As is obvious, normalization of homosexuality is impossible without legitimization of "gay families" -- that is, homosexual couples (soon to encompass polyamory as well) with children -- thus, the emphasis on children of "gay families" in the media.
Were it not for The Church, every perversion would be glorified in man's eyes. The effect of Christians on society is obvious; compare the secular European nations to (thus far) Christian America. Case in point: Former lesbian, now born again Christian, Lisa Miller and daughter.
For background, read Same-sex Household Count Tiny: U.S. Census and also read Gay-friendly Catholic School Criticized by Lesbian as well as White House Orders Redefinition of Family
-- From "Male Couples Face Pressure to Fill Cradles" by Rachel L. Swarns, New York Times 8/9/12
Tom Lotito and Matt Hay, both 26 . . . never imagined as teenagers that they would ever get married, much less that friends and family members would pester them about having children.
“It’s another way that I feel like what we have is valid in the eyes of other people,” said Mr. Hay, who married Mr. Lotito in June before 133 guests.
As lawmakers and courts expand the legal definition of the American family, same-sex couples are beginning to feel the same what-about-children pressure that heterosexual twosomes have long felt.
For some couples, it is another welcome sign of their increasing inclusion in the American mainstream.
Popular culture is helping . . . [as gay parenting is] becoming increasingly visible on network television. In “Modern Family” . . . In “Scandal,” a new ABC series . . . And this fall, a new NBC sitcom called “The New Normal” . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read Vermont Judge Orders Child from Mother to Lesbian
From "Mennonite missionary testifies in Vermont custody case" by Wilson Ring, Associated Press 8/9/12
A Mennonite missionary in Nicaragua testified Thursday that he helped a woman embroiled in a Vermont custody dispute with her former lesbian partner flee the U.S. with her child . . .
Timothy Miller said in videotaped testimony that he knew Lisa Miller was fleeing the U.S. because of the custody battle but he believed at the time that she had full custody of her daughter Isabella. He said he picked the mother and child up when they arrived in Managua and arranged a place for them to live in Nicaragua.
Mennonite pastor Kenneth Miller is on trial on a federal charge of aiding in international kidnapping.
Prosecutors say Kenneth Miller helped Lisa Miller and Isabella, then 7, flee the country to avoid sharing custody with Janet Jenkins of Fair Haven. Timothy Miller was originally charged in the case, but the charges were dropped in exchange for his cooperation. The three Millers are not related.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Opposing Sides Preview Strategies in Kidnapping Trial" by Erik Eckholm, New York Times, 8/8/12
Some 50 members of an Amish-Mennonite sect filled half the federal district courtroom here Wednesday, arriving from several states to support Kenneth L. Miller, a pastor accused of abetting international parental kidnapping in a case involving same-sex marriage, conservative Christianity and a bitter custody battle.
The prosecutors, in their opening statement and in the first day of testimony, described a flurry of actions by Mr. Miller to help Ms. Miller flee and get shelter from his sect’s missionaries in Nicaragua. They also described a pattern of deceit that, they said, revealed Mr. Miller’s awareness that Ms. Miller was seeking to avoid court-ordered visits and the imminent transfer of primary custody to Ms. Jenkins by a family court judge in Vermont.
Mr. Miller told others that Nicaragua was the chosen destination because it does not have an extradition treaty with the United States, said Eugenia Cowles, an assistant United States attorney.
Federal officials believe that Ms. Miller and Isabella, now 10, are hiding in Nicaragua, helped by Christian supporters.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pastor Involved in Lesbian Custody Battle Pleads Ignorance" by Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor 8/9/12
Kenneth Miller is charged with aiding international parental kidnapping, which can carry a maximum imprisonment of three years.
However, Kenneth Miller's lawyer, Joshua Autry, responded by saying he would prove that the pastor believed Lisa Miller had full custody of Isabella when she fled to Nicaragua via Canada. Addressing the jury, Autry added that their decision was not going to be a referendum for or against civil unions in the state. "It's going to be about whether, at the time of the removal, Janet Jenkins had parental rights."
Then ensued a battle over the custody of Isabella, who was conceived when the two women were living together in Virginia. Lisa Miller is her biological mother, and did not want her to be exposed to the homosexual lifestyle.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pastor prosecuted for helping girl escape court-imposed lesbian ‘mother’" by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, LifeSiteNews.com 8/10/12
At least two Mennonites who helped in the escape have decided to turn state’s evidence in the trial, testifying against Kenneth Miller, who has not cooperated with the prosecution.
Canadian pastor Ervin Horst has already testified for the prosecution, stating that he drove Lisa and Isabella to the Toronto airport from the Canadian border at Niagra Falls at the behest of Kenneth Miller.
While [Pastor Kenneth Miller] opposes homosexual “marriage,” he does not see it as the greatest threat to the institution, instead holding that “the greatest threat is a Christianity that has marginalized and compromised Jesus’ teaching on marriage. The teaching of Jesus as understood by the Church for the first 300 years of its history allowed for divorce or separation in rare cases, but remarriage was viewed as adultery.”
He prescribes a “radical repentance within Christianity” as the solution to the problem.
Miller’s supporters explain that “as a follower of Jesus, Ken could not ignore” Lisa Miller’s plea for help to escape Jenkins.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Study: Gay Parenting Harms Kids - Media Frantic
Showing posts with label Vermont. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vermont. Show all posts
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Saturday, June 02, 2012
Prayer Ruled Unconstitutional by Vermont Judge
With the ruling from Vermont Superior Court Judge Martin Maley, saying that prayer at the Franklin Town Meeting violates the state constitution, other small God-fearing towns' right to pray is equally in peril, absent the Vermont Supreme Court.
For background, read ACLU Unable to Stop Prayer in Vermont, For Now and also read Prayer in America: Hidden Faith, or Public?
-- From "Court Rules Against Prayer At Franklin Town Meeting" posted at Vermont Public Radio 6/1/12
Marilyn Hackett of Franklin [backed in the lawsuit by the ACLU] said her belief that the Christian prayer read at the beginning of town meeting violated her constitutional right not to attend religious worship.
For years, the town moderator has invited a local pastor to read a prayer addressed to the Trinity that followed the Christian doctrine that God is three divine persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The town had said Hackett does not have to be present for the prayer to participate in the town meeting.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge bars Vt. town from prayer at town meeting" by The Associated Press 6/2/12
"The Court concludes that Ms. Hackett was compelled to attend religious worship," [Judge Maley] said in his decision . . . [however] "Plaintiff was never denied access or entry to town meeting — she attended every meeting since 2000," he said.
Hackett, a para-educator, tutor and summer school instructor at the Richford school, has objected to the prayers each year since 2004. In 2007, she interrupted the meeting and pleaded with the voters to stop the prayers but they overrode her request with a vote, according to her complaint.
Two years later, the town moderator agreed to forgo the prayer after she spoke to him but when a community member asked for the prayer, the moderator called for a vote by a show of hands, the complaint said. Hackett was the only one who voted against it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Vt. judge rules against Town Meeting prayer" by Howard Weiss-Tisman, Brattleboro Reformer Staff 6/2/12
Now Vermont towns, like Brattleboro, that lead off their town meetings with a prayer, will be waiting to see if the decision is appealed and if the Supreme Court is willing to take up the issue.
Longtime Brattleboro Moderator Tim O’Connor points out that Brattleboro residents have been starting their annual town meeting with a prayer since 1753.
"Until there is a final ruling by the Supreme Court I think there is a place for it," said O’Connor. "’In God we trust.’ That’s what the Pledge of Allegiance says. Anyone who doesn’t want to participate doesn’t have to come in until after it has been said."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read ACLU Unable to Stop Prayer in Vermont, For Now and also read Prayer in America: Hidden Faith, or Public?
-- From "Court Rules Against Prayer At Franklin Town Meeting" posted at Vermont Public Radio 6/1/12
Marilyn Hackett of Franklin [backed in the lawsuit by the ACLU] said her belief that the Christian prayer read at the beginning of town meeting violated her constitutional right not to attend religious worship.
For years, the town moderator has invited a local pastor to read a prayer addressed to the Trinity that followed the Christian doctrine that God is three divine persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The town had said Hackett does not have to be present for the prayer to participate in the town meeting.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge bars Vt. town from prayer at town meeting" by The Associated Press 6/2/12
"The Court concludes that Ms. Hackett was compelled to attend religious worship," [Judge Maley] said in his decision . . . [however] "Plaintiff was never denied access or entry to town meeting — she attended every meeting since 2000," he said.
Hackett, a para-educator, tutor and summer school instructor at the Richford school, has objected to the prayers each year since 2004. In 2007, she interrupted the meeting and pleaded with the voters to stop the prayers but they overrode her request with a vote, according to her complaint.
Two years later, the town moderator agreed to forgo the prayer after she spoke to him but when a community member asked for the prayer, the moderator called for a vote by a show of hands, the complaint said. Hackett was the only one who voted against it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Vt. judge rules against Town Meeting prayer" by Howard Weiss-Tisman, Brattleboro Reformer Staff 6/2/12
Now Vermont towns, like Brattleboro, that lead off their town meetings with a prayer, will be waiting to see if the decision is appealed and if the Supreme Court is willing to take up the issue.
Longtime Brattleboro Moderator Tim O’Connor points out that Brattleboro residents have been starting their annual town meeting with a prayer since 1753.
"Until there is a final ruling by the Supreme Court I think there is a place for it," said O’Connor. "’In God we trust.’ That’s what the Pledge of Allegiance says. Anyone who doesn’t want to participate doesn’t have to come in until after it has been said."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, March 01, 2012
ACLU Unable to Stop Prayer in Vermont, For Now
Vermont Superior Court Judge Martin Maley indicated that he will not issue an injunction to stop prayer at the March 6th annual town meeting in Franklin County, despite pleas from an ACLU lawyer representing a lone resident who's offended by the name of Jesus.
For background, read ACLU Sues Vermont Town over Prayer
-- From "No injunction for Franklin County town meeting prayer" by Matt Sutkoski, BurlingtonFreePress.com 2/28/12
[Marilyn] Hackett is the Franklin woman who has been fighting the town’s tradition of starting the annual March town meeting with a religious invocation.
She says the prayer has no place in a government proceeding, that it violates the Vermont Constitution’s ban on compelling people to attend religious worship and runs counter to laws that bar restrictions on public accommodations due to religious beliefs.
Town officials and their attorney say nobody is compelling anybody to do anything: Hackett and anyone else can leave the room for a few minutes during the prayer, then come back and participate fully in town meeting.
Hackett’s been fighting this battle for years, but the issue intensified this year, becoming the subject of a legal case that people involved say eventually will end up before the Vermont Supreme Court.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Should prayer be part of Town Meeting Day?" by Jennifer Reading, WCAX-TV3 2/28/12
In Franklin, residents vote in person, not at the polls. Hackett says stepping out [of the room during the prayer] not only ostracizes her for her religious beliefs, but it violates the public accommodations act, which guarantees equal access to public spaces. The town says Hackett has never been forced to leave. She participates in the discussion, votes, and is allowed to raise her objection to the religious act in the "other business" part of the meeting every year.
Hackett's lawyers plan to appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court if they lose the case.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read ACLU Sues Vermont Town over Prayer
-- From "No injunction for Franklin County town meeting prayer" by Matt Sutkoski, BurlingtonFreePress.com 2/28/12
[Marilyn] Hackett is the Franklin woman who has been fighting the town’s tradition of starting the annual March town meeting with a religious invocation.
She says the prayer has no place in a government proceeding, that it violates the Vermont Constitution’s ban on compelling people to attend religious worship and runs counter to laws that bar restrictions on public accommodations due to religious beliefs.
Town officials and their attorney say nobody is compelling anybody to do anything: Hackett and anyone else can leave the room for a few minutes during the prayer, then come back and participate fully in town meeting.
Hackett’s been fighting this battle for years, but the issue intensified this year, becoming the subject of a legal case that people involved say eventually will end up before the Vermont Supreme Court.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Should prayer be part of Town Meeting Day?" by Jennifer Reading, WCAX-TV3 2/28/12
In Franklin, residents vote in person, not at the polls. Hackett says stepping out [of the room during the prayer] not only ostracizes her for her religious beliefs, but it violates the public accommodations act, which guarantees equal access to public spaces. The town says Hackett has never been forced to leave. She participates in the discussion, votes, and is allowed to raise her objection to the religious act in the "other business" part of the meeting every year.
Hackett's lawyers plan to appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court if they lose the case.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
ACLU Sues Christians over Lesbian 'Wedding'
"How will 'gay marriage' affect you?"
If you're a Christian who desires to follow God's commands, same-sex "marriage" is proving to diminish your religious liberty with regard to the public schooling of your children, getting a job, keeping your job, as well as the freedom to own and operate a business.
For background, read ACLU Threatens Schools: Must Teach Homosexuality and then read Reject Christ, Says Univ. to Grad Student and also read Teacher Suspended for Christian Beliefs at Home as well as Homosexuals Sue IL Christians over Their Faith
-- From "ACLU Sues ‘Family-Friendly’ Inn for Refusing to Host Lesbian Wedding Reception" by Susan Jones, CNSNews.com 7/21/11
The Wildflower Inn is owned by a "devout, practicing Catholic family who believes in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman," its Facebook page says. "We have never refused rooms or dining or employment to gays and lesbians."
The lesbian couple, Kate Baker and Ming Linsley, plan to marry in Vermont -- one of six states where homosexual marriage is legal -- this fall. Last October, Ming's mother, Channie Peters, said she contacted the Vermont Convention Bureau, looking for a place to host the reception. The Wildflower Inn in Lydonville, Vermont, was on the list.
According to the ACLU, "On November 5, Channie spoke by telephone with a representative of the Wildflower Inn to discuss details about planning the reception. During the conversation, the Wildflower Inn employee made a reference to 'the bride and groom,' and Channie clarified that the reception would involve two brides."
Shortly after getting off the phone, Channie says she received an email from an employee at the inn, telling her in part, "After our conversation, I checked in with my Innkeepers and unfortunately due to their personal feelings, they do not host gay receptions at our facility.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Vermont Inn Denies Discriminating Against Same-Sex Wedding Reception" by The Associated Press 8/23/11
In a court filing Tuesday, a lawyer for Wildflower Inn owners Jim and Mary O'Reilly said that they were never told about the lesbian couple's request to hold their wedding reception and that the inn's meeting and events director wasn't authorized to reject requests from same-sex couples.
Baker and Linsley, who live in Brooklyn, said at least two other same-sex couples also were refused because of the "no-gay-reception policy" at the inn in Lyndonville, a scenic village of about 1,500 residents in the state's Northeast Kingdom, a popular recreation destination between the Green Mountains and the Connecticut River.
"We have never refused rooms or dining or employment to gays or lesbians," [the O'Reillys] said in a statement released in response to media inquiries. "Many of our guests have been same-sex couples. We welcome and treat all people with respect and dignity. We do not, however, feel that we can offer our personal services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same-sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in."
In their first court filing to answer the suit, the inn's owners insisted that applying Vermont's Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act would violate their right to free speech and freedom of association by forcing them to hold "expressive events."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read 'Gay Rights' Winning, Loss of Religious Liberty Documented - Washington Post writer demonstrates it's a "zero sum" game: Winning homosexual 'rights' means Christians must lose freedom of religion.
If you're a Christian who desires to follow God's commands, same-sex "marriage" is proving to diminish your religious liberty with regard to the public schooling of your children, getting a job, keeping your job, as well as the freedom to own and operate a business.
For background, read ACLU Threatens Schools: Must Teach Homosexuality and then read Reject Christ, Says Univ. to Grad Student and also read Teacher Suspended for Christian Beliefs at Home as well as Homosexuals Sue IL Christians over Their Faith
-- From "ACLU Sues ‘Family-Friendly’ Inn for Refusing to Host Lesbian Wedding Reception" by Susan Jones, CNSNews.com 7/21/11
The Wildflower Inn is owned by a "devout, practicing Catholic family who believes in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman," its Facebook page says. "We have never refused rooms or dining or employment to gays and lesbians."
The lesbian couple, Kate Baker and Ming Linsley, plan to marry in Vermont -- one of six states where homosexual marriage is legal -- this fall. Last October, Ming's mother, Channie Peters, said she contacted the Vermont Convention Bureau, looking for a place to host the reception. The Wildflower Inn in Lydonville, Vermont, was on the list.
According to the ACLU, "On November 5, Channie spoke by telephone with a representative of the Wildflower Inn to discuss details about planning the reception. During the conversation, the Wildflower Inn employee made a reference to 'the bride and groom,' and Channie clarified that the reception would involve two brides."
Shortly after getting off the phone, Channie says she received an email from an employee at the inn, telling her in part, "After our conversation, I checked in with my Innkeepers and unfortunately due to their personal feelings, they do not host gay receptions at our facility.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Vermont Inn Denies Discriminating Against Same-Sex Wedding Reception" by The Associated Press 8/23/11
In a court filing Tuesday, a lawyer for Wildflower Inn owners Jim and Mary O'Reilly said that they were never told about the lesbian couple's request to hold their wedding reception and that the inn's meeting and events director wasn't authorized to reject requests from same-sex couples.
Baker and Linsley, who live in Brooklyn, said at least two other same-sex couples also were refused because of the "no-gay-reception policy" at the inn in Lyndonville, a scenic village of about 1,500 residents in the state's Northeast Kingdom, a popular recreation destination between the Green Mountains and the Connecticut River.
"We have never refused rooms or dining or employment to gays or lesbians," [the O'Reillys] said in a statement released in response to media inquiries. "Many of our guests have been same-sex couples. We welcome and treat all people with respect and dignity. We do not, however, feel that we can offer our personal services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same-sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in."
In their first court filing to answer the suit, the inn's owners insisted that applying Vermont's Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act would violate their right to free speech and freedom of association by forcing them to hold "expressive events."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read 'Gay Rights' Winning, Loss of Religious Liberty Documented - Washington Post writer demonstrates it's a "zero sum" game: Winning homosexual 'rights' means Christians must lose freedom of religion.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Jesus, God Almighty Censored at Vermont Graduation
Kyle Gearwar, valedictorian at Fair Haven Union High School, prepared a commencement speech but the school's lawyer forbade him from delivering the portion that praised the Lord for how He had changed his life.
For background, read how a higher court upheld a Christian student's free speech rights in a Texas graduation.
-- From "Vt. high school grad says speech censored of God" by The Associated Press 6/15/11
Fair Haven Union High School principal Brett Blanchard says Gearwar was allowed to mention God and Jesus in the accepted portion of his speech.
But Blanchard told the Burlington Free Press public schools have to be careful about allowing someone to preach their religion at a school-sanctioned event.
Gearwar said school officials felt he was promoting religion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Fair Haven's censorship of valedictorian's speech on God reflects church-state tensions" by Terri Hallenbeck, Burlington Free Press Staff Writer 6/14/11
Gearwar’s would-be speech highlights a difficult balancing act public school officials perform at this time of year as students deliver personal speeches on stage at school-sponsored events.
“It is a fine line here. Here’s freedom of speech and here’s separation of church and state,” Fair Haven Union High School principal Brett Blanchard said. “The line is generally the difference between proselytizing and personalizing.”
“They basically said those statements were promoting religion,” Gearwar said Tuesday.
[According to Cheryl Hanna, a professor at Vermont Law School] . . . Courts have generally leaned toward allowing the speech, she said, if it’s clear the school is not sanctioning the speech. There haven’t been enough decisions, though, to clarify the issue for school officials, she said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Fair Haven valedictorian says school censored God speech" by Gordon Dritschilo, Staff Writer 6/11/11
The class of 2011 valedictorian started off his remarks at the school’s graduation ceremony Friday thanking teachers, family and his church youth group and saying his class was one of the most intelligent and competitive the school had ever produced, featuring champion athletes, all-state musicians and “poetry wizards.”
Then, with a wavering voice, he described how his speech had been “cut, redone and entirely trashed” by school lawyers due to religious references he wanted to include.
“It saddens me it had to come to this,” he said. “I am not trying to cause a problem or call attention to myself. I have always dreamed about speaking about God in front of my school.”
Gearwar said he understood the school’s administrators were bound by the law but said it seemed to him the First Amendment was not being properly applied — a comment that drew applause from the audience.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Below are excerpts (of the censored portions) from "Full text of Kyle Gearwar's Fair Haven Union High School graduation speech" posted at Rutland Herald 6/14/11
I thank God for everything He has done for me and the strength He has given me to resist the urge to defy the command the school has given me. Again thank you for coming tonight and Congratulations to the 2011 Fair Haven Union High School Graduates.
Now I would like to share a story, actually the testimony of my life, to show you what I have gone through and how I got here. Some of you may be offended with this story but this is what I feel God has laid on my heart and is a message this school needs to hear. I have grown up a in a Christian home all my life thanks to my amazing parents, but as many of these people can vouch for, I do not always act like I am Born Again. Thankfully, Jesus said I am not perfect and God forgives me for every sin I commit. My testimony is this. For the last few weeks I was lost in anger and depression. I kept it hidden quite well from most though. I was so burdened with grief and angst that I couldn't focus on my life or those around me. Finally it all broke loose and I couldn't contain myself any longer. I lashed out in anger at some of my best friends and cried for hours on end. I was so broken that I call a friend and mentor of mine who went through some of the same issues as I have. I begged him to get rid of this hate I had for myself and those that had done me wrong. He reminded me of the song that includes these words, “Turn your eyes upon Jesus, look full in his beautiful face, and the cares of this world will grow strangely dim.” The following day I picked up a book by a pastor out of Texas. He talks about letting go of the past and looking for the future God has for those who seek him. The reason I acted the way I have for so long was because I harbored this extreme dislike for myself and held onto the things people have said and done to me. But as soon as I gave this to God and let him fight my battles my entire life has changed. I don't dwell on the past. I have peace and can finally enjoy every moment God has given me, good or bad. I wouldn't be standing before you without the blessings God has given me through my tough situations. He is the reason I am the man I am today, made new through Jesus death on the cross.
I have my own unique issues and problems, but they can include others like substance abuse, relationship problems, anger, pride, or depression. The way to escape this is through submitting to God. I can't get through all my difficulties in my own strength, but with God I can, and there are many people in this world whose lives have changed because of Him. Jeremiah 29:11 says “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, they are plans for good and not for evil, to give you a hope and a future.” I needed to let go of the things that I wasn't proud of and give my life to the One who created me. God knew me before I was born and wanted a relationship with me from that very day. And trust me it was well worth the effort to submit to God and not let the world get the best of me.
Now I can live in freedom from sin.
Now I can look at each new day with a smile.
Now I can face each trouble and problem with a glad heart.
Now I can live with God and not try to barely survive without Him.
Amen.
To read the entire speech above, CLICK HERE.
“I have always dreamed of speaking about God in front of my school as the valedictorian,” he said in his speech. “This was the message God gave to me, and I am not allowed to share it with you even though it is my testimony, the most important change my life has ever experienced, and the one thing that I stand for no matter what.”
For background, read how a higher court upheld a Christian student's free speech rights in a Texas graduation.
-- From "Vt. high school grad says speech censored of God" by The Associated Press 6/15/11
Fair Haven Union High School principal Brett Blanchard says Gearwar was allowed to mention God and Jesus in the accepted portion of his speech.
But Blanchard told the Burlington Free Press public schools have to be careful about allowing someone to preach their religion at a school-sanctioned event.
Gearwar said school officials felt he was promoting religion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Fair Haven's censorship of valedictorian's speech on God reflects church-state tensions" by Terri Hallenbeck, Burlington Free Press Staff Writer 6/14/11
Gearwar’s would-be speech highlights a difficult balancing act public school officials perform at this time of year as students deliver personal speeches on stage at school-sponsored events.
“It is a fine line here. Here’s freedom of speech and here’s separation of church and state,” Fair Haven Union High School principal Brett Blanchard said. “The line is generally the difference between proselytizing and personalizing.”
“They basically said those statements were promoting religion,” Gearwar said Tuesday.
[According to Cheryl Hanna, a professor at Vermont Law School] . . . Courts have generally leaned toward allowing the speech, she said, if it’s clear the school is not sanctioning the speech. There haven’t been enough decisions, though, to clarify the issue for school officials, she said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Fair Haven valedictorian says school censored God speech" by Gordon Dritschilo, Staff Writer 6/11/11
The class of 2011 valedictorian started off his remarks at the school’s graduation ceremony Friday thanking teachers, family and his church youth group and saying his class was one of the most intelligent and competitive the school had ever produced, featuring champion athletes, all-state musicians and “poetry wizards.”
Then, with a wavering voice, he described how his speech had been “cut, redone and entirely trashed” by school lawyers due to religious references he wanted to include.
“It saddens me it had to come to this,” he said. “I am not trying to cause a problem or call attention to myself. I have always dreamed about speaking about God in front of my school.”
Gearwar said he understood the school’s administrators were bound by the law but said it seemed to him the First Amendment was not being properly applied — a comment that drew applause from the audience.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Below are excerpts (of the censored portions) from "Full text of Kyle Gearwar's Fair Haven Union High School graduation speech" posted at Rutland Herald 6/14/11
I thank God for everything He has done for me and the strength He has given me to resist the urge to defy the command the school has given me. Again thank you for coming tonight and Congratulations to the 2011 Fair Haven Union High School Graduates.
Now I would like to share a story, actually the testimony of my life, to show you what I have gone through and how I got here. Some of you may be offended with this story but this is what I feel God has laid on my heart and is a message this school needs to hear. I have grown up a in a Christian home all my life thanks to my amazing parents, but as many of these people can vouch for, I do not always act like I am Born Again. Thankfully, Jesus said I am not perfect and God forgives me for every sin I commit. My testimony is this. For the last few weeks I was lost in anger and depression. I kept it hidden quite well from most though. I was so burdened with grief and angst that I couldn't focus on my life or those around me. Finally it all broke loose and I couldn't contain myself any longer. I lashed out in anger at some of my best friends and cried for hours on end. I was so broken that I call a friend and mentor of mine who went through some of the same issues as I have. I begged him to get rid of this hate I had for myself and those that had done me wrong. He reminded me of the song that includes these words, “Turn your eyes upon Jesus, look full in his beautiful face, and the cares of this world will grow strangely dim.” The following day I picked up a book by a pastor out of Texas. He talks about letting go of the past and looking for the future God has for those who seek him. The reason I acted the way I have for so long was because I harbored this extreme dislike for myself and held onto the things people have said and done to me. But as soon as I gave this to God and let him fight my battles my entire life has changed. I don't dwell on the past. I have peace and can finally enjoy every moment God has given me, good or bad. I wouldn't be standing before you without the blessings God has given me through my tough situations. He is the reason I am the man I am today, made new through Jesus death on the cross.
I have my own unique issues and problems, but they can include others like substance abuse, relationship problems, anger, pride, or depression. The way to escape this is through submitting to God. I can't get through all my difficulties in my own strength, but with God I can, and there are many people in this world whose lives have changed because of Him. Jeremiah 29:11 says “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, they are plans for good and not for evil, to give you a hope and a future.” I needed to let go of the things that I wasn't proud of and give my life to the One who created me. God knew me before I was born and wanted a relationship with me from that very day. And trust me it was well worth the effort to submit to God and not let the world get the best of me.
Now I can live in freedom from sin.
Now I can look at each new day with a smile.
Now I can face each trouble and problem with a glad heart.
Now I can live with God and not try to barely survive without Him.
Amen.
To read the entire speech above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, March 05, 2011
ACLU Sues VT Town over Prayer
Alleging a violation of Vermont's Constitution and the state's Public Accommodations Act, the Vermont branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed suit against the Town of Franklin and moderator Tim Magnant for repeatedly opening Franklin's town meeting with a Christian prayer.
-- From "ACLU Sues Franklin Over Town Meeting Prayer" by The Associated Press 3/3/11
The Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has sued the town of Franklin on behalf of resident Marilyn Hackett.
The lawsuit says starting the meeting with a prayer has been done for about ten years. The ACLU argues that praying at the start of the public meeting violates Vermont's constitution and the state ‘public accommodations act'.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Franklin prays, ACLU sues" by Michelle Monroe, St. Albans Messenger 3/3/11
For several years, the Franklin resident has objected to prayer at the Franklin Town Meeting, finally telling the selectboard last year that if prayer continued she might file suit.
In their suit, attorneys for Hackett cite Article 3 of Vermont's Constitution, which states: “No person ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship… contrary to the dictates of conscience, nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments… and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship.”
Franklin still conducts a traditional annual town meeting, with all issues including the budget and election of officers decided from the floor.
Last year, then Secretary of State Deb Markowitz told the Messenger she advised towns against opening town meeting with a prayer and to use a non-denominational invocation because doing otherwise put them at risk of a lawsuit.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "ACLU Sues Franklin Over Town Meeting Prayer" by The Associated Press 3/3/11
The Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has sued the town of Franklin on behalf of resident Marilyn Hackett.
The lawsuit says starting the meeting with a prayer has been done for about ten years. The ACLU argues that praying at the start of the public meeting violates Vermont's constitution and the state ‘public accommodations act'.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Franklin prays, ACLU sues" by Michelle Monroe, St. Albans Messenger 3/3/11
For several years, the Franklin resident has objected to prayer at the Franklin Town Meeting, finally telling the selectboard last year that if prayer continued she might file suit.
In their suit, attorneys for Hackett cite Article 3 of Vermont's Constitution, which states: “No person ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship… contrary to the dictates of conscience, nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments… and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship.”
Franklin still conducts a traditional annual town meeting, with all issues including the budget and election of officers decided from the floor.
Last year, then Secretary of State Deb Markowitz told the Messenger she advised towns against opening town meeting with a prayer and to use a non-denominational invocation because doing otherwise put them at risk of a lawsuit.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Vermont Student Sues over Co-ed Showers & Toilets
The female Green Mountain College student claims state building codes require restroom privacy, which is not provided to her with "flimsy plastic curtains" and men urinating in her view.
-- From "Suit filed over Green Mountain College co-ed bathrooms" by Tim Johnson, Burlington Free Press Staff Writer, 12/19/09
Jennifer Weiler, 19, a first-year student from Sandgate, contends that the college’s failure to designate separate bathrooms for males and females violates state-adopted building and plumbing codes that the Department of Public Safety is charged with enforcing. DPS is listed as the defendant in the civil complaint, filed Monday in Washington County Superior Court.
DPS has reportedly taken the position that the code requirements don’t apply to existing buildings in which the plumbing hasn’t been changed or altered, as is apparently the case with the college’s dorms. A Green Mountain College spokesman declined comment on the suit Friday.
Green Mountain College, a private institution in Poultney, was all-female until it went co-ed in 1975. Today, it, has 820 undergraduates and seven residence halls. All the dorms are co-ed — some floors are single-gender, some are mixed.
Most dormitories across the country, including those at the University of Vermont and at Champlain College, are co-ed. St. Michael’s College, however, does not have co-ed dorms.
“The co-ed bathrooms have no doors on the showers, just flimsy plastic curtains,” the suit states. “Men will use the toilets without closing the door. Plaintiff and others are uncomfortable under these circumstances.”
“I can’t think of a single public building (other than a dorm) that has a co-ed bathrooms where men and women co-mingle,” said Pamela Moreau, Weiler’s lawyer, in an e-mail. “We understand that some people are fine with co-ed bathrooms, but we don’t think it should be forced on people who object to them, for whatever reason.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Suit filed over Green Mountain College co-ed bathrooms" by Tim Johnson, Burlington Free Press Staff Writer, 12/19/09
Jennifer Weiler, 19, a first-year student from Sandgate, contends that the college’s failure to designate separate bathrooms for males and females violates state-adopted building and plumbing codes that the Department of Public Safety is charged with enforcing. DPS is listed as the defendant in the civil complaint, filed Monday in Washington County Superior Court.
DPS has reportedly taken the position that the code requirements don’t apply to existing buildings in which the plumbing hasn’t been changed or altered, as is apparently the case with the college’s dorms. A Green Mountain College spokesman declined comment on the suit Friday.
Green Mountain College, a private institution in Poultney, was all-female until it went co-ed in 1975. Today, it, has 820 undergraduates and seven residence halls. All the dorms are co-ed — some floors are single-gender, some are mixed.
Most dormitories across the country, including those at the University of Vermont and at Champlain College, are co-ed. St. Michael’s College, however, does not have co-ed dorms.
“The co-ed bathrooms have no doors on the showers, just flimsy plastic curtains,” the suit states. “Men will use the toilets without closing the door. Plaintiff and others are uncomfortable under these circumstances.”
“I can’t think of a single public building (other than a dorm) that has a co-ed bathrooms where men and women co-mingle,” said Pamela Moreau, Weiler’s lawyer, in an e-mail. “We understand that some people are fine with co-ed bathrooms, but we don’t think it should be forced on people who object to them, for whatever reason.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Vermont Judge Orders Child from Mother to Lesbian
The court ruling granted sole custody of a Christian girl to a lesbian ex-partner of the girl's mother.
UPDATE 8/17/12: Lesbian sues Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University in custody debacle
UPDATE 8/12/12: Mennonite pastor on trial for helping mother & child escape lesbian's custody
UPDATE 4/24/11: Minister to testify in same-sex parent case
UPDATE 6/3/10: Mom and daughter flee U.S.
UPDATE 1/4/10: Lesbian Pursues Child Through Courts
UPDATE 1/2/10: Mother Defies Court Order
UPDATE 1/28/10: ABC News (Nightline) report
-- From "Judge grants nonbiological mom custody" by Anne D'Innocenzio, Associated Press Retail Writer 11/23/09
Family Court Judge William Cohen awarded custody of the 7-year-old to Janet Jenkins of Fair Haven . . . after finding the biological mother, Lisa Miller, in contempt of court earlier this year for denying Jenkins access to the girl.
Miller, who lives in Virginia and renounced homosexuality after the couple broke up in 2003, plans to appeal.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lesbian awarded custody of Christian's only child" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 12/5/09
Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, told WND the recent order from the Vermont judge that Lisa Miller turn over her young daughter, Isabella, to the lesbian ex-partner, Janet Jenkins, on New Year's Day is being appealed.
In the interim, a separate court hearing on the dispute is scheduled to be heard in a Virginia court during this coming week.
Ultimately, he said, the issue probably will have to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, because the case is being moved along parallel tracks in both Vermont, where Jenkins lives, and Virginia, where the Millers live.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 8/17/12: Lesbian sues Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University in custody debacle
UPDATE 8/12/12: Mennonite pastor on trial for helping mother & child escape lesbian's custody
UPDATE 4/24/11: Minister to testify in same-sex parent case
UPDATE 6/3/10: Mom and daughter flee U.S.
UPDATE 1/4/10: Lesbian Pursues Child Through Courts
UPDATE 1/2/10: Mother Defies Court Order
UPDATE 1/28/10: ABC News (Nightline) report
-- From "Judge grants nonbiological mom custody" by Anne D'Innocenzio, Associated Press Retail Writer 11/23/09
Family Court Judge William Cohen awarded custody of the 7-year-old to Janet Jenkins of Fair Haven . . . after finding the biological mother, Lisa Miller, in contempt of court earlier this year for denying Jenkins access to the girl.
Miller, who lives in Virginia and renounced homosexuality after the couple broke up in 2003, plans to appeal.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lesbian awarded custody of Christian's only child" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 12/5/09
Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, told WND the recent order from the Vermont judge that Lisa Miller turn over her young daughter, Isabella, to the lesbian ex-partner, Janet Jenkins, on New Year's Day is being appealed.
In the interim, a separate court hearing on the dispute is scheduled to be heard in a Virginia court during this coming week.
Ultimately, he said, the issue probably will have to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, because the case is being moved along parallel tracks in both Vermont, where Jenkins lives, and Virginia, where the Millers live.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Maine Same-sex 'Marriage' Vote is Toss-up
Just six months after Governor John Baldacci signed a law legalizing gay marriage in Maine, voters will decide whether to preserve it, making the state the latest battleground in the national fight over same-sex marriage.
-- From "Same-sex marriage fight roils Maine" by Sarah Schweitzer, Boston Globe Staff 10/20/09
For both sides, the Nov. 3 ballot initiative, Question One, is seen as a crucial juncture. Opponents want to show that momentum has shifted to their side, building on last year’s California vote to approve a ban on gay marriage. Supporters - with victories in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Iowa - are eager to demonstrate that California was a temporary setback.
But the outcome for either side is far from assured. Polls indicate that the contest is so far evenly divided in the independent-minded state, where conservative moral beliefs and entrenched live-and-let-live attitudes often go together.
Both sides have invoked “Maine values” in their play for votes, particularly among Catholics, who are believed to be crucial swing votes. Supporters of same-sex marriage have appealed to what they call Mainers’ sense of fairness and equality, arguing that even if they disagree with gay marriage, they should permit others to live the way they want to live. Opponents have argued that gay marriage “throws to the trash heap Maine’s decades-old interest in traditional marriage.”
Maine is among five New England states that have legalized same-sex marriage. Massachusetts and Connecticut legalized same-sex marriage as a result of judicial decisions in 2003 and 2008, respectively, while Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire followed this spring with legislative action. Iowa is the only state beyond New England where gay and lesbian people can wed.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Same-sex marriage fight roils Maine" by Sarah Schweitzer, Boston Globe Staff 10/20/09
For both sides, the Nov. 3 ballot initiative, Question One, is seen as a crucial juncture. Opponents want to show that momentum has shifted to their side, building on last year’s California vote to approve a ban on gay marriage. Supporters - with victories in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Iowa - are eager to demonstrate that California was a temporary setback.
But the outcome for either side is far from assured. Polls indicate that the contest is so far evenly divided in the independent-minded state, where conservative moral beliefs and entrenched live-and-let-live attitudes often go together.
Both sides have invoked “Maine values” in their play for votes, particularly among Catholics, who are believed to be crucial swing votes. Supporters of same-sex marriage have appealed to what they call Mainers’ sense of fairness and equality, arguing that even if they disagree with gay marriage, they should permit others to live the way they want to live. Opponents have argued that gay marriage “throws to the trash heap Maine’s decades-old interest in traditional marriage.”
Maine is among five New England states that have legalized same-sex marriage. Massachusetts and Connecticut legalized same-sex marriage as a result of judicial decisions in 2003 and 2008, respectively, while Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire followed this spring with legislative action. Iowa is the only state beyond New England where gay and lesbian people can wed.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Fed Judge Permits 'Under God' in Schools
Federal New Hampshire court tosses lawsuit against school districts alleging improperly coerced children reciting Pledge of Allegiance
-- From "Federal judge keeps ’under God’ in Hanover pledge" by Associated Press 10/3/09
On Friday U.S. District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe dismissed claims filed in 2007 by district parents and The Freedom From Religion Foundation against the Hanover School District and the Dresden School District, located in New Hampshire and Vermont.
The groups claimed their children’s constitutional rights were violated by exposing them daily to the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase "under God."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge tosses challenge to 'under God'" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 10/2/09
"The court reached the only decision that it could – the lawsuit was dismissed and the court concluded that the New Hampshire statute giving students an opportunity to voluntarily recite the Pledge in school is constitutional and consistent with the First Amendment. We're pleased the court’s decision underscores the arguments made in our amicus brief: the Pledge is a time-honored exercise that embraces patriotism, not religion," [said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ]
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe applied several different Establishment Clause tests and held that the school districts had not violated federal standards.
The case was launched in 2007 by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, represented by California lawyer Michael Newdow, who has brought a multitude of lawsuits over the Pledge of Allegiance over the years.
. . . the court decision said the "New Hampshire Pledge statute has a secular legislative purpose. It was enacted to enhance instruction in the nation's history, and foster a sense of patriotism. Its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. It does not foster excessive government involvement with religion."
"The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion, or coercing one to support or participate in religion, a religious exercise, or prayer. It does not mandate that government refrain from all civic, cultural, and historic references to a God. The line is often difficult to draw, of course, and in some senses the drawn line yet has some mobility," the court said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Federal judge keeps ’under God’ in Hanover pledge" by Associated Press 10/3/09
On Friday U.S. District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe dismissed claims filed in 2007 by district parents and The Freedom From Religion Foundation against the Hanover School District and the Dresden School District, located in New Hampshire and Vermont.
The groups claimed their children’s constitutional rights were violated by exposing them daily to the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase "under God."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge tosses challenge to 'under God'" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 10/2/09
"The court reached the only decision that it could – the lawsuit was dismissed and the court concluded that the New Hampshire statute giving students an opportunity to voluntarily recite the Pledge in school is constitutional and consistent with the First Amendment. We're pleased the court’s decision underscores the arguments made in our amicus brief: the Pledge is a time-honored exercise that embraces patriotism, not religion," [said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ]
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe applied several different Establishment Clause tests and held that the school districts had not violated federal standards.
The case was launched in 2007 by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, represented by California lawyer Michael Newdow, who has brought a multitude of lawsuits over the Pledge of Allegiance over the years.
. . . the court decision said the "New Hampshire Pledge statute has a secular legislative purpose. It was enacted to enhance instruction in the nation's history, and foster a sense of patriotism. Its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. It does not foster excessive government involvement with religion."
"The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion, or coercing one to support or participate in religion, a religious exercise, or prayer. It does not mandate that government refrain from all civic, cultural, and historic references to a God. The line is often difficult to draw, of course, and in some senses the drawn line yet has some mobility," the court said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Christians Snooze as Same-sex 'Marriage' Sweeps Nation
While homosexual advocates are concentrating on the destruction of marriage in all of New England by 2012, the Iowa Supreme Court’s approval of same-sex marriage on Friday is "icing on the cake."
Time is running out; there's ONE way to preserve marriage: A federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Oops! Too late - UPDATE 5/9/13: 'Gay Marriage' Sweeps New England
-- From "A Push Is On for Same-Sex Marriage Rights Across New England" by Abby Goodnough, New York Times 4/5/09
Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage since 2004, and Connecticut began allowing it last fall. The Vermont Legislature just voted to let same-sex couples marry, and supporters hope to gather enough votes to override a veto promised by Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican.
New Hampshire is not far behind; its House of Representatives approved a same-sex marriage bill last month. The legislatures in Maine and Rhode Island are considering their own versions, though they are not as far along in the process.
Across New England, advocacy groups have been raising money, training volunteers and lobbying voters and lawmakers as part of a campaign they call “Six by Twelve,” led by the legal advocacy group that persuaded the Supreme Courts in Massachusetts and Connecticut to allow same-sex marriage in 2003 and 2008.
As in most New England states, voters in Iowa cannot initiate constitutional amendments, a common strategy for blocking same-sex marriage elsewhere.
And at least six states outside New England (Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Washington) have same-sex marriage bills before their legislatures this year . . .
Critics say the success of the movement in New England is largely because courts and legislatures, not voters, are making the decisions. Voters have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in 26 states since the Massachusetts law, a landmark, took effect; the constitutions of four other states also limit marriage to heterosexuals.
New England is also the least religious region of the country . . .
“We have a very methodical way of going out and training folks in the communities on this as their own personal issue,” said [Betsy Smith, executive director of EqualityMaine], who has a staff of 10 full-time field organizers. “They talk to their family and neighbors and co-workers, whether they are gay or straight, about how important it is for everyone to have access to marriage.”
“Every time we talk about this issue we break down barriers,” said State Representative James Splaine of New Hampshire, an openly gay Democrat who sponsored the bill that will now move to the State Senate. “And if we are not successful this year, we will be eventually.”
New England is “probably considered nutty by a lot of the country,” said Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and so the Iowa decision could have more national resonance.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Time is running out; there's ONE way to preserve marriage: A federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Oops! Too late - UPDATE 5/9/13: 'Gay Marriage' Sweeps New England
-- From "A Push Is On for Same-Sex Marriage Rights Across New England" by Abby Goodnough, New York Times 4/5/09
Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage since 2004, and Connecticut began allowing it last fall. The Vermont Legislature just voted to let same-sex couples marry, and supporters hope to gather enough votes to override a veto promised by Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican.
New Hampshire is not far behind; its House of Representatives approved a same-sex marriage bill last month. The legislatures in Maine and Rhode Island are considering their own versions, though they are not as far along in the process.
Across New England, advocacy groups have been raising money, training volunteers and lobbying voters and lawmakers as part of a campaign they call “Six by Twelve,” led by the legal advocacy group that persuaded the Supreme Courts in Massachusetts and Connecticut to allow same-sex marriage in 2003 and 2008.
As in most New England states, voters in Iowa cannot initiate constitutional amendments, a common strategy for blocking same-sex marriage elsewhere.
And at least six states outside New England (Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Washington) have same-sex marriage bills before their legislatures this year . . .
Critics say the success of the movement in New England is largely because courts and legislatures, not voters, are making the decisions. Voters have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in 26 states since the Massachusetts law, a landmark, took effect; the constitutions of four other states also limit marriage to heterosexuals.
New England is also the least religious region of the country . . .
“We have a very methodical way of going out and training folks in the communities on this as their own personal issue,” said [Betsy Smith, executive director of EqualityMaine], who has a staff of 10 full-time field organizers. “They talk to their family and neighbors and co-workers, whether they are gay or straight, about how important it is for everyone to have access to marriage.”
“Every time we talk about this issue we break down barriers,” said State Representative James Splaine of New Hampshire, an openly gay Democrat who sponsored the bill that will now move to the State Senate. “And if we are not successful this year, we will be eventually.”
New England is “probably considered nutty by a lot of the country,” said Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and so the Iowa decision could have more national resonance.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Vermont Legislature Favors Same-Sex 'Marriage'
Little more than five years after the Supreme Judicial Court legalized marriage for same-sex couples in Massachusetts, gay advocates say they're coming closer to their goal of extending gay marriage to all New England states by 2012.
-- From "Same-sex marriage bills gain in N.E." by David Abel, Boston Globe Staff 3/24/09
In a special session, the Vermont Senate yesterday voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Later this week, a similar bill is scheduled for a vote in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Next month a legislative panel in Maine will hold a hearing on a bill to allow gay couples to marry, just as lawmakers did last month in Rhode Island.
"One of the advantages of New England is that we share geography and media markets, so folks in other states have seen marriage in Massachusetts for five years and can see the good," said Lee Swislow, executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who has called for New England to be a "marriage equality zone." "I think the efforts build on each other. What happens in one state inspires folks in other states, and hopefully it will inspire the rest of the country."
Last year, Connecticut joined Massachusetts to become the second state in the country to allow same-sex marriage. Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and California permit civil unions, but advocates for gay marriage say it does not afford the same rights as marriage.
That argument did not resonate yesterday in Vermont, where senators voted 26-4 in favor of same-sex marriage. The bill will be taken up later this week in the House, where lawmakers said it is expected to win a majority vote, though by a thinner margin.
"This was a tremendous victory for equal rights," said Senator John Campbell, majority leader of the Vermont Senate and chief sponsor of the bill. "Vermont will be the first state to enact this legislation without a court order. It was pretty clear that the facts dictated this. This is an equal rights issue."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Same-sex marriage bills gain in N.E." by David Abel, Boston Globe Staff 3/24/09
In a special session, the Vermont Senate yesterday voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Later this week, a similar bill is scheduled for a vote in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Next month a legislative panel in Maine will hold a hearing on a bill to allow gay couples to marry, just as lawmakers did last month in Rhode Island.
"One of the advantages of New England is that we share geography and media markets, so folks in other states have seen marriage in Massachusetts for five years and can see the good," said Lee Swislow, executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who has called for New England to be a "marriage equality zone." "I think the efforts build on each other. What happens in one state inspires folks in other states, and hopefully it will inspire the rest of the country."
Last year, Connecticut joined Massachusetts to become the second state in the country to allow same-sex marriage. Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and California permit civil unions, but advocates for gay marriage say it does not afford the same rights as marriage.
That argument did not resonate yesterday in Vermont, where senators voted 26-4 in favor of same-sex marriage. The bill will be taken up later this week in the House, where lawmakers said it is expected to win a majority vote, though by a thinner margin.
"This was a tremendous victory for equal rights," said Senator John Campbell, majority leader of the Vermont Senate and chief sponsor of the bill. "Vermont will be the first state to enact this legislation without a court order. It was pretty clear that the facts dictated this. This is an equal rights issue."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Reaction to Losing on Election Day
"When conservative Christians lose at the polls, they react with quiet disappointment, reevaluation of political parties and traditional loyalties, and prayer for our nation and its leadership. But when the radical homosexual community loses an election, they fight back – literally."
-- From "Homosexuals not so 'gay' in California" commentary by Judge Roy Moore © 2008 WorldNetDaily 11/26/08
Americans who believe in traditional moral values like the right to life and one-man-one-woman marriage suffered a disappointing loss with the election of Barack Hussein Obama as president of the United States. The most liberal, pro-abortion president in our history, Obama also supports civil unions between people of the same sex. Conservatives were also frustrated by the rejection of pro-life measures at the polls in Colorado and South Dakota, and the failure of a law requiring parental notification for an abortion by a minor in California.
The homosexuals' response to the passage in California of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, has been marked by violence, hatred and anti-religious bigotry. Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22, a law passed in 2000 wherein the people of California had declared marriage to be only "between a man and a woman." Once again voicing their support for traditional marriage this Nov. 4, Californians approved Proposition 8, joining 29 other states where, by an average vote of 67 percent, the biblical definition of marriage has been protected in state constitutions. Proving to be the sorest of losers, thousands of angry homosexuals took to the streets to protest Proposition 8, even attacking Mormon and Christian churches in the process.
. . . Those who claimed that Proposition 8 was about "hate" are now showing what hate really looks like.
Homosexual riots in the streets and physical attacks on people of God seem more fitting for Sodom and Gomorrah than America. But those disturbing reactions reveal that radical homosexuals seek more than "tolerance" – they will not stop until they impose their immoral lifestyle on the rest of us, even to the point of making their perverse behavior legally sanctioned by law. Any setbacks are met by violent public tantrums and personal attacks.
While we must never adopt the unlawful and hateful tactics of radical homosexuals, Christians must continue to oppose their immoral agenda in our schools, courts and political establishments. We must pray for those who like the people of Sodom are still blinded by their sins. Finally, pray for our country and a return to the moral foundation that made us a great nation.
To read the entire commentary, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Homosexuals not so 'gay' in California" commentary by Judge Roy Moore © 2008 WorldNetDaily 11/26/08
Americans who believe in traditional moral values like the right to life and one-man-one-woman marriage suffered a disappointing loss with the election of Barack Hussein Obama as president of the United States. The most liberal, pro-abortion president in our history, Obama also supports civil unions between people of the same sex. Conservatives were also frustrated by the rejection of pro-life measures at the polls in Colorado and South Dakota, and the failure of a law requiring parental notification for an abortion by a minor in California.
The homosexuals' response to the passage in California of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, has been marked by violence, hatred and anti-religious bigotry. Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22, a law passed in 2000 wherein the people of California had declared marriage to be only "between a man and a woman." Once again voicing their support for traditional marriage this Nov. 4, Californians approved Proposition 8, joining 29 other states where, by an average vote of 67 percent, the biblical definition of marriage has been protected in state constitutions. Proving to be the sorest of losers, thousands of angry homosexuals took to the streets to protest Proposition 8, even attacking Mormon and Christian churches in the process.
. . . Those who claimed that Proposition 8 was about "hate" are now showing what hate really looks like.
Homosexual riots in the streets and physical attacks on people of God seem more fitting for Sodom and Gomorrah than America. But those disturbing reactions reveal that radical homosexuals seek more than "tolerance" – they will not stop until they impose their immoral lifestyle on the rest of us, even to the point of making their perverse behavior legally sanctioned by law. Any setbacks are met by violent public tantrums and personal attacks.
While we must never adopt the unlawful and hateful tactics of radical homosexuals, Christians must continue to oppose their immoral agenda in our schools, courts and political establishments. We must pray for those who like the people of Sodom are still blinded by their sins. Finally, pray for our country and a return to the moral foundation that made us a great nation.
To read the entire commentary, CLICK HERE.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Vermont House Rejects Assisted Suicide - "Incredible Victory" Says Anti-Euthanasia Leader
From "Vermont House Rejects Assisted Suicide - "Incredible Victory" Says Anti-Euthanasia Leader" by Gudrun Schultz, posted 3/22/07, at LifeSite.net
The Vermont House of Representatives voted against a proposal yesterday that would have made the state the second in the country to permit physician-assisted suicide, following Oregon.
House members voted 82-63 against the measure euphemistically entitled "Patient Choice and Control at End of Life," after a week of impassioned debate on the issue, the Associated Press reported. The legislation would have made it legal for a doctor to assist a patient with a terminal illness to commit suicide by prescribe lethal medication.
"In my view, (the bill) goes too far in enforcing one group's preferences on the traditional values of others," said Rep. Harvey Otterman.
Read the rest of this article.
All laws force SOMEONE'S 'preferences' on others...
The Vermont House of Representatives voted against a proposal yesterday that would have made the state the second in the country to permit physician-assisted suicide, following Oregon.
House members voted 82-63 against the measure euphemistically entitled "Patient Choice and Control at End of Life," after a week of impassioned debate on the issue, the Associated Press reported. The legislation would have made it legal for a doctor to assist a patient with a terminal illness to commit suicide by prescribe lethal medication.
"In my view, (the bill) goes too far in enforcing one group's preferences on the traditional values of others," said Rep. Harvey Otterman.
Read the rest of this article.
All laws force SOMEONE'S 'preferences' on others...
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Vermont May Be the Next State to Legalize Assisted Suicide
From Vermont May Be the Next State to Legalize Assisted Suicide, by Gudrun Schultz, published Feb. 23rd, 2007, by LifeSite.net
BURLINGTON, Vermont, February 23, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Vermont legislature is set to begin a week of debate on assisted suicide, following the introduction of a House bill that would see Vermont follow Oregon in authorizing doctors to prescribe lethal medication.
A bill mimicking Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law was presented in the House early in the 2007-2008 legislative session. Entitled “Patient Choice and Control at End of Life,” House Bill 44 was signed by five sponsors including two Democrats, a Republican, a Progressive and an independent.
Debate on the volatile issue will open Friday with presentations from leaders on both sides of the argument before a House committee, the Associated Press reported earlier today, as well as a public hearing to gain a sense of public opinion on the issue.
Advocates for the disabled have been among the strongest objectors, led by the Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights.
Read the rest of this article.
BURLINGTON, Vermont, February 23, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Vermont legislature is set to begin a week of debate on assisted suicide, following the introduction of a House bill that would see Vermont follow Oregon in authorizing doctors to prescribe lethal medication.
A bill mimicking Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law was presented in the House early in the 2007-2008 legislative session. Entitled “Patient Choice and Control at End of Life,” House Bill 44 was signed by five sponsors including two Democrats, a Republican, a Progressive and an independent.
Debate on the volatile issue will open Friday with presentations from leaders on both sides of the argument before a House committee, the Associated Press reported earlier today, as well as a public hearing to gain a sense of public opinion on the issue.
Advocates for the disabled have been among the strongest objectors, led by the Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights.
Read the rest of this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)