a further erosion of the Defense of Marriage Act. “The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell will set the stage for the federal government to have to recognize same sex relationships of identified gays and lesbians in the military," says Earll.
While candidate Obama was popular with the gay and lesbian community for saying he would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," he began to run into trouble with gay and lesbian organizations once in office. In October of last year, the President had to once again affirm his pledge of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell at an annual dinner after months of what the community called stalling tactics.
"We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie, " Obama said at the Human Rights Campaign Dinner in Washington on October 10, 2009."So, I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's my commitment to you." That statement, at the time, was met with applause from those in the room.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from Row 2, Seat 4: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/
URL to article: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/22/obama-administration-to-expand-family-medical-leave-act-to-gay-and-lesbian-employees/
7 Comments
The Labor Department is poised to announce new regulations this week that order U.S. employers to give gay employees equal treatment under the law, allowing those workers unpaid time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Critics say the Obama administration is going too far. “They're trying to redefine marriage and family by these arbitrary policies with no debate by congress, no public discussion about it," says Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family.
Gay rights activists, who strongly supported President Obama’s campaign, wish the administration would go further. “It's not repealing the defense of marriage act, it's a small step but it's an important one," says Brian Moulton of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
The announcement comes as the president declares June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender month, with an event Tuesday night at the White House to celebrate it. But even as some are ready to fete the occasion, the president is already creating a new firestorm, with his recent Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations which referenced families that include “two mothers” and “two fathers,” respectively, a move conservatives criticized and called “divisive.” Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said the president “was just trying to be inclusive of all sorts of families.”
But at an event celebrating Father’s Day on Monday, Obama talked, as he has before, about how he missed having both a father and a mother present while growing up. "He [Obama’s father] left my family when I was two years old. And while I was lucky to have a wonderful mother and loving grandparents who poured everything they had into me and my sister, I still felt the weight of that absence. It's something that leaves a hole in a child's life that no government can fill,” Obama said.
President Obama has said he does not support same-sex marriage, but Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family says the latest effort by the Labor Department is a unilateral move by the Obama White House designed to eventually bypass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
“This is just one more example of where the Obama administration is really bypassing the defense of marriage act that defines marriage as one man and one woman,” Earll told Fox News.
Moulton of HRC, a group working on behalf of the LGBT community, says the latest move by the administration is a step in the right direction, toward perhaps an eventual repeal of DOMA. “Certainly it's not medical leave to take care of a partner, it's not repealing the defense of marriage act, it's a small step but it's an important one.”
Meanwhile, it’s not just the Family Medical Leave Act the Obama administration is handling that pertains to the LGBT community. The White House is also focused on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – something the president said he would work on in his State of the Union address earlier this year.
“We would like to see it happen sooner, I think we keep moving along a pace and the Pentagon will finish its review and we are hopeful and confident president is going to move toward that certification as soon as possible,” says Moulton.
Critics feel that the military’s policy on gay service members will be one more step toward a further erosion of the Defense of Marriage Act. “The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell will set the stage for the federal government to have to recognize same sex relationships of identified gays and lesbians in the military," says Earll.
While candidate Obama was popular with the gay and lesbian community for saying he would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," he began to run into trouble with gay and lesbian organizations once in office. In October of last year, the President had to once again affirm his pledge of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell at an annual dinner after months of what the community called stalling tactics.
"We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie, " Obama said at the Human Rights Campaign Dinner in Washington on October 10, 2009."So, I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's my commitment to you." That statement, at the time, was met with applause from those in the room.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from Row 2, Seat 4: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/
URL to article: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/22/obama-administration-to-expand-family-medical-leave-act-to-gay-and-lesbian-employees/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
