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

Critical Primary Campaign of Kansas Prosecutor Phill Kline

Re-Election Necessary to Keep Planned Parenthood Case Alive – Asks Pro-Life Movement For Support

Kansas district attorney Phill Kline is fighting a critical primary challenge on August 5 that threatens his efforts to prosecute the only criminal case ever filed against the abortion giant Planned Parenthood in the United States and is asking pro-life advocates to join in his re-election fight.

Phill Kline’s case against Planned Parenthood has the potential of causing the billion dollar abortion giant to lose the $350 million dollars it receives from the federal government under Title X funds.

“He is up for reelection, and if he does not get past this August 5th primary, the candidate he is running against will not carry forward this criminal case,” said Jenn Giroux, Kline’s campaign manager.

Kline faces a stiff challenge from moderate Republican Steve Howe, who with other establishment party figures attempted to dissuade Kline from running for re-election.

Giroux spoke with LifeSiteNews and explained that Planned Parenthood has managed to delay trial for nine months since Kline charged them with 107 criminal counts – 23 felonies and 84 misdemeanors – for unlawful late-term abortions and other abortion-related crimes on October 16, 2007.

Kline’s evidence comes from subpoenaed medical records that indicate that Planned Parenthood in Johnson County willfully neglected to report instances of child rape, forged viability reports, and performed illegal late-term abortions.

The abortion giant has been hoping to wait out the clock on Kline’s term as District Attorney, just as they did when he was the Attorney General. However, if Kline defeats his primary opponent, and then goes on to win the general election, Planned Parenthood will have to face trial.

“If he does not win on August 5, this only criminal case in the country will go away forever,” Giroux stated.

Giroux said Kline’s battle for reelection is entering a critical phase and the campaign is trying to recruit 6,000 individuals or families to donate $50 each to raise $300,000 by July 22 – two weeks from the August 5 primary showdown. Giroux said the money is needed so the campaign can pay for and produce advertising on television, radio, and mail, and get maximum exposure time with the voters. The advertising will help Kline overcome the bias of the Kansas City Star, which is a fierce opponent of the Johnson County DA.

The Kline campaign has set up a website for this purpose called “StandWithPhill,” featuring a video explaining why Kline’s reelection is pivotal to the success of the pro-life movement and such an incredible threat to the abortion hegemon Planned Parenthood. (see http://www.standwithphill.com/)

“More importantly than anything Planned Parenthood is not going to be rewarded for their delay tactics that they hoped would get Phil Kline to leave office and the next prosecutor to drop this case and then they would be off scot-free.”

Giroux stated that Kline’s recent straw poll victory in a conservative part of the county has the campaign feeling very good about the primary; but the fight will be close as they make the final push to get out the word.

“It’s very close, but Phill Kline has 98% name recognition,” Giroux said. “The primary we feel very good about. It’s all about turning out his base.”

Early this July, Kline garnered the endorsement of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson. Dobson said he was speaking as an individual and rarely gave out endorsements, but said, “It is imperative that he win this contest.”

He continued, “Defeating Mr. Kline has become a national priority for the abortion industry, which funneled millions of dollars to Kansas for the purpose of demonizing him in the liberal media and ending his term as Attorney General.”

“If he is to successfully uphold the moral values that you and I and millions of Americans hold dear, particularly with respect to his battle against late-term abortion in Kansas, we must support his re-election campaign.”

To visit the StandWithPhill website:
http://www.standwithphill.com/

To visit Phill Kline’s website for reelection:
http://klineforda.com/

Sexual politics in Argentina, an example of its global reach

(Catholic News Agency) The president of Worldwide Action of Parliamentarians and Leaders for Life and the Family, Senator Liliana Negre de Alonso, warned this week the sex-ed program approved by the Federal Education Council of Argentina violates the fundamental rights of parents.

The contents of the program violate “the constitutional right of parents to participate in the education of their children in conformity with their intimate principles and convictions, violating the private sphere of the family and with that the guarantees conferred by the Constitution and by international agreements.”

Argentina’s Federal Education Council approved a sex-ed program that will be obligatory in all schools, from elementary to high school.

Along with education to promote immorality and drive business to abortion clinics, Argentine is facing the similar onslaught of gay socialist politics. The following is Catholic News Agency‘s report:

Pedro Zerolo, a well-known homosexual activist and the executive secretary of Spain’s Socialist Party (PSOE), traveled last week to Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay—where he met with president-elect and former bishop Fernando Lugo—to promote gender ideology and the legalization of gay marriage in South America.

After meeting with Lugo, Zerolo said Spain and Paraguay would work together on issues of poverty, education, gender and climate change. Zerolo also met with feminist and homosexual groups, telling them he is hopeful Paraguay will “develop policies with a gender perspective.”

In Argentina Zerolo met with President Cristina Kirchner, encouraging her to “move into the future” by allowing the approval of a measure that would legalize gay unions and give gay couples the right to adopt children. If Kirchner gives the green light, the measure would go before the Argentinean Congress.

“The same people who didn’t want anything to change in Spain will oppose this law here. But I’m not worried about protests from the right and from the Church,” Zerolo said.

Zerolo was president in 1993 of the Gay Collective of Madrid. In 1998 he was elected president of the State Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals. He won reelection to the post in 2000 and 2002.

As a member of Spain’s Socialist party, he was one of the main supporters of the legalization of homosexual unions in Spain. He participated in various attempts to get Spain’s Congress to modify the law on gay issues.

In 2005 he legalized his union with his gay partner. In addition to working for the Socialist Party, he is a Madrid city council member and a confidant of President Jose Luis Zapatero.

The sexual politics of fascists extends beyond America. It is global. Fascists, socialists, liberals, secularists seek to replace all public morality with their unnatural and immoral forms of relational values. Family values are largely moral ones. Just as the family is the foundation of society, morality is the means to a good society. Fascist sexual politics including homosexuality is an agenda that is good only for those who hate morality. Fascist sexual practice is a crime of multitudinous dimensions: It is a crime against God’s moral law; it is a crime against societal good; it is a crime against the family; it is a crime against children; it is a crime against human nature; it is a crime against humanity. If taken to its logical conclusion, fascist sexual politics seeks to destroy society only to satisfy their bondage to their hedonism, and the gay lifestyle leads to the end of society. An honest gay lifestyle can never produce the next generation.

Of course, fascists sexual politics is more often based on deception and lies than honesty. The women involved in Roe v Wade and Jane Doe have testified before the US Congress that their abortion cases were based on fraudulent claims. Sex education was founded on fraudulent sex research by Prof. Kinsey. Gays want everyone to believe their lies about how they were born gay or that their is some sort of gay DNA.

The louder they accuse their moral opponents of hate or homophobia the more it becomes evident that they hate God and human morality as created by God.

There are ways to their political agenda. God still answers the prayer of His people. God can thwart their political agenda and redeem their soul. People who still hold to natural morality can collective stand against their politics by protesting any and all efforts to their social and political leaders. Now is the 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.

April 17, Prayer Vigil Over Virginia Supreme Court Hearing

The Family Foundation and a pro-family partner, Concerned Women of America (CWA) are asking Virginians to make next Thursday, April 17, 2008 a Day of Prayer for Isabella! The state Supreme Court may be the last hope for Isabella. While individual prayer is necessary, there is power in corporate prayer. Please join us at 8 a.m. that morning for a prayer vigil directly across the street from the courthouse, at the Old Bell Tower near the corner of Bank and 9th Streets, Capitol Square, Richmond, Virginia. At 10 a.m. we will co-host a press conference with CWA to address the merits of the case.

The story may be familiar to you. Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller began living together in Virginia in the late 1990s and traveled to Vermont on December 19, 2000 in order to enter into a civil union. They continued to reside in Virginia through April 2002, when Lisa gave birth to Isabella, whose father is an anonymous sperm donor. They moved to Vermont in August 2002, where they lived until they broke up in September 2003. Lisa then converted to Christianity and decided to leave the homosexual lifestyle. She took Isabella with her back to Virginia, leaving Janet in Vermont. Lisa then filed in a Vermont court for dissolution of the civil union and for custody of Isabella.

The case worked its way through both Vermont and Virginia courts, pitting Vermont’s “civil unions” against Virginia’s ban on such arrangements and now, the Marriage Amendment to the state Constitution. The Virginia Court of Appeals based its decision to give Vermont courts jurisdiction on the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA). PKPA was written to prevent a parent who loses a custody battle in one state from taking a child to another state in an attempt to gain a more favorable ruling. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, PKPA grants jurisdiction to the first state that exercises jurisdiction, which in this case was Vermont. However, in this case, PKPA should not have been the ruling statute.

Lisa’s attorney’s argued that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) preempts PKPA and returns to each state the authority to determine what constitutes marriage and parental rights. Virginia has made this public policy decision time and again with a ban on same sex marriage, a ban on civil unions and most recently an amendment to the Virginia Constitution defining marriage. Because Virginia gives no legal recognition to civil union and thus does not recognize the relationship between Lisa and Janet, the PKPA shouldn’t apply.

The Court of Appeals avoided conflict by dismissing DOMA’s relevance in the case. This case, according to the Court, is not about one state recognizing another state’s civil unions, but only deals with “whether, considering the PKPA, Virginia can deny full faith and credit to the orders of the Vermont court regarding [Isabella’s] custody and visitation.” For the Court to use the PKPA as binding law in cases where Virginia does not legally recognize the relationship between the two parties is legal precedent that attempts to trump the will of the people of Virginia and flies in the face of the purpose of the federal DOMA.

On August 29, 2007, we asked you to pray for Lisa Miller’s attorneys at the VA Supreme Court. Your prayers were answered and her attorneys were granted an additional opportunity to defend Isabella this coming Thursday!

Over the past several years, we have been sharing with you the various court decisions and legal steps taken in a case involving a child named Isabella, who was born into a civil union. Given the complexity and the conflict that exists between Virginia law and Vermont law, this case has been heard in courts up and down the east coast. Later this week Lisa Miller, Isabella’s biological mother, and her attorneys have plead their case in front of the Virginia state Supreme Court, asking the court to reverse lower court decisions.

Should the Virginia Supreme Court fail to reverse, the Virginia Court of Appeals decision issued in November 2006 will stand as the last word on visitation rights. That decision yielded jurisdiction to the Vermont courts, which then ruled that Lisa’s former partner could have visitation rights. The court-forced visitation began last in August and has continued since then, requiring 5 year-old Isabella to visit a woman she has not seen since the age of 2.

Consequently, you are invited join with the Family Foundation and CWA on Thursday, April 17 at 8 a.m. to pray for Isabella, her attorneys, and the state Supreme Court as this case proceeds. The prayer vigil will be held across the street from the courthouse at the Old Bell Tower, Capital Square, Richmond, Virginia near the corner of Bank and 9th Streets.

By Victoria Cobb, President of the Family Foundation of Virginia.

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

California Court Agrees to Reconsider Homeschooling Rule

The California Court of Appeal agreed Tuesday to a request by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund to reconsider a Feb. 28 decision making most homeschooling a crime in the state.

“Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. “Because this ruling impacts all Californians, we believe the case deserves a second look. We look forward to presenting this case for rehearing.”

Ruling against a child enrolled at Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program, the California Court of Appeal found, in the case In re: Rachel L., that parents who educate their children at home could be criminally liable under California law.

“Another look at this case will help ensure that the fundamental rights of parents are fully protected,” said ADF-allied attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

Source: LifeSite News

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

Court Halts Enforcement of Illinois Parental Notification Law

Abortion advocates in Illinois are pleased that the US District Court for the Northern District Illinois has ruled that the state’s Parental Notification Act, first passed in 1985, will continue to not be enforced, according to LifeSite reporter Hilary White.

A 1996 court order halted the law saying that there were insufficiently clear rules regarding appeals for the notification. Courts have since then repeatedly prevented its being enforced. In 2006, however, the Illinois Supreme Court issued clarified rules for notification of parents, but on Friday, U.S. District Judge David H. Coar called these rules “contradictory and incomplete”.

“We’re very pleased,” Lorie Chaiten of the Illinois chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union told the Associated Press. “This should be the end of that law.”

The legislation required a physician to notify an “adult family member” in person, or by telephone at least 48 hours before performing the procedure. The law contained exceptions if the attending physician were to certify that the abortion was for a “medical emergency” or if the minor declared in writing that she is a “victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse by an adult family member”. Minors could bypass the law with a court order.

The law, as it was updated in 1995, says, “that notification of a family member [of an intended abortion] … is in the best interest of an unemancipated minor, and the General Assembly’s purpose in enacting this parental notice law is to further and protect the best interests of an unemancipated minor.”

The law recognized that the “medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of abortion are sometimes serious and long-lasting” and noted that the ability of a young woman to get pregnant and her ability to make a “mature judgement” about abortion “are not necessarily related”.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is expected to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court.

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

Activist Judges Rules Alaska’s Parental Authority Unconstitution

Alaska’ Representative John Coghill introduced a bill to reestablish the right of parents to oversee the health decisions of their children.

In November of 2007, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that a state law the legislature overwhelmingly passed back in 1997 allowing parents the right to agree or deny abortions their minor teenager daughters might be considering was unconstitutional. Children in Alaska can now have abortions without the guidance or consent of their parents, according to the Alaska Family Council.

The AFC said they fully support the dissenting opinion of Justice Walter Carpeneti who stated,

“In 1997, faced with competing interests of the highest constitutional level – an underage pregnant girl’s constitutional right to privacy in deciding whether to terminate her pregnancy, her parents’ constitutional right (and duty) to protect her best interests, and the state’s compelling interests in protecting the children against their own immaturity – the Alaska Legislature carefully crafted the Alaska Parental Consent Act in an effort to recognize and protect all of these interests. That law is fully consistent with United States Supreme Court precedent, yet today’s opinion strikes it down. Because this court’s rejection of the legislature’s thoughtful balance is inconsistent with our own case law and unnecessarily dismissive of the legislature’s role in expressing the will of the people, I respectfully dissent.”

A majority of activist judges apparently believe that secular agendas carry more authority than laws of legislatures or the authority of parents. These types of ruling demonstrate the continued direction toward a totalitarian government. This is more evident when the testimony of Alaska’s medical director of Planned Parenthood is considered.

She says she doesn’t provide medical abortions to girls ages 16 and younger because she doesn’t believe they can handle the process without parental or other adult supervision. She acknowledged the potential psychological consequences and refers 100 % of her abortion patients to counseling.

Governor Palin responded to the courting saying,

“It is outrageous that a minor girl can get an abortion without parental consent. The State Supreme Court has failed Alaska by separating parents from their children during such a critical decision, moving in the exact opposite direction from the law’s intent. Our court is out of step with mainstream judicial decisions and our citizens. This decision is clearly a case of legislating from the bench.”

Click here for more info on this issue from the Alaska Family Council.

$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.

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.

Games Without Rules

Ever played a game with the neighborhood bully? You know, the kid who made up the rules or changed the rules as the game went along? You may have thought that kind of behavior was only found on the school playground. If so, you are not very familiar with the Tennessee House of Representatives.

Oh, they have rules. They just sometimes ignore them! Take last week for instance. Rep. Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) had a bill that probably most parents in Tennessee would agree with. It simply said that,

1). in view of the fact that “human sexuality is an immensely complex subject
2). with enormous societal, scientific, psychiatric and historical implications
3). best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp such issue,”

No “public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or materials discussing sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.”

Most parents would say that they, not the school, should be explaining sexual issues to their children. It’s like religion. Most parents don’t want their schools telling their young children what to believe about God. But in the State House of Representatives, prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality is “controversial.” So they killed the bill.

That is bad enough, but how they killed it helps explain why traditional values legislation has such a hard time passing in the House.

Rep. Campfield, knowing that the bill would probably get killed, asked at the start of the meeting for a roll call vote taken on his bill. Having a roll call vote is important so that you, the voting public, will know who voted consistent with your values. Under the House rules, the sponsor of a bill has a right to request a roll call vote.

After some members of the subcommittee finished roasting Rep. Campfield, Rep. Les Winningham (D-Huntsville) “moved” that the bill be sent to the Department of Education “for action.” Here are two important lessons.

Lesson No. 1: You don’t have to vote “no” to vote against a bill. Motions such as that made by Rep. Winningham are effective ways to kill a bill without having to cast a vote against the bill.

Sometimes bills are legitimately sent to a department with the request that certain information be collected. The department then reports back to the committee. But this was not one of those kinds of motions.

This motion was “for further action.” The problem is the department wasn’t told what action to take. It can’t really take any action because it wasn’t told what action to take. So all those who voted for this motion were effectively voting against the bill.

Lesson No. 2: The rules don’t really mean much if the chair refuses to abide by the rules. In spite of the fact that Rep. Campfield asked for a roll call vote, Chairman Towns ruled creatively. He ruled that the committee was not voting “on the bill” but just on “a motion.” In short, the Chair’s ruling was a sham, or perhaps even a scam to fool the public. Why? Because every action taken on a bill in a subcommittee or committee is the result of a “motion.” And Rep. Campfield clearly wanted any action on his bill to be recorded. You can see it for yourself on this YouTube video clip by clicking here.

Now to add insult to injury, any member of the committee who was in support of the bill could have challenged the ruling of the chair. Unfortunately, none of those who might have been in favor of the bill challenged the chair’s ruling. But, in all fairness, it would have been a waste of time. The chair would have appointed a “substitute” chair who would agree with him.

But had just three members of the committee wanted to help Rep. Campfield’s get his right to a roll call vote, they could have asked for one, as well. No one did so. But some members have learned that invoking the ire of a House chair over a request for a roll call vote will result in their own legislation getting rough treatment.

The House rules do allow a member to request that he or she be recorded as voting no. Others who are present will be considered having voted yes. But, unless you are there to see who is present and who is not, it is too easy for a Representative to say they weren’t there and they would have voted “no.” So, all we know for sure is that Rep. Harry Brooks (R-Knoxville) and Rep. Gerald McCormick (R-Middle Valley) audibly asked, at the time of the vote, to be recorded as voting against Rep. Winningham’s motion. We commend them. Presumably all the other members of the subcommittee voted to kill the bill: Rep. Joe Towns (D-Memphis), Rep. Richard Montgomery (R-Sevierville), Rep. Tommie Brown (D-Chattanooga), Rep. Beth Harwell (R-Nashville), Rep. Ulysses Jones (D-Memphis), Rep. Mark Maddox (D-Dresden), Rep. Larry Turner (D-Memphis), and Rep. Les Winningham (D-Huntsville).

Unfortunately, things like this are far too common in the state House.

by David Fowler, Family Action Of Tennessee

An In-depth Look at Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

(Parental Rights.org) Last week, we began our series on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) by looking at the Convention’s central focus on the “best interests of the child,” which allows the government to substitute its will for that of the parents. This principle is significant as we turn our attention to one of the first rights that the CRC grants to children: the right to remain in their family.

THE RIGHT TO A FAMILY… ALMOST

At first glance, Article 9 of the CRC may appear harmless and even idyllic: “a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.” But despite references to “competent authorities” and “judicial review,” a closer examination quickly reveals that the emphasis on the child’s “best interests” grants the government broad latitude to intervene in the family.

There are many broad and diverse opinions when it comes to what makes a “good parent.” Parents may read a popular parenting book, attend a parenting class, or turn to their own parents or a trusted mentor for advice. Likewise, there is also a broad range of opinions when it comes to when a child should be removed from the home. Clearly a child who is being sexually or physically abused should be saved from that circumstance, but what about more complex issues? Should children be separated from their parents if they are spanked? What about parents who are disabled or have a physical handicap? What about families who are too poor to provide the best quality of living for their children? There are many answers that could be given about what is in the “best interests of the child,” depending on the person who is being asked.

This is why the Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that the “best interests” test could only be applied when a family is broken, such as in divorce proceedings when the dispute is between two parents. When the family is intact, however, courts are required to prove that a parent is “unfit” to raise the children, which requires a state to satisfy a much higher burden of proof. Article 9 destroys this distinction and uses the same test for families that are broken and families that are intact. By analogy, the “best interests” standard treats the government as if it were the other parent in a divorce-proceeding, placed on the same footing as the child’s natural parents in a battle for custody of the child.

TRAMPLING ON PARENTAL RIGHTS

In 1980, the Supreme Court of Washington heard the case of a fifteen-year-old girl who had enlisted state social workers in her quest to live separately from her parents. The girl had resisted her parents’ efforts to discipline her through grounding, and claimed that there was “conflict within her home,” though when asked by a judge about the nature of this conflict, the girl simply replied: “I just feel that there’s a communication gap there.” In an imposing display of judicial power, the court ruled that the conflict between the parents and the child was so severe that it justified the child being placed under the custody of the state, even though the parents were fit and their behavioral standards were not unreasonable.

Twenty-eight years later, families in the United States are still at risk of losing their children if the government believes it can do a better job. In 2004, a social worker hastily accused the parents of one-year-old Julia of child abuse after learning that she had suffered fifteen bone fractures in a period of five months. The parents had no previous record of abuse, the government never presented evidence that they had ever harmed their daughter, and several medical experts testified that the little girl had a brittle bone disease that was responsible for the fractures. But despite the evidence, the family court took little Julia away from her family and placed her in a foster home, citing her “best interests.” Julia remained in foster care until this past December, when her family finally won her back. She is now four-years-old, and has spent the last three years living with strangers in a foster home, but her family is overjoyed to finally welcome her home.

More recently an autistic boy was forcibly removed from his home despite the evidence being “clear that the parents have always stood by and tried to help their son.” Read about this tragic story on our blog here.

WHO DECIDES?

Julia’s happy ending was three long years in the coming – all because of government officials who claimed to act in the “best interests of the child,” without bothering to prove that Julia’s parents were unfit to raise her. Her story is a warning of the insidious sub-plot that runs through Article 9 of the CRC, which grants the government a dangerous power over the lives of its citizens.

But Julila’s story is more than just a warning. It is also a reminder that the battle for parental rights is more than just a battle to change the Constitution: it is a battle to protect real people, to save young lives that are in no danger, except from the government that claims to protect them. Innocent children and loving parents deserve far better than justice that comes three years too late.

Sources

In Re Sumey, 94 Wash. 2d 757 (Wash. S.C. 1980)

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

Family wins custody battle in court
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=647184&category=REGION&newsdate=12/14/2007

Autistic Boy Removed from his Home Because the Government Disagreed with the Parents

Special report on the radical “Transgender rights and hate crimes bill” (H1722)

MassResistance reports finishing up their 75-page report on the assault by the homosexual lobby – probably the most radical legislation ever seriously taken up on Beacon Hill. As we’ve reported, the public hearing on this (and some other horrific bills) is Tuesday, March 4.

Parts 1-7 are now available. The Appendices are scheduled to come out on tomorrow. To read the report, go here.