Florida Marriage Amendment Initiative Favored by Nearly 60% of Voters

by Aaron Deslatte, Orlando Sentinel

A majority of voters, close to the 60 percent needed for passage, favor writing a same-sex-marriage ban into the Florida Constitution, according to a new Orlando Sentinel poll.

But the state’s electorate appears far more skeptical of a ballot measure that would eliminate more than $8 billion in school property taxes and require the Legislature to pay for it, most likely with higher sales taxes.

The survey, released Thursday, found that 57 percent of voters supported Amendment 2, which would define marriage as “the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Just over one-third of voters opposed it.

A 60 percent majority is required to amend the constitution. The 57 percent total is within the poll’s margin of error of 4 percentage points, meaning the amendment might pass if the vote were held today.

The initiative to put the amendment on the November ballot was launched in 2006 by the Orlando-based Florida4marriage group, with funding by Focus on the Family and other religious organizations.

“It shows this is going to be an extremely close race,” said John Stemberger, founder of the Florida4Marriage group. “Our people are very motivated. Our supporters understand the importance of the issue.”

A group called Florida Red and Blue has raised more than $2 million to fight the amendment. It is paying for commercials on CNN and MSNBC during this week’s Democratic National Convention that say the amendment would deny rights to, among others, seniors who live together but choose not to marry for tax or other reasons.

“This is a dead-heat race. And we haven’t started talking to people about how bad this is,” said Derek Newton, the Miami-based campaign manager for the group.

Meanwhile, 39 percent of voters supported Amendment 5, which would abolish most school property taxes — about 25 percent of the average homeowner’s or business owner’s tax bill. The Legislature would have to make up the lost education money through higher sales taxes, repealing sales-tax exemptions, budget cuts or economic growth.

Thirty-three percent were opposed, while 28 percent said they were undecided about the plan, which was drafted this year by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission.

Voters might not get to make the final call.

A Leon County circuit judge ruled this month that the amendment was misleading because it wouldn’t actually require lawmakers to hold school funding “harmless” after 2011 — and he removed it from the Nov. 4 ballot. The Florida Supreme Court is scheduled to hear an appeal next week.

“It’s fairly long. It’s fairly confusing, and people aren’t really sure what it does. Then there’s the question of whether it ever makes the ballot,” said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, which surveyed 625 registered voters Monday and Tuesday.

Given the range of amendment opponents — including business groups, certified public accountants, school districts, teachers and some lawmakers — Coker called its passage “a long shot.” Gov. Charlie Crist has said he will campaign for the amendment if it makes the ballot.

The poll also showed the governor has solid support among voters, with a 57 percent approval rate, although that is down from a November survey. Of Republicans, 71 percent said he was doing an “excellent” or “good” job, compared with 47 percent of Democrats. Only 13 percent said he is doing poorly.

Aaron Deslatte can be reached at adeslatte@orlandosentinel.com or 850-222-5564.

The Facts on S. Dakota Reasonable Initiated Measure 11

In 2006, the voters of South Dakota spoke loudly. They wanted to stop most abortions in South Dakota, but also wanted reasonable exceptions to allow women to have abortions in cases of rape, incest, life and health of the mother. Initiated Measure 11 meets the demands to include these exceptions. This is a reasonable law requested by the people of South Dakota.

Current public polling shows a majority of South Dakota voters would vote “Yes” on Initiated Measure 11. The campaign expects the number will increase to a healthy majority by election day and that the measure will pass with a large margin in November. “After this passes, we will be out on the road with the Fleet for Little Fleet, AKA the big bus, ministering to and helping women and families across the state of South Dakota,” Leslee Unruh stated. Regarding the defeat of Referred Law 6 in 2006, Unruh acknowledged, “I felt terrible for the women, families and children of South Dakota who still had to deal with the scourge of abortion. I especially grieved for the post abortive women who gave their heart and soul working on the campaign.”

South Dakota voters have responded with fervor! 58,000 people signed the petition to stop abortions from being used as birth control. South Dakota has never seen that kind of support for a ballot initiative. Now voters are going out into their communities spreading the word about Initiated Measure 11. From parade walking to attending county fairs, the people of South Dakota are passionate about life and working hard to get this reasonable law passed in November.

It is unfortunate that the opposition to Initiated Measure 11 is running their campaign from Washington, DC. The VoteYesForLife.com campaign is based in South Dakota and run by South Dakotans. It is clear that the national pro-abortion community is making their last stand in South Dakota by bringing in “big guns” such as Cecile Richards, President of National Planned Parenthood, and leaders from National Abortion Rights Action League. The opposing campaign is shamelessly on their knees, begging for national help with this South Dakota law.

Source: Christian Newswire

Marriage makes babies

“As citizens of California,” Catholics need “to avail ourselves of the opportunity” to overturn the the California Supreme Court’s May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, said the California Catholic Conference in a statement issued last week.

The California Catholic Conference is the public policy arm of the state’s Catholic bishops.

The way Catholics can overturn the ruling, said the conference’s Aug. 1 statement, is to vote for Proposition 8 on the November ballot. The initiative, “which reads,” said the bishops, “‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California’ … simply affirms the historic, logical and reasonable definition of marriage — and does not remove any benefits from other contractual arrangements.”

The conference’s statement spoke of the importance of marriage for society and said that, while “cultural differences have occurred” in marriage, “what has never changed is that marriage is the ideal relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the continuation of the human race.”

The state Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage was a “radical change in public policy” that will have “many profound effects on our society,” said the bishops’ statement. For one thing, the court’s decision “discounts the biological and organic reality of marriage — and how deeply embedded it is in our culture, our language and our laws and ignores the common understanding of the word marriage.” The legalizing of same-sex marriage “diminishes the word ‘marriage’ to mean only a ‘partnership’ — a purely adult contractual arrangement for individuals over the age of 18. Children — if there are any — are no longer a primary societal rationale for the institution,” said the bishops’ statement.

The statement insists that the bishops’ view of marriage and their opposition to same-sex marriage is drawn not only from Holy Scripture or “the wisdom of tradition,” but from “what can be known by reason alone.”

The bishops said that “same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex unions,” because marriage does not only embrace male/female “sexual complementarity as designed by nature but includes their ability to procreate.” Marriage, too, “mirrors God’s relationship with us,” since husband and wives “offer themselves to God as co-creators of a new human being,” said the conference’s statement. “Any other pairing — while possibly offering security and companionship to the individuals involved — is not marriage.”

“Protecting the traditional understanding of marriage should not in any way disparage our brothers and sisters — even if they disagree with us,” said the statement. And to protect marriage, the bishops not only urged Catholics to vote for Proposition 8 in November but “to provide both the financial support and the volunteer efforts needed” for the initiative’s passage.

— California Catholic Daily

Democratic National Committee gave $25,000 to defeat Calif. marriage amendment

The Democratic National Committee has given $25,000 to help defeat a proposed constitutional marriage amendment in California, despite the fact that a significant percentage of Democrats in the state are expected to support it this fall.

The DNC’s donation was made to Equality for All, a leading homosexual activist group in the state seeking to keep “gay marriage” legal.

If passed, the amendment, known as Proposition 8, would protect the natural definition of marriage, thus overturning the state supreme court’s May decision legalizing “gay marriage.”

The DNC’s donation and others like them have helped opponents of Prop 8 raise more than $6 million, according to tabulations by the Los Angeles Times. The donation was first listed on the California Secretary of State’s website in May about a week before the high court issued its decision.

The DNC’s donation isn’t a huge surprise, being that Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean supports “gay marriage.” Additionally, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama opposes Proposition 8, calling it “divisive and discriminatory.”

Earlier this year Obama wrote a letter to the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Democratic Club in which he declared, “I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law.”

Exit polls in 2000 showed that about a third of Democrats in California voted for Proposition 22, a statute which banned “gay marriage.” It was one of several laws overturned by the California high court’s ruling. Proposition 8 would place nearly identical language as Proposition 22 in the constitution.

Proposition 8 reads, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.”

Messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in June passed a resolution urging Southern Baptists in California to work and vote for passage of the amendment and for all Southern Baptists and other Christians to pray for its passage. The resolution passed nearly unanimously.
–30–
Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press.

Los Angeles Times confuses the ‘gay marriage’ issue

By R. Albert Mohler Jr., Baptist Press

The fact that the Los Angeles Times favors “same-sex marriage” is not a new revelation. To the contrary, the paper has positioned itself in support of “same-sex marriage” for some time.

Furthermore, no informed reader will be surprised to find that the paper’s editorial position is quite liberal. Given our cherished commitment to the freedom of the press, the paper has every right to position itself this way. Intelligent readers are responsible to be aware of this fact, and take this editorial posture into account when considering the paper’s coverage of controversial issues — like “same-sex marriage” and Proposition 8.

Proposition 8 will appear on the November ballot in California. The proposition — put on the ballot by public support — is an attempt to return the state’s marriage law to where it stood earlier this year, with marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman.

California’s state constitution does not mention “same-sex marriage.” In 2000 the people of California voted by an overwhelming margin to pass an initiative, Proposition 22, which stated: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

That is where the matter stood until May 15 of this year, when California’s Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 4-3 that “same-sex marriages” must be legalized and recognized in the state. Thus, Proposition 22 and all similar laws were struck down by the court, and the court ordered that the state must allow and recognize same-sex marriages effective approximately one month later.

Proposition 8 is a citizen-initiated response to that Supreme Court decision and an effort to return marriage in California to the legal definition effective as recently as May 14 of this year. The language of Proposition 8 mirrors that of Proposition 22, but differs in that it would amend the state constitution to define marriage.

The editors of the Los Angeles Times want voters to defeat Proposition 8 and, in effect, to confirm the action of California’s Supreme Court that overturned the will of voters expressed in 2000. The fact that the paper wants to see Proposition 8 defeated is not surprising, but the arguments employed by the paper’s editors are nothing less than breathtaking.

The paper speaks to the issue in an editorial published on Aug. 8. The editors began their arguments with this introductory paragraph:

“It’s the same sentence as in 2000: ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’ Yet the issue that will be put before voters Nov. 4 is radically different. This time, the wording would be used to rescind an existing constitutional right to marry. We fervently hope that voters, whatever their personal or religious convictions, will shudder at such a step and vote no on Proposition 8.”

The editors argue that Proposition 8 would “rescind an existing constitutional right to marry.” The California Constitution still does not mention “same-sex marriage.” No such right existed before May 15. The right exists now only by judicial action, not by any amendment to the constitution.

But, even after referring to the marriage of same-sex couples as “an existing constitutional right,” the editors went even further to declare same-sex marriage a “fundamental right.”

In their words:

“The state of same-sex marriage shifted in May, when the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, the ban on gay marriage that voters approved eight years ago, and ruled that marriage was a fundamental right under the state Constitution. As such, it could not be denied to a protected group — in this case, gay and lesbian couples.

“What voters must consider about Proposition 8 is that, unlike Proposition 22, this is no longer about refining existing California law. In the wake of the court’s ruling, the only way to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples is by revising constitutional rights themselves. Proposition 8 seeks to embed wording in the Constitution that would eliminate the fundamental right to same-sex marriage.”

Indeed, the court did rule that the right of same-sex couples to marry is a “fundamental right” — a right that is either enshrined within the constitution, drawn from the notion of natural rights, or a necessary implication of the constitution. The court also defined homosexuals as a protected group and thus deserving of a special attention in questions of rights.

But the California Supreme Court is not the final authority in such matters — the people are. The court and its decisions are ultimately accountable to the people, who can, when motivated by great concern or outrage, change the court’s composition or amend the constitution itself.

The editors of the paper write as if the decision of the California Supreme Court is unassailable, unchangeable and irreversible. None of these things is true. The court did declare “same-sex marriage” to be a fundamental right, but that decision is now, by definition, tentative and potentially temporary. California’s voters must keep this firmly in mind. The voters of California now have the opportunity to define and defend marriage and to return the state’s definition of marriage to where it stood just three months ago.

This entire controversy, illustrated by the paper’s editorial, is an illustration of the legal, cultural and moral breakdown described by Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon as “rights talk.” In her 1991 book, “Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse,” Glendon defined the problem as “our increasing tendency to speak of what is most important to us in terms of rights, and to frame nearly every social controversy as a clash of rights.”

Further:

“The most distinctive features of our American rights dialect are the very ones that are most conspicuously in tension with what we require in order to give a reasonably full and coherent account of what kind of society we are and what kind of polity we are trying to create: its penchant for absolute, extravagant formulations, its near-aphasia concerning responsibility, its excessive homage to individual independence and self-sufficiency, its habitual concentration on the individual and the state at the expense of the intermediate groups of civil society, and its unapologetic insularity. Not only does each of these traits make it difficult to give voice to common sense or moral intuitions, they also impede development of the sort of rational political discourse that is appropriate to the needs of a mature, complex, liberal, pluralistic development.”

“Rights talk” is what remains when deeper questions of right and wrong are taken off the table. The most important right at stake in Proposition 8 is the right — and the responsibility — of California voters to define and defend marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

___________________________

R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. This column first appeared at AlbertMohler.com.

Over 70 Colorado Physicians Sign Statment Saying Personhood Begins at Fertilization

Colorado for Equal Rights has announced the support of over 70 physicians and pharmacists, including neonatologists, family physicians, ob/gyns, pediatricians, and other physicians. nationwide. These physicians have stated that they concur with the statement, “A ‘person’ includes any human from the time of fertilization.” A list of these physicians is available below.

“We are honored to have received these endorsements from such respected physicians,” stated Kristi Burton, amendment sponsor. “Science clearly proves that life begins at the time of fertilization. We are secure in the fact that we have science and reason on our side, and we are pleased to have the medical community supporting our efforts.”

“As support for Amendment 48 accumulates, we are very encouraged as we get closer to November’s election,” continued Burton. “Every human life should be protected, and the endorsements we continue to receive prove that our easy to understand amendment is one that all Coloradans can support.”

In March, a majority of Colorado lawmakers endorsed the ballot initiative, according to LifeSite News. In May, WorldNet Daily reported that 131,000 Colorado citizens had signed petition to put the legislation on the Nov. ballot. Proponents had 54,952 more signatures than required.

California marriage advocates suing over amendment language change

Supporters of Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment, filed a lawsuit yesterday to block a change made by California Attorney General Jerry Brown to the language of the measure’s ballot title and summary. The petitions circulated to qualify the initiative for the ballot said the measure would amend the state Constitution “to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” but the Attorney General has changed it to say that Proposition 8 seeks to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”

Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, called the new language “inherently argumentative” and said it could “prejudice voters against the initiative,” according to the LA Times. “This is a complete about-face from the ballot title that was assigned” when the measure was being circulated for signatures, Kerns continued.

The paper reports that the move has raised suspicion in some circles that Brown, a possible candidate for governor in 2010, was influenced by politics. “He is delivering something…that is very important to the gay community, and that is a title and summary that is more likely to lead you to vote ‘No,’” said political analyst Tony Quinn, who added that changes this substantive are “highly unusual.”

In addition to the blatantly biased title change, the summary also has been changed and now predicts a loss to state and local governments of tens of millions of dollars in sales tax revenues over the next few years if the measure passes. The Times article then quotes the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office saying that in the long run there would “likely be little fiscal impact.”

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.

California frontier of the moral battle against totalitarian gay politics

On Tuesday, June 17, the California Supreme Court’s decision to allow same-sex “marriage” takes effect and thousands of homosexual couples are expected to tie the knot this year. County clerks will be required by law to issue new gender-neutral marriage licenses.

After the California’s Supreme Court claimed gays had a constitutional right to marriage, the attorney generals of ten states requested that the Court delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage until after the November elections. The Supreme Court refused the request.

Organizations like California Family Council and Campaign for Children and Families also requested that the Court delay the ruling because California citizens have placed a marriage amendment on the November 4 ballot that will restrict marriages to one man and one women. To qualify for the ballot, 694,354 petition signatures were needed, but proponents of the amendment collected 1,120,801 signatures in late April.

It should not be forgotten that California went through this same issue years ago. Citizens passed law called Proposition 22 that restricted marriage to one man and one women. Apparently, California’s judges do not care about either law or the majority of citizens. They are more concerned with advancing liberal agendas.

At least some county officials, however, have stopped conducting any civil marriage ceremonies. On June 13, Virginia-based Liberty Counsel asked the 1st District Court of Appeals to temporarily prohibit all county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until after the November election. Their decision is not yet known.

The good news is that a majority of Californians support the marriage amendment. Capitol Resource Institute conducted a national survey in which respondents were asked: Do you agree that only marriage between one man and one woman should be legal and binding in America? California answers this question “yes” 56.20%, and “no” 43.80%.

One of California’s (and America’s) problems is the liberal clergy who pretend to represent Jesus Christ and God. The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California issued a letter encouraging all gay couples to get a civil marriage married and then seek the Episcopal Church’s blessing. As Jesus’ apostle Paul said, Satan comes as an angel of light. I suspect the Lord of the Church will soon judge such liberals who, like Jezebel and the Nicolaitans mentioned in the Book of the Revelation, serve Satan and the politics of immorality.

The shining white lie is that Christians should not judge but loving tolerate the politics of immorality. However, scripture says to judge others according the results of their behaviors and “prophets” according to their words. Speakers for God will not contradict what He has already revealed through prior prophets, apostles, and Jesus.

Sources:

Nathan Black, California County Halts Wedding Ahead of Gay Marriage Rush, The Christian Post June 2008.

Associated Press, 10 States Ask Calif. Court to Delay Gay ‘Marriage’, May 31, 2008.

Lisa Leff, Gay ‘Marriage’ Ban Qualifies for California Ballot, June 3, 2008.

Associated Press, Group Asks Lower Calif. Court to Stop Gay ‘Marriages’, June 13, 2008.

Karen England, New Poll Finds Majority of Californians Support Traditional Marriage, Christian Newswire, June 2, 2008

Lillian Kwon, Calif. Bishop Drives Gay ‘Marriage’ Momentum to Church, The Christian Post, June 12, 2008.

Louisiana defeats a fascist bill that would make gays a protected class

The Louisiana legislature defeated bill HB 981 Homosexual Privileges Bill on May 30. Rep. LaFonta’s bill would have forced government agencies to add homosexuality as a protected class under hiring practices.

Fascist gay activists and politicians are seeking to convince local, state, and federal government to pass this type of bill. The bill is sometimes called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). ENDA was defeated in Congress earlier this year. Whether as legislation or local ordinance, this type of law will force communities and individuals businesses and landlords to violate their First Amendment rights.

Gay rights law is the end game of liberal politics. As explained by Jonah Goldberg, the history of American liberalism is the development of fascist socialism similar to Italy’s Mussolini, Russia’s Marixist-Lennonism, Germany’s Nazism, and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal carried forward by Lyndon B, Johnson’s Great Society. All of them shared the same basic ideals. The sexual politics of liberals has long been a direct effort to replace western biblically-based moral values with those usually defined as humanism. An all encompassing term for all of these political, social, and value systems is secularism.

The oft-repeated slander of the Left that the religious view, moral values, and political principles of America’s founding are somehow antiquated is the lie of propagandists. The political ideals and the moral values on which they were justified are common to human nature. The natural law basis of the Constitution is not rooted in modern secular ideals. The two are conflicting opposites. Natural law is reasoned from human nature and moral law. Human nature doesn’t change and consequently neither does moral law. The Left opposes this in order to foist upon all their immorality. Homosexuality is unnatural behavior and it is immoral. Not discriminating against it is a crime against nature.

All states should follow Louisiana’s lead.

Pass constitutional amendment thwart fascist gay agenda

The May 29 editorial on the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment concluded that marriage is not under threat in Florida yet. This is an unsupportable assertion.

The liberal gay activists are unrelenting in their effort to find a judge or official in any and every state who will rule that the current legal definition of marriage somehow violates their state constitution, allowing same-sex marriages.

California, Massachusetts, Iowa, New York, Maryland, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon and New Jersey have struggled with this specific issue.

Florida does not exist in a cocoon unaffected by what is going on in other states.

As proof, our own attorney general of Florida, Bill McCollum, recently has joined eight other states in requesting the California Supreme Court to postpone the implementation of its pro-gay marriage decision until after the November ballot on the California marriage amendment.

If the traditional definition of marriage is in our constitution, then Florida is protected (at least as best as Florida voters can do on their own).

The Times-Union editorial recommends that those who would protect traditional marriage wait and act after that sought-after judge somewhere in Florida rules that gays have the state constitutional right to marry.

This is a dubious strategy at best! Stand back and do nothing, while the gay activists continue to hammer away in court after court until they achieve victory? Then act?

If marriage is worth defending later, it is worth defending now.

Twenty-seven states have passed such constitutional amendments.

The issue on this amendment is simple.

Is marriage in Florida to remain the union of only one man and one woman?

Or, is it to be radically changed to include same-sex marriages and then later perhaps polygamy or even group marriages?

If we permit same-sex couples to marry, on what rational, logical, consistent basis do we then deny marriage to the polygamists? The group-marriage proponents?

This is the right time to have this amendment on the ballot. This is the right time for its passage.

Source: Yes2Marriage.org

Michigan’s socialist Governor doesn’t like Partial-Birth Abortion Ban passed by the House

In 2007, there were 24,683 abortions performed in Michigan, according to the Michigan Department of Community Health.

To prevent partial-birth mutilations, the Michigan House again passed a ban on partial-birth abortions. After a protracted debate, the Michigan House voted 74-32 in favor of the bill that would make it a felony for a doctor to perform the procedure. The maximum sentence would be two years in prison and up to a $50,000 fine. The Senate passed the same bill by a 24-13 vote on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

The Michigan law mirrors a federal law banning the practice that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. “Having a state law strengthens enforcement of the federal ban and makes it clear that partial-birth abortion will not be allowed in our state,” said Michigan Family Frum Executive Director Brad Snavely.

I’m wondering why the law permits the procedure even if the life of the mother is threatened. Partial-birth abortion is killing a delivered baby. (Does a fetus have developed arms, legs, and head? Surely, a fetus that looks like a human must be called human!) If a maternal life is threatened because of pregnancy, why not deliver the child and incubate him or her until fully developed. Surely, American medicine can utilize its advanced technology to preserve life and not just clone, harvest stem cells, or destroy developing humans for the sake of scientific experimentation?

Socialist liberals are actually upset because this bill threatens their extra-constitutional law dictated by the Supreme Court through Roe v. Wade. The so-called law made killing unborn humans a privacy convenience. That is why Democrats in Michigan oppose the bill. That is why Gov. Jennifer Granholm and followers vetoed a similar bill in 2003 and will likely seek to veto it again.

Sources:

The Detroit News
Michigan family Forum email.

Colorado law signals end of gender-specific restrooms

Yesterday – May 29, 2008 – Colorado’s Governor Bill Ritter signed into law a bill that makes it illegal in that state to discriminate against homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people when buying a home, renting an apartment or using public accommodations.

There are many laws already in place or under consideration – including the one currently under consideration by Ohio’s Legislature – that establish sexual orientation, gender identity and/or transgendered status as a protected class under civil rights laws. Any such law is inherently discriminatory and is a threat to some of our most fundamental freedoms.

But the Colorado law is particularly egregious.

It is the section of the law that addresses public accommodations that makes it so. This aspect of the law would make it legal for those who identify themselves as transgendered – i.e., those who were born one gender but identify themselves with the other, even temporarily – to use any public restrooms in which they feel most comfortable.

Read the statement of Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family:

“Who would have believed that the Colorado state Legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women’s restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation?

“Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence. The legislation lists every conceivable type of organization to which this law applies, including restaurants, bathhouses, massage parlors, mortuaries, theaters and ‘public facilities of any kind.’ Those who would attempt to protect females from this intrusion are subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and up to one year behind bars.

“This is your government in action. It represents a payback to Tim Gill and two other billionaires who have essentially ‘bought’ state legislators with enormous campaign contributions. Coloradans deserve better!

“And by the way, because of the way this bill is written, it is not subject to the initiative process. There is no recourse.”

This is beyond belief! Pray for our country.

Source: Center for Community Values, Citizens’ E-Courier, May 30, 2008.

New York Recognizes Out-of-State Same-Sex ‘Marriages’

by Devon Williams, associate editor of CitizenLink Daily

‘Marriage is not a legal vehicle for the purpose of equality; it’s a social institution with children at its heart.’

New York Gov. David Paterson has sided with gay activists by deciding to change up to 1,300 state policies and regulations to include same-sex couples who were “married” elsewhere.

Paterson’s directive to state agencies was issued May 14 and became public this week.

Same-sex “marriage” is illegal within New York state borders, but the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, decided this month to let stand a ruling that required the state to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed legally elsewhere. Paterson’s directive affirms the ruling.

In 2006, the same court ruled that only the union of a man and a woman is a legal marriage, and that the definition is constitutional.

Jenny Tyree, associate marriage analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the court and Paterson are ignoring the 20 million New Yorkers who have defined traditional marriage via state statutes.

“Our children and grandchildren will pay a very high price if we allow marriage to be changed to suit another purpose entirely,” she said. “Marriage is not a legal vehicle for the purpose of equality; it’s a social institution with children at its heart.”

Paterson’s directive follows the recent 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said these actions highlight the need for marriage protection at the federal level.

“A governor’s constitutional duty is to enforce the laws of his state, not make them,” he said. “The legal quagmire created by these authoritarian decrees reinforces the need for a federal marriage amendment to be added to the U.S. Constitution.”

Now is the time to ask your U.S. representative to co-sponsor the Marriage Protection Amendment.

NY Governor’s Executive Order a Move Toward Nazism

New York’s governor, David A. Paterson, is following the path of pre-Hilter Reich led by the Kaiser. He was notorious for bypassing the processes of a Democratic government. In order to accomplish what he wanted often in opposition of the duly elected legislator, he employed the dictatorial tool of the executive order. It is only dictatorial tool available to the executive provided by a democratic form of government. Hitler was democratically elected. Once elected, Hitler took the common use of the executive order for making public law to its final purpose.

The move toward totalitarianism is already blatantly practiced by gays and their supportive politicians. Gov. Patterson has taken the next step toward a totalitarian state. When people with a moral conscience are no longer permitted to freely criticize the behavioral politics of sexual immorality, their Constitutional rights have been usurped. When moral or religious people are fired for the same reasons, the supposed liberal right to employment becomes non-existent. More importantly, so does their right to assembly in term of economics. When employers are forced to hire those whose behavior offend their religious or moral beliefs, business owner have lost their 1st amendment rights. When ex-gays cannot freely speak at churches, college campuses, or in other public without fascist gays disrupting their meeting to an extent that riot police must be involved, American of opposing views have in-effect lost their free speech rights. That is especially so because typically police do not forceful remove radical and violent gays from the premises of those public forums.

For public officials to abolish the moral bases of social law is to violate the very principle of our Republican form of constitutional government rooted in natural law and religion. Consent of the many does not make constitutional law when it violates the other part of Declaration of Independence that speaks of appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions and ith a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.

Besides, gay politics claim civil rights to justify their politics. Yet, civil rights law founded on the 14th and 15 amendments are directly linked to the Declaration of Independence. The equality spoken of in the Declaration is part of natural law as given by the Creator, Providence, and Supreme Judge– in other words, God. God did not create homosexuals. It is obvious to both Reason and Revelation that God make male and female for sexual relations, which is the a major reason for marriage. Natural law states that any practice contrary to nature is evil. That what gay politics is all about.

Leading the totalitarian charge is gay organizations like Amnesty International, Gay Straight Alliance Network International, GLAAD, GLSEN, Human Rights Campaign, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Lambda Legal, Marriage Equality, Stonewall Democrats. They are supported mostly by those of the liberal, humanist, and socialist persuasion including organizations like Democratic party, United Nations, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, many corporations, American Civil Liberties Union, and the like. Senators Obama and Clinton officially support the gay agenda.

Marriage Protection Amendment as Response to NY Governor’s Forced “Gay Marriage” Rulings of CA and MA Judges

The Alliance for Marriage called upon Congress to pass AFM’s Marriage Protection Amendment in response to New York Governor David Patterson’s stunning directive ordering New York State to recognize “same-sex marriages” performed in California, Massachusetts, and Canada.

“By executive fiat, New York has become the second state in two weeks to overturn both common sense and the Will of the People on the definition of marriage,” said Matt Daniels, president and founder of the Alliance for Marriage. “Today’s directive from Governor Patterson illustrates the need for the Marriage Protection Amendment drafted by AFM.”

“The anti-democratic fallout of the California Supreme Court decision striking down marriage is not unexpected, and will only continue to crash down upon other states nationwide,” said Daniels. “AFM has led the charge in Congress for federal protection of marriage as the only way to prevent the decisions of judges in California and elsewhere being forced on residents of other states.”

“Most Americans – and most New Yorkers – want our laws to send a positive message to kids about marriage, family and their future. Today is a sad day for the people of New York who have lost the right to choose the course that is best for them, their families and their children,” continued Daniels.

“Americans believe that gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, but they don’t believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society,” said Daniels. “But the common-sense definition of marriage – and the values of most Americans – cannot be protected apart from AFM’s Marriage Protection Amendment.”

The Alliance for Marriage and Alliance for Marriage Foundation are multicultural coalitions whose Board of Advisors includes Rev. Walter Fauntroy – the D.C. Coordinator of the March on Washington for Martin Luther King Jr. – as well as other civil rights and religious leaders, and national legal experts.

Source: Emailed press release from http://www.afmusa.org.

Congressmen Thwart US Support for UN Abortion Initiative

From the 22 May C-FAM FridayFax report titled “Pro-Life Congressmen Thwart US Support for UN Abortion Initiative” written by Piero A. Tozzi and Susan Yoshihara.

Pro-life congressmen, lead by Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Bart Stupak (D-MI), rescued a congressional resolution supporting reduction of women’s mortality at home and abroad from surreptitiously advancing the pro-abortion agenda advanced at the United Nations. House Resolution 1022, as now drafted, promotes both “maternal health and child survival” without a stealth promotion of abortion.

The language that was removed by Smith and Stupak called for funding of “global initiatives” and the recognition of maternal health as a “human right.” Using such language would have lent U.S. support for a new pro-abortion initiative launched at a London conference last October called “Women Deliver.” At the Women Deliver conference pro-abortion advocates launched the International Initiative on Maternal Mortality and Human Rights that seeks to link the maternal mortality issue with access to abortion while furthering development of “soft law” norms that include abortion as a human right.

Among those launching the initiative at the Women Deliver conference were UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Executive Director Thoraya Obaid, the initiative’s architect and then UN Special Rapporteur for Health, Paul Hunt, and the President of the pro-abortion law firm and secretariat for the initiative Center for Reproductive Rights, Nancy Northrup. Northrup stated at the launching that she believes UN treaties already contain an international right to abortion and she would work through the initiative and with UN partners to further that understanding and bind UN member states to recognize that right.

The Women Deliver conference, organized and chaired by the world’s top abortion advocates, including International Planned Parenthood Federation, Ipas and “Catholics” for a Free Choice, was also sponsored by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization in addition to the UNFPA.

House Resolution 1022’s primary sponsor, Lois Capps (D-CA), was one of three members of Congress that attended the Women Deliver conference. A number of pro-life members of Congress, unaware of the provenance of the global initiative and health rights language, originally signed onto the draft version of the resolution.

One misstatement that remains uncorrected in the present version is assertion that “an estimated 536,000 women die during pregnancy and childbirth” – a number touted at the Women Deliver conference but unsubstantiated by the UN’s own statisticians. The UN Population Division report The World’s Women 2005: Progress in Statistics states that “more than a third of the 204 countries or areas examined did not report the number of deaths by sex even once for the period 1995 to 2003 . . . About half did not report deaths by cause, sex and age at least once in the same period.”

In a statement preceding passage of the bill, Rep. Smith pointed out that “when women receive proper prenatal care, they are less likely to die in childbirth,” adding that the final form of the resolution “does not endorse – in any way whatsoever – the cruel ideology that pits women against babies by suggesting abortion as a means of combating maternal mortality.”

________________________________

C-FAM (Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute) is a leading global pro-life organization fighting for for families, the unborn, and for human decency around the world. A major New York donor has offered $100,000 for a matching donation challenge. If interested in helping C-FAM, please visit their website. C-FAM’s website offers the latest global family news, special issue reports and white papers, information about their latest campaigns, as well as aways to donate.