In a huge win for thousands of Christian families in California and nationwide, a California appeals court Aug. 8 reversed itself and ruled that parents do in fact have a right to homeschool their children

In a huge win for thousands of Christian families in California and nationwide, a California appeals court Aug. 8 reversed itself and ruled that parents do in fact have a right to homeschool their children even if they lack teaching credentials.

The three-judge panel received nationwide attention and criticism in February when it ruled that “parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children.” It based its ruling on a nearly 80-year-old law by the California legislature. But in the decades since that law was implemented, the panel ruled Aug. 8, the legislature has implicitly accepted homeschooling as legal.

“We … conclude that California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education,” the justices wrote in their unanimous decision.

The February ruling said parents could homeschool their children only if they had a “valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught” — something that many if not most homeschooling parents don’t have. The panel announced in March it would rehear the case. The original decision drew criticism from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who pledged legislation if it wasn’t overturned, as well as from State Schools Superintendent Jack O’Connell, who said he supported the rights of homeschoolers.

There are an estimated 166,000 homeschool students in California. More than a dozen organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the court to reconsider its ruling. Technically, the court case involved alleged abuse within a family who had homeschooled their children. But instead of simply ruling on that particular case, the court issued a broad ruling that covered all homeschool families in the state.

The latest ruling drew wide praise from homeschool organizations.

“This is a great victory for homeschool freedom,” Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said in a statement. “I have never seen such an impressive array of people and organizations coming to the defense of homeschooling. The team effort was remarkable.”

The original ruling was viewed as particularly troubling to Christian families because California’s public schools have some of the more liberal laws in the nation regarding teaching about sexuality and homosexuality. Many of those families see homeschooling as the only viable alternative.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization, was among the groups involved in the case seeking a reversal.

“Parents have a constitutional right to make educational choices for their children,” Alliance Defense Fund attorney Gary McCaleb said in a statement. “Thousands of California families have educated their children successfully through homeschooling. We’re pleased with the court’s decision, which protects the rights of families and protects an avenue of education that has proven to benefit children time and time again.”

The court Aug. 8 said that home schooling was amended out of state law in 1929, and that court rulings in 1953 and 1961 “confirmed” that children could be homeschooled only by a credentialed tutor. But since then, the panel ruled, the legislature has passed statutes which assume that homeschooling is legal.

“Under these circumstances, it is our view that the proper course of action is to interpret the earlier statutes in light of the later ones, and to recognize, as controlling, the Legislature’s apparent acceptance of the proposition that home schools are permissible in California when conducted as private schools,” the decision said.

Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press.

Obama Opposes California Marriage Amendment While McCain Supports It

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

As the California Marriage Amendment debate heats up Barack Obama and John McCain have made clear their respective positions on the issue.

Two weeks after the California Supreme Court announced its decision to allow same-sex couples to “marry”, opponents of same-sex marriage succeeded in placing on the November ballot a proposed constitutional amendment which states: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” If passed, the measure would reverse the recent court decision.

Mr. Obama recently made his position public in a letter sent to a San Francisco homosexual activist group.

“I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states,” wrote Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

At the same time John McCain has announced his support for the California Protection of Marriage initiative in an email received by the ProtectMarriage.com campaign.

“I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions,” Mr. McCain stated.

In a press release commenting on the endorsement of Senator McCain, ProtectMarriage.com Chairman Ron Prentice said, “We are honored to have the support of Senator McCain. As a leader in the United States Senate and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Senator McCain’s position will be an important factor to millions of Californians.”

“Senator McCain has articulated a key feature of the initiative campaign, which is that voters and not judges should be determining this issue.”

“Over 61% of the electorate has already voted to reaffirm marriage as between a man and a woman. Four activist judges on the California Supreme Court in San Francisco wrongly substituted their own narrow views for the opinion of over 4 million California voters. Fortunately, voters will be able to correct that mistake in November and restore the definition of marriage to our constitution.”

“We look forward to working with Senator McCain and many other elected leaders to accomplish this. We hope that U.S Senator Barack Obama will join Senator McCain in endorsing the initiative, and would welcome his support as well.”

Source: LifeSite News

Florida Governor Crist Reaffirms Support for Amendment 2

From a barber shop chair in Tallahassee, Florida Governor Charlie Crist on Monday reaffirmed his support for the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Joe Follick of the New York Times Florida Bureau in Tallahassee reported reported the Governor’s comments in today’s Lakeland Ledger.

Governor Crist joins dozens of other federal and state elected officials who support the common sense of having the people and not judges define marriage in Florida. Over 401 leaders have endorsed the Yes2Marriage.org campaign effort in support of Amendment 2 and will vote “yes on 2” November 4, 2008. The leaders endorsing the marriage amendment include businessmen, pastors, community leaders, bishops, and legislators. Among the other Florida elected officials endorsing Amendment 2 include U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, Attorney General Bill McCollum, seven Congressmen, eleven State Senators and dozens of State Representatives in the Florida House. The official list of all endorsements to date is available online.

“We encourage all supporters to check out the official endorsement list online and ask their local and county elected officials to download the form and endorse Amendment 2 if their names do not appear on the list.” said John Stemberger, Yes2Marriage.org State Chairman. “We are grateful to have the support of many of Florida’s top officials, who understand the importance of natural marriage to children, families and society. However, we will win this campaign not through a head count of elected officials. We will win this campaign because the people of Florida understand why marriage is critical for the next generation and do not want a new morality forced upon them by an unelected, unaccountable branch of government.”

The Yes2Marriage.org campaign is picking up considerable momentum and has hired 7 new staff members in the last week and also retained professional political and media consultants. Over 20 local campaign organizations are meeting regularly and organizing in regions around the state and more new groups are being added each week. For more information on starting a new local group in your area or getting involved with the campaign, contact Nathan Dunn at NathanD@FLfamily.org.

State-based drug abuse of foster care children

Although based on a 2006 CBS report, Dr. Mercola article is still worth a reading.

How can state officials and physicians justify giving children as young as 2 years old psychotropic drugs in order to control their behavior? It is difficult to image any good reason. For one argument against it is that psychotropic drugs are not approved for children. Another is diet is more likely nature cause of problem behaviors. Still another reason not mentioned by Dr. Mercola is the fact that the problem involves children taken away from parents. Wouldn’t that disorient you? Wouldn’t it make you fearful or cause dread? Could you sleep at night after experiencing the trauma of being separated from your primary care-giver–the most significant other? Is it possible that it might make you angry too? I think my emotions and behavior would be all screwed up.

So, the all-knowing and wise state (FL, OH, TX. etc.) thinks doping children into passivity is the answer. They helped the drug companies pacify kids in school with Ritalin and Prozac. They have ripped kids from their homes because some parents would not let their kids take such drugs.

I think we Americans ought to collectively force the totalitarian welfare state to get out of the business of trying to control our lives and help drug companies to destroy them. Don’t get me wrong here. Some people are helped by manufactured drugs. The modern corporate welfare state is foreign to the founder’s view of government and freedom. Its increasing abusive and destructive practices and policies are proving this fact.

I think a reasonable solution to the problem for Americans to encourage people capable of holding public office who would actually represent their interests rather than special interest groups and their lobbies. We need electible people who actually will produce change. If you believe Obama’s rhetoric, I would like to interest you in some snake oil to help make your life and our world a better place. A vote for Obama is a vote for Soros and other tycoons who careless about any of us peons.

We need people who will take on the power and moneyed interest for all of our good. We need representatives who will correct corporate near-monopoly capitalism to a real just capitalism. Notice I didn’t say socialism or welfare or global capitalism, or democratic egalitarian capitalism (if anyone would even dare to call socialist-fascist welfare by that phrase). No reason exist for most poverty in America except for greed and power lust.

You don’t believe it? Then consider this: society tends to think of the typical poor person as black. Right? Yet, statistics show a much higher percentage of blacks are long-term employed compared to whites. It stands to reason that blacks who have less income than whites though more are employed are systemically impoverished. An explanation for this phenomenon is that liberal welfare politics uses the poor for corporate wealth discrimination and for justifying the socialist-fascist totalitarian cause. How much independence or freedom is there distributed to welfare recipients? Is it the self-governing kind? Does it depend on the moral strength of discipline and doing right? Does it empower recipients to contribute to the common good? Or does help the corrupting politics corrupt society?

This much is certain it empower evil people to drug innocent because of a vampire-like political and economic system domineered by the Left who populate it.

Read Dr. Mercola’s article Drugging Children to Keep Them Quiet and/or watch the video by the same title.

Opponents of Florida’s Marriage Amendment Mail Thousands of Dishonest and Factually Incorrect Letter to Petition Signers

Yes2Marriage.org has learned that the group opposing the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, Red and Blue, has sent deceptive letters containing false and misleading information to what appears to be hundreds of thousands of voters who signed the Florida4Marriage.org petitions. The first of these letters, which began to be received by voters on Monday, May 12, further emphasizes the group’s strategy to attack Amendment 2 by trying to trick Floridians and misguide voters instead of debate the policy issue of whether homosexual marriages are good for Florida.

First, their direct mail piece states “people collecting petitions are not always honest about the issues they are pushing-especially if they are being paid by the signature.” This is a deliberate and verifiably false statement. At no time during the collection of marriage petitions were paid petition gathers used. 100% of the petitions were collected by volunteer citizens in communities throughout Florida.

Second, their “hit” mail piece further states that voters were “misinformed” when they signed the petition. That is an insult to the intelligence of the more than 650,000 Florida voters who signed the petition knowing full well the importance of marriage to children, families and the common good of society. Florida wants the people and not judges deciding this issue. Activist judges gave Massachusetts the first homosexual marriages– and judges just this past year in Iowa, Maryland, and California have tried to do the same.

Adding to the deliberate misrepresentations, the letter goes on to state that the Amendment will take away rights from “millions of Floridians.” Yet, the Florida Supreme Court approved the language of the amendment in 2006 and stated in their opinion: “the voter is merely being asked to vote on the singular subject of whether the concept of marriage and the rights and obligations traditionally embodied therein should be limited to the union of one man and one woman.” (Advisory Opinion, Page 3). The fact is that every legal authority in Florida holds that Amendment 2 does one thing and one thing alone. It defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and it does not affect existing rights in anyway.

One needs only look at the signer of the letter to see that homosexual activists are behind the so called “Florida Red and Blue” group. The letter is signed by Dwain Wall, a board member of Florida Red and Blue. Mr. Wall is also the managing partner of Bridge Lifestyle Communities in Palm Beach, an exclusively gay and lesbian residential community.

The leaders of Florida Red and Blue would do a huge service to the people of Florida if they simply came clean and discussed the real issue addressed by the amendment – protecting marriage between a man and a woman. The fact is that they can not debate the public policy merits of same-sex marriage, because they are afraid they will lose like they have in the 27 other states which have also protected marriage in their state constitutions by overwhelming majorities.

For more information about the facts on Amendment 2, please visit www.Yes2Marriage.org. To schedule a media interview on this topic please call (407)251 -1957 or e-mail us at Media@Yes2Marriage.org

Marriage Under Further Attack!

by Illinois Family Institute

Two weeks ago, four activist judges on the California State Supreme Court overturned the express will of the voters of California and declared homosexual “marriage” legal in that state.

Yesterday, New York’s Governor, David A. Paterson, sidestepping that state’s voters and their Legislature, directed all state agencies to revise their policies and regulations to recognize homosexual “marriages” performed in other states or countries.

Last year a bill that would have legalized homosexual “marriage” in New York failed to pass.

Paterson’s directive makes New York the only state that does not allow homosexual “marriage” itself but recognizes homosexual unions entered into elsewhere. The directive will require revisions to an estimated 1,300 New York statutes and regulations.

The move by Gov. Paterson works in tandem with the recent California decision. Unlike Massachusetts (the only other state to legalize homosexual “marriage”) the California decision does not have a residency requirement. Homosexual partners living in New York could travel to California, participate in a so-called “marriage” ceremony, and return to New York to demand full recognition of their union.

“The legal chaos surrounding marriage has begun, thanks to the recent California decision,” said IFI’s Executive Director David E. Smith. “This latest usurpation of the democratic process — this time via the executive branch — ignores the people’s will to keep marriage from being redefined. This latest attack only underscores the necessity of protecting marriage through constitutional amendments at the state — and ultimately the federal – levels.”

If you haven’t already communicated your opposition to the current push for counterfeit marriage (civil unions) here in Illinois, this is a prime opportunity to do so! I cannot stress enough the urgency of your action here.

Click HERE to send an email or fax to your State Representative today and ask him/her to vote ‘NO’ to the “Civil Unions” bill — HB 1826. Our email system is very easy to use, and it will only take a minute or two of your time.

Tennessee Abortion Bill SJR 127 To Fix Planned Parenthood Supported Judical Tyranny

In 2000, in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist, Tennessee’s Supreme Court “found” a right to abortion in the state Constitution. As a consequence of this decision, Tennessee’s informed consent law was struck down as well as the law that required women to wait 48 hours from the time they were informed to the time they had the abortion. In addition, the Court struck down the requirement that more risky third term abortions be performed in a hospital for the safety to women.

Because of the strong language of the Supreme Court’s opinion, Tennessee’s Attorney General recently issued an official opinion saying that a ban on partial birth abortion would be “constitutionally suspect.” Even though the United States Supreme Court has made it very clear that partial birth can be banned under the U.S. Constitution, the same cannot be said of Tennessee’s constitution. Tennessee needs to pass SJR 127 so it is clear that Tennessee’s constitution does not protect partial birth abortion and prevent our legislature from making it illegal.

SJR 127 simply states:

“Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”

I’m looking at the Constitution of Tennessee. Like the most other Constitutions, the right to privacy is not mentioned as a right. The protection of property and unwarranted search or seizure extend does not even hint at an extension to killing the unborn. This one of many reasons judges and legal professionals see Roe v Wade as an erroneous opinion. The point is it is merely an opinion. The opinion is not law. All state legislators have to do is pass as bill like SJR 127 stating what the citizens want abortion laws to be.

Contrary to what many believe, Supreme Court opinions are not supreme law and neither is the opinions of Attorney Generals. American law is made by legislatures appointed a majority of the people. The people through their representatives make law. The opinions of judges do not overrule the will and laws of the people. It is because legislators have allowed this usurpation of power that laws by judicial fiat have succeeded. I suspect legislators have used it as a means of furthering their legislative person or special interest group agendas without appearing to be the bad guys. Nevertheless, statutory law and opinions of the legislature overrule Supreme Court and executive branch opinions. People make laws not the judiciary or executive branches. When judges, executives officers, or representatives of the people act otherwise, it is the duty of the people replace them with those who will abide by their will. That is why legislators have limited terms, why the people vote, and why impeachment law exists.

In January, Iowa citizens began pursuing to impeach a district judge who attempted to overturn a recently passed anti-gay marriage law. That is an appropriate response to judicial tyranny.

For more information, visit Support SJR 127.

Families Of Connecticut Lobby For Their Rights On April 3rd

On Thursday, April 3rd at 10:00 a.m. the Family Institute of Connecticut Action will hold a Pro-Family Rally and Lobby Day on the steps of the state capitol in Hartford. We need as many pro-family state residents as possible to attend our rally and then meet with their own legislators afterwards to ask them to vote to protect faith and family.

Three major issues face Connecticut families. They are:

1. Abortion providers are giving taxpayer-funded “sex education” in our public schools.
2. Second-grade teachers who are cross-dressers or have had sex change operations.
3. A “hate crimes” law that would assault religious liberty and make pro-family citizens the legal equivalent of bigots.

That is the Connecticut we will have if our opponents pass into law four bills they are pushing at the legislature this year.

Besides an end to such the above bills and practices, FIC supports the passage of three bills that will make Connecticut a more family friendly place to live. If passed, the bills will:

1. Give parent the right to be the primary educators of their children protected by law.
2. Create a task force to study the root causes of fatherlessness and make recommendations on curing this most urgent social crisis.
3. Ensure thousands of teenage girls the counseling they are not yet receiving before making the decision whether to have an abortion.

The most effective approach to lobbying for faith and family is to bring hundreds to Hartford on a weekday to meet directly with their state representative and state senator. Having legislators see with their own eyes that the pro-family side enjoys greater public support is the only way to reverse the anti-family stranglehold over our state capitol, according to FIC.

Members of FIC Action will meet with participants after the 10 a.m. rally to guide them through the process. They hand out packets of literatures about the issues. They assist participants with meeting and lobbying for family rights with their own representatives and senators.

You can do some things now to make their lobbying more effective:

First, call your state representative and state senator and make an appointment to meet with them. House Democrats can be reached at 800-842-8267 and House Republicans can be reached at 800-842-1423. Senate Democrats can be reached at 800-842-1420 and Senate Republicans can be reached at 860-240-8800.

Tell them that you are their constituent and you would like them to be at the state capitol on April 3rd to meet with you. Set a time. Do not settle for meeting with a legislative aide-tell the aide that you want just 5 minutes of your legislator’s time.

If when you arrive for your appointment your legislator is in session, give a note to a “runner” from his office to inform him or her that you have arrived. Most legislators will take time out of the session to meet with their constituents.

If your legislator(s) are not available on April 3rd, pick another day to meet with him or her. We need as many people as possible to attend our April 3rd Rally and Lobby Day. But the most important thing is that you have face-to-face time with your legislators to ask them to vote pro-family.

For more information about Family Institute of Connecticut and/or the April 3rd Lobby Day, go here.

Sacramento Community, ACLU, and Creating More Ted Bundys

The following report is another demonstration of the ACLU’s disregard for community values, democratic process, moral decency, and impressionable children. They care about only one thing forcing on America their radical and anarchical secular views.

Last spring, the Sacramento Public Library Authority (SPLA) Board voted – by a slim majority – to adopt an Internet-use policy aimed at maintaining a “safe, welcoming and comfortable environment.” This action was seen as a compromise position.

Now, the SPLA Board is being pushed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to increase access to pornography on taxpayer-funded computers. The Board will consider the ACLU’s demands at its meeting this afternoon, March 27, in the chambers of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, 700 H Street. The public meeting begins at 3:30 p.m.

Local parents and taxpayers are encouraged to attend the meeting, and to urge the Board to keep libraries safe for kids. An attorney from Pacific Justice Institute will also be present to counter ACLU claims that the First Amendment requires taxpayer-funded access to porn, and to remind the Board of the many tragic instances where lax policies have resulted in sex crimes taking place at libraries.

Does America exist to fulfill the secular agenda of anarchical socialists like the ACLU? Who said pornography is a free speech right? Library computers are public forums. So what happened to laws protecting public decency and forbidding public obscenity? I know Americans are supposed to bow to the fear-mongering of the mighty ACLU and also pass public policies to protect the equal rights of the Ted Bundys of society. Ted Bundy said his path to mass rape and murder began by consuming pornography. Maybe the ACLU actually wants a lot more people like Bundy. You have got to admit it would give them a lot more business.

A national class-action suit against the ACLU is what is actually needed in America. California is a cultural trend setter; why shouldn’t it begin in California?

News Source: California Family Council

Canadian Pastor Prosecuted For Criticizing Homosexuality

The following is an excerpt of from an article published by LifeSite News on Spetember 2, 2005:

Currently Reverend Stephen Boissoin, a young Albertan pastor who spearheads a youth ministry that makes hundreds of weekly contacts with at-risk youth, is in the process of learning Arabic so he can better minister to the many Muslim youth who he says come to his centers. And with two children of his own, in addition to his full-time ministry, he repeatedly remarked during an interview with LifeSiteNews.com that he just doesn’t have a lot of time on his hands.

But increasingly these days the young pastor’s thoughts are set on preparing for his Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) hearing that he says will likely be heard in October.

Without the money to pay for legal representation, Stephen has no other alternative but to prepare his own defense. “I know nothing about human rights case law,” he says. “I’m trying to learn. Understand this, I work every single day, have two kids…and right in the middle of that I’m trying to learn human rights law. So, I’ll be very happy when it’s over.” The only problem with that, he points out, is that when it’s all over he may very well be in prison.

Boissoin is being hauled before the Human Rights Commission to answer to a complaint filed by Darren Lund, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary. Lund made his complaint after Boissoin published a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, in which he denounced homosexuality as immoral and dangerous, and called into question new gay-rights curriculums permeating the province’s educational system.

In that letter to the editor, Boisson lamented that “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

Boissoin, who is himself no stranger to the dangers of homosexual and bi-sexual activity, since many of the youth he works with fall into that category, repeatedly expressed his concern that behaviour that is dangerous, and sometimes fatal, is being presented as normative and even healthy to the most impressionable. “I was just writing a letter to the editor, to the heterosexual population,” he says, “saying this is something to be very, very concerned about.”

For expressing that view, however, Boissoin has been called a “bigot” and a “hate-mongerer”, and worse. Darren Lund has likened the young pastor to Terry Long of Aryan Nation, a local white supremacist, and James Keegstra, a holocaust denier.

Should Boissoin lose the hearing with the Human Rights Tribunal, he will be forced to pay $7000 in fines. $5000 will go to Darren Lund personally, and another $2000 will go to the rabidly pro-gay-rights group EGALE Canada, which has received large sums of money in the past from the federal government for its court challenges. In addition, Lund has requested that Boissoin be forced to apologize to his readers in another letter to be published in the Red Deer Advocate. Boissoin, however, says that he will not pay those fines, nor will he apologize, even should that mean prison.

It should be evident that the political agenda of gays leads to totalitarianism. The cornerstone of freedom is religion. Freedom of religion is about knowing the truth. God is about truth and freedom to live morally. Truth requires free speech and a free press. Before radio, television, telephones, and the Internet, freedom of assembly was necessary to learn and discuss events, new studies, along a little entertainment. Without the freedom of speech and press, individual and collective despots can tyrannize masses of people. That is where the secular and sexual anarchical politics is leading. Colonial Americans had to fight the Revolutionary War to regain their freedom from a corrupt political regime. The question will it be required once again.

A few months ago in Boston, gay and supporters rioted against ex-gays and a supporting church for meeting where how God restored them to a natural and godly life. The gay agenda cannot tolerate such change and its countervailing message. It is not gays who are being discriminated against. Rather, it is moral, law-abiding citizens, children, parents, and business owners who are being discriminated against. Now is the time to stand and stop it.

Catholic Gay Group Plots Papal Protest

LifeSite News reporter Michael Baggot wrote:

The Rainbow Sash Movement, a homosexual activist group, announced their plans to protest Pope Benedict XVI’s opposition to homosexual behavior during his April visit to the United States.

The RSM plans to throw ashes at the Pope, because “ashes are an ancient and appropriate greeting for a sinner who has caused the Church so much division and pain,” stated the movement.

“We will also be greeting him with whistles; these were used by the Polish People to show shame for the violation of human rights by the Communist Government prior to the end of the cold war,” added a RSM statement.

“We are a community of Catholic GLBT along with our allies who work for change in the Church. To continue to hide our identity only enables shame and homophobia. We are committed to working from within the Church,” says the movement.

The RSM is best known for its large Pentecost Sunday protests, in which openly practicing homosexual, bisexual, and “transgendered” individuals identify themselves as such with multicolor sashes and demand Holy Communion during Mass.

Society should be protesting but not against the Pope. Mothers, father, and children should be protesting the political agenda of gays. They are not Catholic or Christian but children of the devil. Jesus said the devil was the father of liars. The First Epistle of John says, those who practice sin or lawlessness are of the devil. Yes, we all sin and have fallen short of the glory of God, but real children of God do not flaunt their evil deeds nor make it their identity. They hate their moral failings and seek God’s power to overcome ever sin that so easily enslaves us. Repentance, humility, transformation, and righteousness mark the children of God.

God love required Jesus Christ to pay the full penalty of our moral lawbreaking. The purpose of his death was not to appease God so we can live lawless lives contrary to God’s law or natural law for that matter. Jesus died and rose again so that by grace God can be with us sinners empowering us to fulfill the moral law of God.

Those who claim anything else are liars like their father the devil. As Jesus promised, the gates of hell will not prevail, which is why every person of God and Christ should be protesting the anarchical gay agenda. The apostle Paul said, we should expose the darkness not tolerate it. Resist the devil is not a passive activity and neither is defending our rights and freedom as Americans, rights and freedom legitimated by biblical not socialist principles.

Baggot continued by explaining the Catholic Churches position on homosexuality:

The Pope has been a vocal opponent of homosexual “marriage”. In January 2007, after praising traditional families, the Pope said, “projects that aim to attribute to other forms of union inappropriate legal recognition appear dangerous and counterproductive.”

The RSM contrasts with ministries in the Church that support Catholics in their efforts to live a life of chastity and to overcome homosexual inclinations when possible. The Courage apostolate, founded by Fr. John Harvey, OSFS in 1980, has five main goals: Chastity, Prayer and Dedication, Fellowship, Support, and Good Example.

Courage professes complete fidelity to the teachings of the Catholic Church, including those regarding homosexuality.

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,'” states the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Catechism adds that those with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law,” stated a 1986 Vatican document on the pastoral care of homosexual persons, issued by the then Cardinal Ratzinger.

“But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered,” added the document.

I’m not a Catholic, but I agree with its position. It is one thing for gays to seek protection against violence, it is another to pretend their behavior deserves approval by church or state. It does not. Society owes gays the right to equal protection under the law and an humane means for healing and restoration of their humanity. The society owes them penal remedies when they prefer arrogance, anarchy, and violation of law. To allow gays to carry out their political agenda is to support socialist anarchy and the end of American freedom and not just marriage and traditional values.

Source: Lifesite News

California Gov. Schwarzenegger Pledges to Support Right to Home School

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for the reversal of a recent appellate court decision banning parents from educating their children at home if they lack teaching credentials, the Los Angeles Times reported. If the state Supreme Court fails to act, the governor vowed to push through legislation guaranteeing families’ right to home-school.

“This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts, and if the courts don’t protect parents’ rights, then, as elected officials, we will,” he said in a written statement.

Schwarzenegger’s comments about the 2nd District Court of Appeals ruling came as home schooling families and national conservative leaders expressed their beliefs that every parent has a fundamental right to home-school.

Dr. James C. Dobson interrupted the Focus on the Family radio program’s regular programming to discuss the ruling.

“What has occurred is yet another egregious decision handed down by a California appeals court that strikes at the very heart and soul of families and their children,” he said on Friday’s broadcast. “The court has assaulted parental rights again, and this time with a sledgehammer.”

For more information, go here.

Alliance for Marriage Past, Present and Future

Alliance for Marriage (AFM) was founded in 1999 to confront the alarming fact that over 25 million American children — more than one of every three — were being raised in a broken home. This is not only a disaster for these children; it’s a disaster for our society. Our most serious social problems — from youth crime to dropout rates — track far more closely with family breakdown than they do with other social variables like race or poverty.

AFM’s mission was — and is — to see more children raised in a home with a mother and father. AFM has worked for adoption tax credits, for the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, and forother common sense reforms to help strengthen families in America. At the time of our founding, amending the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage was something that no one dreamed would be needed.

Then all of that changed.

During the first year of AFM’s existence, it became clear that powerful forces were working through the courts to destroy the legal status of marriage and the family in America. These forces are well-financed and determined to destroy the common sense definition of marriage under our laws.

Our laws need to send a positive message to kids – especially given the constant bombardment of negative messages, values and signals they encounter each day. So it became obvious that if AFM was to help rebuild a culture of intact families in America, we would also have to work to defend the legal status of marriage as the union of a man and a woman – our best hope for providing families with mothers and fathers for kids.

Since then, America’s foes have continued to redouble their efforts. At the national, state and local level, they continue their assault on our marriage laws as part of a systematic plan for destroying marriage. This activist movement is backed by the vast financial resources of gay philanthropists and others who want to refashion our laws and our society in the image of their own socially destructive values.

It was realized that if these stealth forces were victorious in changing the institution of marriage from being between one man and one woman, our mission of more children raised in homes with both a mother and father would be exponentially more difficult to achieve. AFM simply could not stand by and let that happen, and so we engaged in this fight.

The battle to protect marriage has been a long struggle, and one we wish it weren’t necessary to wage. But because of our efforts and your support, we have unmasked and slowed the progress of the powerful forces seeking to destroy the American family.

Families with a mother and a father are the foundation upon which our country was built, and we remain committed to defending the traditional family while promoting its importance, so that more kids are raised in a home with a mom and a dad.

AFM’s latest challenge in the effort is to put public pressure on both political parties to protect traditional marriage. AFM organizing a national campaign and coalition, specifically targeting Hispanic Americans, to stand up and let their voices be heard, including a high-profile rally at the Democratic National Convention this August in Denver, Colorado.

The following list outlines all of AFM’s achievements since its beginning in 1999. It represents the meaning of “we the people” overcoming the challenges against marriage, family, traditional morality, and human decency.

December, 1999	Alliance for Marriage incorporated.
1999 to 2001	Alliance for Marriage conducts media relations and public education on behalf of our multi-issue agenda to support mission of more kids raised in a home with both mother and father.
November 7, 2000	Nebraska voters pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage.
July, 2001	Alliance for Marriage Announces Text of Marriage Protection Amendment.
May 15, 2002	Alliance for Marriage amendment first introduced in 107th Congress in the House of Representatives by Democrat Representative Ronnie Shows (D-MS). Gathers 22 cosponsors.
November 5, 2002	Nevada voters pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage.
May 21, 2003	Alliance for Marriage amendment reintroduced in 108th Congress in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Gathers 131 cosponsors in House and 10 in Senate.
February 4, 2004	Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage
September 9, 2003	United States Conference of Catholic Bishops endorses Alliance for Marriage Amendment.
February 12, 2004	The City of San Francisco issues marriage licenses to homosexual couples and performs the first known marriage of a homosexual couple in the U.S.
February 24, 2004	President George W. Bush endorses Alliance for Marriage amendment and calls on Congress to pass it.
July 12, 2004	Congress for Racial Equality endorses Alliance for Marriage Amendment.
September 28, 2004	National Christian Hispanic Leadership Conference endorses Alliance for Marriage Amendment.
September 30, 2004	Alliance for Marriage amendment voted on in House of Representatives. Gets a majority 227 votes, but falls short of two-thirds necessary for approval of amendment.
Fall, 2004	Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah pass Constitutional Amendments protecting marriage.
April 5, 2005	Kansas voters pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage.
November 8, 2005	Texas voters pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage.
July 18, 2006	Alliance for Marriage amendment voted on in House of Representatives. Gets a majority 236 votes, but falls short of two-thirds necessary for approval of amendment.
June 6, 2006	Alabama voters pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage.
June 7, 2006	Alliance for Marriage amendment voted on in Senate. A plurality of Senators vote to debate and pass legislation, but 60 votes are required to end a minority filibuster.
November, 2006	Wisconsin voters, led by Bishop Robert C. Morlino, pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage, bringing to 27 the number of states which have taken such action.
January, 2007	Alliance for Marriage Foundation launches Marriage Protection Caucus and begins organizing in state legislatures. To date, 23 states now have active marriage protection chapters.
September, 2007	Alliance for Marriage Foundation launches Californians For Marriage, backed by leaders like Rev. Samuel Rodriguez and Dr. David P. Espinoza, Senior Pastor at La Trinidad Church in San Fernando. The movement focuses heavily on California’s heavy Hispanic population.
February 12, 2008	Alliance for Marriage Foundation and key Latino leaders from across the country announce major effort to organize Hispanic voters to rally at the Democratic National Convention in Denver to press candidates to stand up for marriage.

Proposed Bill Would Unionize Foster Parents in Washington State

It starts with a phone call. “Can you take a child this weekend?” “Do you have space for a little girl?” “We have two boys who need a home.” These are the kinds of calls foster parents receive, often with little notice.

Then they arrive. Teen girls, who are polite but slightly defensive. Boys who like to roughhouse, but need boundaries. Small girls who always stay close to you, but seldom smile.

They arrive with everything they own in a box, or a backpack, or a couple of suitcases. They have all the basics – clothes, toiletries, prescriptions, school books, maybe an iPod. Then there are the special items, a favorite toy, a treasured blanket, a stuffed animal, a scrapbook, an envelope of photos. But whatever they have, all their possessions have one thing in common – they’re portable

These are foster kids. They are funny, smart, troubled, creative, helpful, defiant, moody, quiet, loud, generous, selfish, talkative, introspective. They are adaptable, resilient and inwardly fragile. What they want most is a place to belong.

Some are in foster care temporarily, until conditions at home allow them to return to their parents. Some are legal orphans, available for adoption, and quietly hoping to someday find a “forever family” (I’ve had kids ask me, “Can you be my daddy?”). Being a foster parent means caring for children in need, and embracing all the joys and problems that come with them.

As if helping kids weren’t hard enough, some lawmakers in Olympia want to treat foster parents like state employees and require them to join one of the powerful public-sector unions. The bill, HB 3145, doesn’t specifically mention unions (the title reads, “Implementing a tiered classification system for foster parent licensing”), but the policy direction is clear: push foster parents into mandatory collective bargaining. The idea comes from a local division of the AFL-CIO.

Nationwide, union membership is at historic lows. Today 92% of workers in the private sector do not belong to a union. The one area where union influence is growing is the public sector. The reason is simple. Government cannot be put out of business, so there are no market forces to limit union demands. When public payroll and benefits rise, elected officials just pass the cost on to taxpayers.

Requiring more people to join means big money for unions. Naturally, labor leaders press to expand the definition of “government worker” as far as possible. Each expansion contributes to the growth and political clout of the union. A separate bill to unionize day care workers would bring in about $7.5 million a year for one of the state’s largest unions. The Seattle P.I. reports that under last year’s unionization of home care workers, “…the state pays roughly $3 million a year into union bank accounts…”

Foster parents are not state workers. They are caring people who welcome needy children into their home. Most will tell you the support payments they receive barely cover the cost of supporting the child. Believe me, nobody becomes a foster parent to get rich.

Being a foster parent is not a job, it is providing a home for kids who have no place else to go. It involves all the blessings and challenges of raising kids, plus being sensitive to the unique, often traumatic, past experiences of foster children, plus all the headaches and red tape of dealing with the state. It wouldn’t take much to push many foster parents to the tipping point, when they decide to drop out altogether.

Being forced into a union would certainly make it harder to recruit new foster families. Can you imagine this appeal from an overburdened state social worker, “Would you like to open your home to a child in need, and by the way you’d have to join a union.” The foster care system is short on homes already. Unionizing foster parents is a sure way to have even fewer of them in the future.

Given the very real needs of children, lawmakers should be considering ways to encourage more families to become foster parents, instead of passing bills that expand the power and influence of private labor organizations.

by Paul Guppy, Vice President for Research at Washington Policy Center

Wisconsin Marriage Amendment Could Hinge on High Court Election

Twenty seven states have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Below is a map of those states created by CitizenLink Daily.

However, in Wisconsin, whoever fills open seat could decide the future of traditional marriage, according to Julaine Appling, director of the Wisconsin Family Council.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is ideologically split between liberals and conservatives. So whoever wins the open seat April 1 probably will control the future of marriage in the state.

In 2006, 59 percent of Wisconsin passed a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. Gay activists have challenged the amendment all the way to the state’s highest court.

“It’s the will of the people in Wisconsin that defines marriage, and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin should not disturb that will,” said Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

The case is expected to rest in the hands of candidates Louis Butler, who leans liberal, or Michael Gabelman, who leans conservative.

Julaine Appling, executive director of the Wisconsin Family Council, said the stakes are high.
“How the candidates see the current makeup of the court and their role in it will be incredibly critical as we move forward with this court,” she said. “Whatever the court looks like when that marriage amendment hits, will be critical to the preservation of marriage in this state.”

Source: Family News in Focus and CitizenLink.

$65 million left to sexual anarchists

You probably don’t recognize the name Ric Weiland. But everyone who cares for family values will feel his influence from now on. As a young man, Weiland was talented and hard working. A college friend of Bill Gates and Paul Allen of Microsoft, he became a lead programmer and project leader, and eventually, a multimillionaire. But there was a deep hurt in his heart from childhood that plagued him. So, to try to make himself feel accepted, Weiland became a homosexual activist. But clearly, in the end, his sexual confusion was never acceptable to his soul. Two years ago, he committed suicide by putting a gun to his head and pulling the trigger.

This week, homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual activists announced that Weiland had left $65 million to “LGBT” groups that promote sexual anarchy. This is multi-year funding for 10 national gay rights and HIV/AIDS groups, including Lambda Legal; the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays; the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation; the Seattle-based Pride Foundation; and amfAR, the Foundation for AIDS Research.

Sexual anarchists now have a lot more money to tell the American public, politicians, judges, and impressionable children that marriage is NOT between a man and a woman, children DON’T need a father and mother, and that “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws TRUMP religious freedom, parental rights, and private property.

You and I have only two responses — fight or flight. But to flee, you have to leave the United States of America behind. We must realize this: If the darkness seems too strong, it’s only because the light that is stronger than everything else is hidden by choice. The other option is to fight. To fight means to maintain awareness of what anti-family organizations and lawmakers are doing. It means supporting family organizations who fighting you and other parents, families and their children’s rights. It means taking time to write and call lawmakers about proposed laws as well as give time and financial support to family organization.

If you want to leave a legacy of marriage, family, parental rights, and religious freedom to the next generation, please join the fight and shine the light with organizations like Campaign for Children and Families. For more information, visit Campaign for Children and Families website, or you can mail your tax-deductible gift to CCF, P.O. Box 511, Sacramento, CA 95812.

Virginia House Committee Rejects Anti-Family Bill SB51

The Commerce and Labor Committee in the Virginia House of Delegates has rejected a bill that would have authorized local governments to give away one of the cherished benefits of marriage to unwed partners including homosexuals and unmarried cohabitants.

Conservatives had been shocked to see the bill known as SB51 pass the House Commerce and Labor subcommittee #2 last Thursday – – especially since three Republicans who usually support pro-family legislation voted with the majority.

On Friday, Family Policy Network (FPN) began spearheading an effort to reverse the votes of three lawmakers before the bill was to be considered by the full Commerce and Labor Committee today.

With the help of local pro-family activists in Virginia, pro-family citizens were encouraged to express their concerns to targeted lawmakers and House Speaker Bill Howell. Today’s vote to defeat SB51 included reversals by all three legislators targeted by FPN’s grassroots opposition since Friday.

FPN President Joe Glover hailed today’s vote, but credited grassroots conservatives for holding the delegates accountable. He said, “We’re certainly glad the committee did the right thing, but pro-family citizens all over this Commonwealth deserve the credit for keeping these lawmakers from stumbling. They’re really the ones who saved the day.”

The bill, known as “Senate Bill 51” [SB51], was introduced by liberal Democrat Mary Whipple. Language like that contained in Whipple’s bill is often referred to as so-called “reciprocal beneficiary” arrangements. Under the guise of “fairness,” it would authorize some localities to give away insurance benefits to any persons designated by any local government employee. This may seem fair, but it would create an undue burden on healthy taxpayers and employees who would have to foot the bill for people who make unhealthy lifestyle choices.

Study after study has concluded that married heterosexual couples are statistically healthier, and enjoy longer lifespans than the general population. Thus, one of the benefits of marriage has always been to reward married couples with shared insurance benefits as a way to encourage more people to marry and enjoy better health and longevity.

The financial costs resulting from the health consequences associated with “alternative lifestyles” are skyrocketing, which is one of the reasons homosexual activists are fighting to gain access to this and other benefits of marriage. Unfortunately, when they gain these benefits, the price for their bad behavior is shifted to people who are wise enough to abstain from it.

Source: Family Policy Council email.

Illinois Families Fighting Another Comprehensive Sex Ed, Sex-On-Demand, and Abortion-on-Demand Bill Supported by Liberals

Representatives Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) and Rosemary Mulligan (R-Des Plaines) recently introduced HB 5615, the so-called “Reproductive and Justice Access Act.” Lobbyists for the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, are working intensively to pass this pro-abortion legislation.

HB 5615 represents a radical and unprecedented departure from current Illinois law regarding abortion, public funding of abortion, health care right of conscience, and comprehensive sex education.

ABORTION

Section 15 of HB 5615 PROHIBITS the state from any regulation of contraceptives or abortion at any stage of pregnancy, including:

Prohibiting Partial Birth Abortion

Requiring Parental Notification

Requiring that a minor can obtain emergency contraceptives without parental knowledge

Any regulation at all!!!

Section 20 of HB 5615 MANDATES public funding of abortion through Medicaid and could require health insurance for state employees to cover abortion!

Section 25 of HB 5615 specifically repudiates any possibility of regulating abortion procedures — including a ban on partial birth abortion.

Clearly, the enactment of HB 5615 would codify all abortion procedures at any stage of pregnancy.

HEALTH CARE RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE

Section 15 of HB 5615 prohibits anyone working for a governmental agency from exercising a health care right of conscience in regards to contraceptives (including the morning after pill) and/or abortion.

Section 35 of HB 5615 places three overbearing and unreasonable demands on any health care professional who morally or ethically objects to any type of contraception or abortion procedure:

(1) the health care professional must give all their patients or their employer written notice of their moral religious beliefs;

(2) the health care professional must provide an objective description of health care options he or she is opposed to; and

(3) the health care professional must refer his or her patient somewhere for the very options morally objected to.

And in addition to all this, the 4th provision of Section 35 allows an employer to fire any health care employee having moral objections to abortion under a totally undefined standard of undue hardship!

Quite simply, the enactment of HB 5615 would drive anyone having a religious or moral belief against abortion or contraceptives from the Illinois’ health care community!

COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION

Section 30 of HB 5615 would MANDATE every public school in the state to offer a comprehensive sex education program. No longer would local school districts be able to determine their curriculum in this area; every kindergarten in the state would have to take sex education. One comprehensive sex education curriculum in use includes condom training for 9 year olds!

The enactment of HB 5615 would wrest local control from school districts and, due to the absence of any real standards in so-called comprehensive sex education, quickens the demise of sexual morality in our society.

CONCLUSION

House Bill 5615 is draconian in prohibiting Illinois government from enforcing our Parental Notification Law; refusing to allow for any right of conscience for moral reasons related to abortion or contraceptives; mandating all school teach comprehensive sex education to all school ages!

Visit the Illinois Family Institute for more information.