Always an interesting debate is creation vs. evolution vs. intelligent design, but the media salivates over such a debate when it's "internal," among Christains.
-- From "Darwin Conference Does Not Speak for Vatican, Says Intelligent Design Proponent" by Katherine T. Phan, Christianity Today 2/7/09
A leading intelligent design proponent said Friday that views expressed this week at a Darwin conference in Rome should not be confused with the Vatican's position on intelligent design and Darwinism.
Organizers of the March 3-7 conference, "Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories," at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome had declined to invite intelligent design speakers because they felt the theory lacked scientific merit.
Bruce Chapman, president of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank, said he believes the Pope remains in serious "fruitful dialogue" with intelligent design even though speakers of the conference, sponsored by a Catholic Church-related agency, may be critical of the theory.
"The views of the Pope and views of people holding the conference are not the same," Chapman told The Christian Post on Friday. "A large purpose of this conference was to criticize and trash intelligent design and try to make it seem like it's the Vatican's [point of view]. They are intentionally trying to confuse people."
He added, "Not only is the Papal household keeping its distance from this conference, the Pope has said some things friendly to intelligent design and critical of Darwinism."
Chapman, a Roman Catholic himself, emphasized that the conference's sponsor, The Pontifical Council on Culture, is an office of the Vatican but represented neither the Vatican nor the Pope himself.
Moreover, Chapman pointed out that the event was funded by the John Templeton Foundation, which publicly opposes intelligent design.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
-- From "Vatican-backed conference snubs creationism" by Nicole Winfied, The Associated Press 2/5/09
ROME - A Vatican-backed conference on evolution is under attack from people who weren't invited to participate: those espousing creationism and intelligent design.
Organizers of the five-day conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University said Thursday that they barred intelligent design proponents because they wanted an intellectually rigorous conference on science, theology and philosophy to mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."
"We think that it's not a scientific perspective, nor a theological or philosophical one," said the Rev. Marc Leclerc, the conference director and a professor of philosophy of nature at the Gregorian. "This makes a dialogue very difficult, maybe impossible."
The Pennsylvania-based Templeton Foundation, which has an estimated endowment of $1.5 billion and awards some $70 million in annual grants, seeks to fund projects that reconcile religion and science.
At least three of the conference speakers, including two members of its scientific committee, serve on the Templeton Foundation's board of advisers.
. . . some influential cardinals have indicated they support intelligent design, including Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, a close collaborator of Pope Benedict XVI.
In addition to intelligent design, creationism has come under disdain at the conference. In his opening address, Cardinal William Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke dismissively of fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. who want schools to teach biblical creationism alongside, or instead of, evolution.
Vatican teaching holds that Roman Catholicism and evolutionary theory are not necessarily at odds. The church under Benedict has been trying to stress that, along with its overall belief that there is no incompatibility between faith and reason.
Pope John Paul II articulated the church's position most clearly in a 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, saying the theory of evolution is "more than a hypothesis."
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
-- From "Vatican official: Atheist theories 'absurd'" The Associated Press 2/3/09
ROME - [Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] said Tuesday that the Catholic Church does not stand in the way of scientific realities like evolution, though he described as "absurd" the atheist notion that evolution proves there is no God.
Speaking on the sidelines of the conference, Levada said the Vatican believed there was a "wide spectrum of room" for belief in both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator.
"We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things," he said.
He said that while the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as "absurd" the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God.
"Of course we think that's absurd and not at all proven," he said. "But other than that ... the Vatican has recognized that it doesn't stand in the way of scientific realities."
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Saturday, March 07, 2009
In London, 'Gay' Education is Mandatory
Parents who took their children out of [elementary] school to prevent them being taught about lesbian, gay and transgender relationships are facing prosecution.
-- From "Parents face prosecution over 'gay' education class protest" by Sara Dixon, Times Online 3/7/09
Around 30 pupils from an east London [George Tomlinson] primary school were absent from a week of special lessons to highlight non-heterosexual partnerships.
The protesting parents said the content was more appropriate for secondary school pupils and now they face possible court action.
Pervez Latif, whose children Saleh, ten, and Abdur-Rahim, nine, attend the school, said both Christian and Muslim parents objected to the theme linked to Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender History Month.
Mr Latif is quoted as saying: “I didn’t want my children to be learning about this.
“I wrote a letter to the chairman of the governors explaining that I would be taking my children out of school and he wrote back saying that there was no other option.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Parents face prosecution over 'gay' education class protest" by Sara Dixon, Times Online 3/7/09
Around 30 pupils from an east London [George Tomlinson] primary school were absent from a week of special lessons to highlight non-heterosexual partnerships.
The protesting parents said the content was more appropriate for secondary school pupils and now they face possible court action.
Pervez Latif, whose children Saleh, ten, and Abdur-Rahim, nine, attend the school, said both Christian and Muslim parents objected to the theme linked to Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender History Month.
Mr Latif is quoted as saying: “I didn’t want my children to be learning about this.
“I wrote a letter to the chairman of the governors explaining that I would be taking my children out of school and he wrote back saying that there was no other option.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Student Inundates Catholic College with Condoms
The very liberal Boston Globe newspaper, presents a non-catholic student, who disagrees with Catholic teaching on birth control, as some sort of savior to the abstinence-only "student oppression."
-- From "Catholic college bars student's free condoms" by Peter Schworm, Boston Globe Staff 3/5/09
Frustrated that her college does not distribute birth control, Stonehill College senior Katie Freitas decided she would do it herself.
After collecting hundreds of free condoms from two family-planning agencies, she and about 20 classmates placed boxes of the contraceptives in student dormitories across the Easton campus last month.
But when administrators at the Catholic school learned of the effort, they quickly intervened and collected the condoms, citing the college's ban against distributing birth control on campus.
"We're a private Catholic college," Martin McGovern, Stonehill's spokesman, said yesterday. "We make no secret of our religious affiliation, and our belief system is fairly straightforward. We don't expect everyone on campus to agree with our beliefs, but we would ask people, and students in particular, to respect them."
The dispute at Stonehill echoes debates on access to birth control on other Catholic campuses in the region.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Catholic college bars student's free condoms" by Peter Schworm, Boston Globe Staff 3/5/09
Frustrated that her college does not distribute birth control, Stonehill College senior Katie Freitas decided she would do it herself.
After collecting hundreds of free condoms from two family-planning agencies, she and about 20 classmates placed boxes of the contraceptives in student dormitories across the Easton campus last month.
But when administrators at the Catholic school learned of the effort, they quickly intervened and collected the condoms, citing the college's ban against distributing birth control on campus.
"We're a private Catholic college," Martin McGovern, Stonehill's spokesman, said yesterday. "We make no secret of our religious affiliation, and our belief system is fairly straightforward. We don't expect everyone on campus to agree with our beliefs, but we would ask people, and students in particular, to respect them."
The dispute at Stonehill echoes debates on access to birth control on other Catholic campuses in the region.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
The Bipartisan, No-Fault End of Marriage
Rather than same-sex 'marriage,' the unwritten goal of the Gay Agenda has been the destruction of traditional marriage, and thus family -- the foundation of human society since Adam and Eve. The 'solution' to the polarization of America is on the horizon: the expungement of marriage in favor of civil unions for all.
-- From "A way out of Prop. 8" Editorial, Los Angeles Times 3/6/09
What if California got out of the marriage business altogether? What if the state merely licensed or just recognized private, contractual civil unions with all the benefits of marriage, and couples went to the religious or private institution of their choice to sanctify their vows? Would that resolve the legal differences between Proposition 8 and the state Supreme Court's 2008 ruling that gay and lesbian couples were entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexuals?
These were the questions [California Supreme Court] Justice Ming W. Chin posited during oral arguments on the proposition Thursday before the high court. To which both sides responded: Why, yes, it would.
. . . under this approach, religions and other belief groups could continue to sanction marriage in accordance with their definitions, and the state could concern itself with the civil rights and responsibilities of two people who decide to share life, home, family and the remote.
. . . just as marriage and family traditions have altered dramatically -- with shorter and more frequent marriages in a lifetime, couples living outside the married state and prenuptial agreements that trump customary family agreements -- it is time to consider an altered state role in domestic legalities. Justice Chin opened the discussion, and it is worth continuing.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
-- From "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage" by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch, New York Times 2/22/09
. . . the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.
It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.
Our national conversation on this issue will be significantly less contentious if religious groups can be confident that they will not be forced to support or facilitate gay marriage.
. . . federal law links many important perquisites to marital status, including Social Security survivor benefits, tax-free inheritance, spousal immigration rights and protections against mutual incrimination. All of these benefits are currently denied to same-sex couples, even those living in states that permit same-sex marriage or civil unions. But these same benefits could be conferred by federally recognized civil unions.
And while most Americans who favor keeping marriage as it has customarily been would prefer no legal recognition of same-sex unions at either the federal or the state level, we believe that they can live with federal civil unions — provided that no religious groups are forced to accept them as marriages. Many of these people may come to see civil unions as a compassionate compromise. For example, a PBS poll last fall found that 58 percent of white evangelicals under age 30 favor some form of legal same-sex union.
Linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom seems a natural way to give the two sides something they would greatly value while heading off a long-term, take-no-prisoners conflict.
When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
-- From "Blankenhorn's Faustian Bargain" by Laurie Higgins, DSA Director - Illinois Family Institute 2/25/09
Does anyone stop and think about why the government is involved in marriage at all?
The government has one concern with marriage. The government seeks to support that institution that best serves the needs of the state. Our government, which reflects the collective wisdom and will of its citizenry, has rightly determined that the institution that best serves the needs of a healthy society is that which best serves the needs of children who are essential to the future success of any nation. And what best serves the needs of children is to be raised, when possible, by their biological parents.
As David Blankenhorn writes in The Future of Marriage, "In all or nearly all human societies, marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man, conceived both as a personal relationship and as an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from the union are — and are understood to be — emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents."
The fact that marriage is inextricably bound up in contractual obligations, often pertaining to financial issues, reflects the government's interest in protecting and preserving the natural family. The government has no legitimate interest in whether marital partners love each other. If the sole purpose of marriage were to publicly recognize, institutionalize, or solemnize sexual attraction and/or emotional affiliation, the government would have no business being involved with marriage at all. The government has no vested interest in whether marital partners love each other. If society is going to regain a proper understanding of marriage, citizens must be disabused of the notion that the government's involvement in marriage has anything to do with sanctioning love.
If we continue down a path toward legalized civil unions or domestic partnerships, which are based on the fundamental error that the purpose of governmental involvement in marriage is to recognize love, we will end up with polygamy and polyandry. If we accept as true the erroneous claim that government is involved in marriage in order to publicly sanction love and that government-sanctioned marriage is only peripherally or incidentally concerned with procreation and child-rearing, then there is no justification for prohibiting any people who love each other from marrying.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 3/16/09: Time Magazine article.
-- From "A way out of Prop. 8" Editorial, Los Angeles Times 3/6/09
What if California got out of the marriage business altogether? What if the state merely licensed or just recognized private, contractual civil unions with all the benefits of marriage, and couples went to the religious or private institution of their choice to sanctify their vows? Would that resolve the legal differences between Proposition 8 and the state Supreme Court's 2008 ruling that gay and lesbian couples were entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexuals?
These were the questions [California Supreme Court] Justice Ming W. Chin posited during oral arguments on the proposition Thursday before the high court. To which both sides responded: Why, yes, it would.
. . . under this approach, religions and other belief groups could continue to sanction marriage in accordance with their definitions, and the state could concern itself with the civil rights and responsibilities of two people who decide to share life, home, family and the remote.
. . . just as marriage and family traditions have altered dramatically -- with shorter and more frequent marriages in a lifetime, couples living outside the married state and prenuptial agreements that trump customary family agreements -- it is time to consider an altered state role in domestic legalities. Justice Chin opened the discussion, and it is worth continuing.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
-- From "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage" by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch, New York Times 2/22/09
. . . the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.
It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.
Our national conversation on this issue will be significantly less contentious if religious groups can be confident that they will not be forced to support or facilitate gay marriage.
. . . federal law links many important perquisites to marital status, including Social Security survivor benefits, tax-free inheritance, spousal immigration rights and protections against mutual incrimination. All of these benefits are currently denied to same-sex couples, even those living in states that permit same-sex marriage or civil unions. But these same benefits could be conferred by federally recognized civil unions.
And while most Americans who favor keeping marriage as it has customarily been would prefer no legal recognition of same-sex unions at either the federal or the state level, we believe that they can live with federal civil unions — provided that no religious groups are forced to accept them as marriages. Many of these people may come to see civil unions as a compassionate compromise. For example, a PBS poll last fall found that 58 percent of white evangelicals under age 30 favor some form of legal same-sex union.
Linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom seems a natural way to give the two sides something they would greatly value while heading off a long-term, take-no-prisoners conflict.
When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
-- From "Blankenhorn's Faustian Bargain" by Laurie Higgins, DSA Director - Illinois Family Institute 2/25/09
Does anyone stop and think about why the government is involved in marriage at all?
The government has one concern with marriage. The government seeks to support that institution that best serves the needs of the state. Our government, which reflects the collective wisdom and will of its citizenry, has rightly determined that the institution that best serves the needs of a healthy society is that which best serves the needs of children who are essential to the future success of any nation. And what best serves the needs of children is to be raised, when possible, by their biological parents.
As David Blankenhorn writes in The Future of Marriage, "In all or nearly all human societies, marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man, conceived both as a personal relationship and as an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from the union are — and are understood to be — emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents."
The fact that marriage is inextricably bound up in contractual obligations, often pertaining to financial issues, reflects the government's interest in protecting and preserving the natural family. The government has no legitimate interest in whether marital partners love each other. If the sole purpose of marriage were to publicly recognize, institutionalize, or solemnize sexual attraction and/or emotional affiliation, the government would have no business being involved with marriage at all. The government has no vested interest in whether marital partners love each other. If society is going to regain a proper understanding of marriage, citizens must be disabused of the notion that the government's involvement in marriage has anything to do with sanctioning love.
If we continue down a path toward legalized civil unions or domestic partnerships, which are based on the fundamental error that the purpose of governmental involvement in marriage is to recognize love, we will end up with polygamy and polyandry. If we accept as true the erroneous claim that government is involved in marriage in order to publicly sanction love and that government-sanctioned marriage is only peripherally or incidentally concerned with procreation and child-rearing, then there is no justification for prohibiting any people who love each other from marrying.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 3/16/09: Time Magazine article.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Islamic Law in Chechnya OK with "Honor Killings"
Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov: "If a woman runs around and if a man runs around with her, both of them are killed."
-- From "Chechen leader imposes strict brand of Islam" The Associated Press 2/28/09
The bullnecked president of Chechnya emerged from afternoon prayers at the mosque and with chilling composure explained why seven young women who had been shot in the head deserved to die.
The 32-year-old former militia leader is carrying out a campaign to impose Islamic values and strengthen the traditional customs of predominantly Muslim Chechnya, in an effort to blunt the appeal of hardline Islamic separatists and shore up his power. In doing so, critics say, he is setting up a dictatorship where Russian laws do not apply.
Some in Russia say Kadyrov's attempt to create an Islamic society violates the Russian constitution, which guarantees equal rights for women and a separation of church and state. But the Kremlin has given him its staunch backing, seeing him as the key to keeping the separatists in check, and that has allowed him to impose his will.
Rights activists fear that Kadyrov's approval of honor killings may encourage men to carry them out. Honor killings are considered part of Chechen tradition. No records are kept, but human rights activists estimate dozens of women are killed every year.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Chechen leader imposes strict brand of Islam" The Associated Press 2/28/09
The bullnecked president of Chechnya emerged from afternoon prayers at the mosque and with chilling composure explained why seven young women who had been shot in the head deserved to die.
The 32-year-old former militia leader is carrying out a campaign to impose Islamic values and strengthen the traditional customs of predominantly Muslim Chechnya, in an effort to blunt the appeal of hardline Islamic separatists and shore up his power. In doing so, critics say, he is setting up a dictatorship where Russian laws do not apply.
Some in Russia say Kadyrov's attempt to create an Islamic society violates the Russian constitution, which guarantees equal rights for women and a separation of church and state. But the Kremlin has given him its staunch backing, seeing him as the key to keeping the separatists in check, and that has allowed him to impose his will.
Rights activists fear that Kadyrov's approval of honor killings may encourage men to carry them out. Honor killings are considered part of Chechen tradition. No records are kept, but human rights activists estimate dozens of women are killed every year.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
American Educators' P.C. Propaganda of Islamic Terrorism
An education expert is warning that some American textbooks present a biased view of Islam and offer a sugarcoated picture of Islamic extremism . . .
For background, read American School Textbooks Biased Against Jews, Favor Islam and also read Public School Textbooks Favor Islam over Christianity
UPDATE 9/17/10: Public School Trip to Mosque, Students Pray
UPDATE 8/25/10: New York Educators Dis Christianity, Favor Islam
UPDATE 8/26/09: Florida School Says We Must Protect Muslims from Christianity
-- From "Critic Says Islamic Extremism Gets Whitewashed in American Textbooks" by FOX News' Eric Shawn and Shira Bush 3/4/09
In numerous history textbooks, "key subjects like jihad, Islamic law, the status of women are whitewashed," said Gilbert T. Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council, an independent group that reviews history books and other education materials.
Sewall claims that publishers have been pressured by Islamic activists to portray the religion in the most favorable light, while Islamic terrorism is downplayed or glossed over.
Sewall, who authored a report on how textbooks teach and present Islam, singled out one book that he said failed to explain what the story of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
In a section discussing Islamic fundamentalism, the textbook "World History: The Modern World," published by Prentice Hall, omits direct mention of the 9/11 hijackers' religion, referring to the 19 Islamic fundamentalists as "teams of terrorists."
Sewall says the violent aspects of Islamic jihad are glossed over and that it is presented as an internal struggle or a fight for protection in books like "History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond," published by the Teachers Curriculum Institute.
"Jihad is defined as a struggle within each individual to overcome difficulties and strive to please god. Sometimes it may be a physical struggle for protection against enemies," the book reads, noting that Islam teaches "that Muslims should fulfill jihad with the heart, tongue and hand. Muslims use the heart in their struggle to resist evil."
It's a lesson that Sewall says needs to change.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
For background, read American School Textbooks Biased Against Jews, Favor Islam and also read Public School Textbooks Favor Islam over Christianity
UPDATE 9/17/10: Public School Trip to Mosque, Students Pray
UPDATE 8/25/10: New York Educators Dis Christianity, Favor Islam
UPDATE 8/26/09: Florida School Says We Must Protect Muslims from Christianity
-- From "Critic Says Islamic Extremism Gets Whitewashed in American Textbooks" by FOX News' Eric Shawn and Shira Bush 3/4/09
In numerous history textbooks, "key subjects like jihad, Islamic law, the status of women are whitewashed," said Gilbert T. Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council, an independent group that reviews history books and other education materials.
Sewall claims that publishers have been pressured by Islamic activists to portray the religion in the most favorable light, while Islamic terrorism is downplayed or glossed over.
Sewall, who authored a report on how textbooks teach and present Islam, singled out one book that he said failed to explain what the story of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
In a section discussing Islamic fundamentalism, the textbook "World History: The Modern World," published by Prentice Hall, omits direct mention of the 9/11 hijackers' religion, referring to the 19 Islamic fundamentalists as "teams of terrorists."
Sewall says the violent aspects of Islamic jihad are glossed over and that it is presented as an internal struggle or a fight for protection in books like "History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond," published by the Teachers Curriculum Institute.
"Jihad is defined as a struggle within each individual to overcome difficulties and strive to please god. Sometimes it may be a physical struggle for protection against enemies," the book reads, noting that Islam teaches "that Muslims should fulfill jihad with the heart, tongue and hand. Muslims use the heart in their struggle to resist evil."
It's a lesson that Sewall says needs to change.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
TN School Bans God from Children's Pen
. . . [censored] posters for a "See You at The Pole" event last September at Lakeview Elementary School in Mt. Juliet [Wilson County]. . . included the phrases "In God We Trust" and "God Bless the U.S.A."
UPDATE 9/30/11: School settles ADF lawsuit but continues various restrictions out of fear of more ACLU lawsuits
-- From "Wilson schools ban God and get sued" by Bob Smietana, The Tennessean 3/4/09
The Alliance Defense Fund, on behalf of four families, filed suit Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, claiming that the school board censored posters for a student-led prayer event.
They also included a disclaimer, saying that the event was student led, not school endorsed.
Lakeview officials objected to the God references as well as an invitation to "come and pray," the suit says. Before the posters, drawn by students, were approved, all religious language had to be covered over.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 9/30/11: School settles ADF lawsuit but continues various restrictions out of fear of more ACLU lawsuits
-- From "Wilson schools ban God and get sued" by Bob Smietana, The Tennessean 3/4/09
The Alliance Defense Fund, on behalf of four families, filed suit Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, claiming that the school board censored posters for a student-led prayer event.
They also included a disclaimer, saying that the event was student led, not school endorsed.
Lakeview officials objected to the God references as well as an invitation to "come and pray," the suit says. Before the posters, drawn by students, were approved, all religious language had to be covered over.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Univ. Singles Out Christians for Restrictions
"They were saying that we could not preserve the nature of our group being professing Christians . . . [thus denying] us the opportunity to meet on campus and to be able to have information tables as all the other groups can do."
-- From "Christian Group Allowed to Return to Ohio Campus" by Joshua Rhett Miller, FOX News, 3/3/09
A Christian group that claimed it was banned from the campus of Wright State University in Ohio because of its religious standards has been reinstated.
Members of the Campus Bible Fellowship said they were informed late Monday that they would be allowed to resume holding meetings on the Dayton campus. The reinstatement came after repeated media requests to school officials.
"We're good for now, but come May, we'll be up against the same qualifications they refused us on this time," said Gary Holtz, 62, a Campus Bible Fellowship organizer. "I believe because of public pressure [school officials] changed their case."
Holtz said the college banned the fellowship from holding meetings on campus Jan. 30 because the group refused to adopt university-mandated nondiscrimination language. Adhering to the college demands would have prevented the fellowship from requiring that voting members adhere to religious and behavioral standards, he said.
University officials also objected to the group's requirement in its constitution that voting members be practicing Christians, Holtz said.
A fellowship member, Joseph Hollaway, said Tuesday that he received an e-mail indicating that the group could meet on campus through the end of the year.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Additional coverage at WorldNetDaily
-- From "Christian Group Allowed to Return to Ohio Campus" by Joshua Rhett Miller, FOX News, 3/3/09
A Christian group that claimed it was banned from the campus of Wright State University in Ohio because of its religious standards has been reinstated.
Members of the Campus Bible Fellowship said they were informed late Monday that they would be allowed to resume holding meetings on the Dayton campus. The reinstatement came after repeated media requests to school officials.
"We're good for now, but come May, we'll be up against the same qualifications they refused us on this time," said Gary Holtz, 62, a Campus Bible Fellowship organizer. "I believe because of public pressure [school officials] changed their case."
Holtz said the college banned the fellowship from holding meetings on campus Jan. 30 because the group refused to adopt university-mandated nondiscrimination language. Adhering to the college demands would have prevented the fellowship from requiring that voting members adhere to religious and behavioral standards, he said.
University officials also objected to the group's requirement in its constitution that voting members be practicing Christians, Holtz said.
A fellowship member, Joseph Hollaway, said Tuesday that he received an e-mail indicating that the group could meet on campus through the end of the year.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Additional coverage at WorldNetDaily
Monday, March 02, 2009
Designer Babies Available Upon Request
A US clinic has sparked controversy by offering would-be parents the chance to select traits like the eye and hair colour of their offspring.
UPDATE 3/15/15: Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science
For background, read Designer Baby Production Now Science-Reality
UPDATE 8/27/09: Designer Babies with Three Biological Parents
-- From "Designer baby row over US clinic" BBC News 3/2/09
The LA Fertility Institutes run by Dr Jeff Steinberg, a pioneer of IVF in the 1970s, expects a trait-selected baby to be born next year.
His clinic also offers sex selection.
UK fertility experts are angered that the service will distract attention from how the same technology can protect against inherited disease.
The science is based on a lab technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD.
This involves testing a cell taken from a very early embryo before it is put into the mother's womb.
Doctors then select an embryo free from rogue genes - or in this case an embryo with the desired physical traits such as blonde hair and blue eyes - to continue the pregnancy, and discard any others.
Dr Steinberg said couples might seek to use the clinic's services for both medical and cosmetic reasons.
For example, a couple might want to have a baby with a darker complexion to help guard against a skin cancer if they already had a child who had developed a melanoma. But others might just want a boy with blonde hair.
Josephine Quintavalle of Comment on Reproductive Ethics [said,] “ This is the inevitable slippery slope of a fertility process which results in many more embryos being created than can be implanted ”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 3/15/15: Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science
For background, read Designer Baby Production Now Science-Reality
UPDATE 8/27/09: Designer Babies with Three Biological Parents
-- From "Designer baby row over US clinic" BBC News 3/2/09
The LA Fertility Institutes run by Dr Jeff Steinberg, a pioneer of IVF in the 1970s, expects a trait-selected baby to be born next year.
His clinic also offers sex selection.
UK fertility experts are angered that the service will distract attention from how the same technology can protect against inherited disease.
The science is based on a lab technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD.
This involves testing a cell taken from a very early embryo before it is put into the mother's womb.
Doctors then select an embryo free from rogue genes - or in this case an embryo with the desired physical traits such as blonde hair and blue eyes - to continue the pregnancy, and discard any others.
Dr Steinberg said couples might seek to use the clinic's services for both medical and cosmetic reasons.
For example, a couple might want to have a baby with a darker complexion to help guard against a skin cancer if they already had a child who had developed a melanoma. But others might just want a boy with blonde hair.
Josephine Quintavalle of Comment on Reproductive Ethics [said,] “ This is the inevitable slippery slope of a fertility process which results in many more embryos being created than can be implanted ”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Fewer Americans in Church, Especially Men
. . . America continues to grow in terms of population, but the percentage of Americans attending church on any given weekend keeps declining. In 1990, it was 20.4 percent. In 2000, it was 18.7. In 2007, it was 17.
George H. Gallup, Jr. wrote . . . "A mountain of Gallup survey data attests to the idea that women are more religious than men, hold their beliefs more firmly, practice their faith more consistently, and work more vigorously for the congregation."
-- From "Study finds attendance at churches still falling" by G. Jeffrey MacDonald, Religion News Service 2/28/09
Booming megachurches might grab headlines, but the bigger story of American congregations is one of accelerating decline, according to David T. Olson, the director of the American Church Research Project. Based on data collected from more than 200,000 churches, he projects that by 2050, only 10 percent of Americans will be in church on any given Sunday.
"Since 2001 especially, mainline and Catholic churches have been experiencing severe decline. They are declining much faster than they were in the 1990s. Evangelicals are still growing numerically, but that numeric growth is not keeping up with population growth.
"From 1990 to 2006, there were 68 million new births in America and a net gain of 23 million immigrants, but churches a lot of times are really not looking outside their doors to think about how to connect with those new Americans.
"Christians are increasingly cocooned and live in environments where they may not know many people who are not Christians."
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
From "Women More Religious Than Men" by Robert Roy Britt, Editorial Director, Live Science 2/28/09
A new analysis of survey data finds women pray more often then men, are more likely to believe in God, and are more religious than men in a variety of other ways.
The percent of women (and then men) who:
The latest findings, released Friday, are no surprise, only confirming what other studies have found for decades.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
George H. Gallup, Jr. wrote . . . "A mountain of Gallup survey data attests to the idea that women are more religious than men, hold their beliefs more firmly, practice their faith more consistently, and work more vigorously for the congregation."
-- From "Study finds attendance at churches still falling" by G. Jeffrey MacDonald, Religion News Service 2/28/09
Booming megachurches might grab headlines, but the bigger story of American congregations is one of accelerating decline, according to David T. Olson, the director of the American Church Research Project. Based on data collected from more than 200,000 churches, he projects that by 2050, only 10 percent of Americans will be in church on any given Sunday.
"Since 2001 especially, mainline and Catholic churches have been experiencing severe decline. They are declining much faster than they were in the 1990s. Evangelicals are still growing numerically, but that numeric growth is not keeping up with population growth.
"From 1990 to 2006, there were 68 million new births in America and a net gain of 23 million immigrants, but churches a lot of times are really not looking outside their doors to think about how to connect with those new Americans.
"Christians are increasingly cocooned and live in environments where they may not know many people who are not Christians."
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
From "Women More Religious Than Men" by Robert Roy Britt, Editorial Director, Live Science 2/28/09
A new analysis of survey data finds women pray more often then men, are more likely to believe in God, and are more religious than men in a variety of other ways.
The percent of women (and then men) who:
- Are affiliated with a religion: 86 (79).
- Have absolutely certain belief in a God or universal spirit: 77 (65).
- Pray at least daily: 66 (49).
- Have absolutely certain belief in a personal God: 58 (45).
The latest findings, released Friday, are no surprise, only confirming what other studies have found for decades.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Obama to Force Abortion on all Health Professionals
Doctors are forecasting the closure of hospitals and clinics across America and a mass migration of physicians and their assistances to other careers should the Obama administration succeed in its attempt to overrule their rights of conscience [which were previously protected by the Bush administration].
UPDATE 4/14/12: Bishops Throw Down Gauntlet Against Obama War on Christianity
UPDATE 9/17/12: Religious Liberty & Anti-Christian Totalitarianism
-- From "Health Workers' 'Conscience' Rule Set to Be Voided" by Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer 2/28/09
The Obama administration's move to rescind broad new job protections for health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable triggered an immediate political storm yesterday, underscoring the difficulties the president faces in his effort to find common ground on anything related to the explosive issue of abortion.
The debate centers on a Bush administration regulation, enacted in December, that cuts off federal funding for thousands of state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities if they do not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.
The rule was sought by conservative groups that argued that workers were increasingly being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways for trying to exercise their "right of conscience."
Women's health advocates, family-planning proponents, abortion rights activists and others condemned the regulation, saying it created a major obstacle to providing many health services, including family planning and infertility treatment, and possibly a wide range of scientific research. After reviewing the regulation, newly appointed officials at the Health and Human Services Department agreed.
The announcement -- which follows an administration decision to lift restrictions on federal funding of international family-planning groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information -- was also disappointing to some who have been working more closely with the administration on reducing the number of abortions.
Administration officials stressed that the president remains committed to protecting the rights of health-care workers who do not want to participate in abortions; such rights have been guaranteed for decades by several federal laws.
[Also,] Administration officials stressed that the proposal will be subject to 30 days of public comment, which could result in a compromise. They said they remain committed to seeking a middle ground but acknowledged that will not always be possible.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
From "Physicians: Obama plan will 'shut down hospitals'" By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 2/28/09
According to the Los Angeles Times, Obama's move to demand doctors participate in the abortion industry came [Friday]. The report said the move was being made "quietly" even as most of Washington was focusing on the president's budget plan.
"Thousands of conscientious and compassionate physicians, nurses, hospitals and clinics currently serve poor women and those who live in medically underserved areas," said David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association today.
"Many of these professionals and institutions are motivated and guided by longstanding Hippocratic ethics and biblical principles that preclude participation in abortion and other controversial procedures. Infringing on their right to practice medicine according to these life-affirming ethical standards will force them to leave the profession and to shut down the hospitals and clinics," he warned.
"The Obama administration claims, without offering a shred of statistical evidence, that the regulation has 'created confusion' and will somehow hinder access to healthcare. What can be clearer than not using federal funds to force healthcare professionals to violate longstanding principles of medical ethics like the Hippocratic Oath, which guided medicine for over two millennia?
He said that four in 10 of the organization's members "report being pressured to violate ethical standards. Physicians report losing positions and promotions because of their life-affirming views. Residents report losing training privileges because they refuse to do abortions. Medical students report changing career tracks away from obstetrics for fear of pressure to do abortions."
Stevens said Obama's attack on doctors reveals "the myth of their moderation on abortion."
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 4/14/12: Bishops Throw Down Gauntlet Against Obama War on Christianity
UPDATE 9/17/12: Religious Liberty & Anti-Christian Totalitarianism
-- From "Health Workers' 'Conscience' Rule Set to Be Voided" by Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer 2/28/09
The Obama administration's move to rescind broad new job protections for health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable triggered an immediate political storm yesterday, underscoring the difficulties the president faces in his effort to find common ground on anything related to the explosive issue of abortion.
The debate centers on a Bush administration regulation, enacted in December, that cuts off federal funding for thousands of state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities if they do not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.
The rule was sought by conservative groups that argued that workers were increasingly being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways for trying to exercise their "right of conscience."
Women's health advocates, family-planning proponents, abortion rights activists and others condemned the regulation, saying it created a major obstacle to providing many health services, including family planning and infertility treatment, and possibly a wide range of scientific research. After reviewing the regulation, newly appointed officials at the Health and Human Services Department agreed.
The announcement -- which follows an administration decision to lift restrictions on federal funding of international family-planning groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information -- was also disappointing to some who have been working more closely with the administration on reducing the number of abortions.
Administration officials stressed that the president remains committed to protecting the rights of health-care workers who do not want to participate in abortions; such rights have been guaranteed for decades by several federal laws.
[Also,] Administration officials stressed that the proposal will be subject to 30 days of public comment, which could result in a compromise. They said they remain committed to seeking a middle ground but acknowledged that will not always be possible.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
From "Physicians: Obama plan will 'shut down hospitals'" By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 2/28/09
According to the Los Angeles Times, Obama's move to demand doctors participate in the abortion industry came [Friday]. The report said the move was being made "quietly" even as most of Washington was focusing on the president's budget plan.
"Thousands of conscientious and compassionate physicians, nurses, hospitals and clinics currently serve poor women and those who live in medically underserved areas," said David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association today.
"Many of these professionals and institutions are motivated and guided by longstanding Hippocratic ethics and biblical principles that preclude participation in abortion and other controversial procedures. Infringing on their right to practice medicine according to these life-affirming ethical standards will force them to leave the profession and to shut down the hospitals and clinics," he warned.
"The Obama administration claims, without offering a shred of statistical evidence, that the regulation has 'created confusion' and will somehow hinder access to healthcare. What can be clearer than not using federal funds to force healthcare professionals to violate longstanding principles of medical ethics like the Hippocratic Oath, which guided medicine for over two millennia?
He said that four in 10 of the organization's members "report being pressured to violate ethical standards. Physicians report losing positions and promotions because of their life-affirming views. Residents report losing training privileges because they refuse to do abortions. Medical students report changing career tracks away from obstetrics for fear of pressure to do abortions."
Stevens said Obama's attack on doctors reveals "the myth of their moderation on abortion."
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
United Nations = Enemy of the Family
Sen. Barbara Boxer is pushing the Obama administration to move forward with ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, this is only the "tip of the iceberg" . . . keep reading, and discern the combined effect of the U.N. and the new White House agenda.
-- From "Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights" by Joseph Abrams, FOXNews.com 2/25/09
Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. [a.k.a. the Obama administration] to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.
The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.
Critics say the treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.
Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered "the supreme law of the land," superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States.
Nearly every country in the world is party to it -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not -- but the convention has gained little support in the U.S. and never been sent to the Senate for ratification.
The U.S. is already party to two optional pieces of the treaty regarding child soldiers and child prostitution and pornography, but has refused to sign on to the full agreement . . .
That could change soon.
During the Oct. 22, 2008, presidential youth debate, Obama promised to "review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."
During U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's January confirmation hearing, Rice called the convention "a very important treaty and a noble cause," and said it was "a shame" for the U.S. to be in company with Somalia, which has no real government.
Rice told Boxer that "there can be no doubt that [President Obama] and Secretary Clinton and I share a commitment to the objectives of this treaty and will take it up as an early question," promising to review the treaty "to ensure that the United States is playing and resumes its global leadership role in human rights."
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
From "Sen. Boxer tries to hurry children's 'rights' treaty" © 2009 WorldNetDaily 2/26/09
. . . Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org and chancellor of Patrick Henry College, said the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child would mean every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.
"The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election," he warned.
The international treaty creates specific civil, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." While the treaty states parents or legal guardians "have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child," Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents' decisions are in their children's best interest.
According to the Parental Rights website, the CRC dictates the following:
* Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
* The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
* A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.
"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
From "United Nations Population Fund Leader Says Family Breakdown is a Triumph for Human Rights" by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, LifeSiteNews.com 2/3/09
A leader in the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has declared that the breakdown of traditional families, far from being a “crisis,” is actually a triumph for human rights.
Speaking at a colloquium held last month at Colegio Mexico in Mexico City, UNFPA representative Arie Hoekman denounced the idea that high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births represent a social crisis, claiming that they represent instead the triumph of “human rights” against “patriarchy.”
"In the eyes of conservative forces, these changes mean that the family is in crisis," he said. "In crisis? More than a crisis, we are in the presence of a weakening of the patriarchal structure, as a result of the disappearance of the economic base that sustains it and because of the rise of new values centered in the recognition of fundamental human rights."
"Day after day, Mexico experiences a process of this diversity and there are those who understand it as a crisis, because they only recognize one type of family," one of the speakers on the panel also told the audience.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
From "Conservatives Expect U.N. Battle Over Homosexuality as a ‘Human Right’ to Begin in '09" by Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor CNSNews.com 12/24/08
France fired the opening salvo [in mid-December 2008] in a battle at the United Nations over making homosexuality a “human right.”
The European nation tried but failed to get the U.N. to approve a non-binding resolution decriminalizing homosexuality worldwide. The United States refused to sign onto the measure, the only Western power to do so.
Note that this was the U.S. position BEFORE Barack Obama was inaugurated; note the Obama Administration policy now.
France, which heads the European Union (EU) until the end of the year [2008], garnered support from only 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries. But all of the EU countries voted for the resolution.
Conservative U.N. analyst Thomas Jacobson said he expects France will try again soon.
“I would fully expect that France and the European Union will push for ‘LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender) rights’ and ‘gender-identity rights’ and collaborate heavily with the Obama administration, beginning in the first quarter of 2009,” Jacobson, who works for the conservative Focus on the Family, told CNSNews.com
He said France was “greatly emboldened” by the U.S. election of Barack Obama as president. adding, "They know they are going to have a partner to work with at the U.N.”.
Obama, Jacobson said, has been very clear in his support of the homosexual activist agenda . . .
“As soon as the Obama administration has all of its people in place, this will be one of their primary initiatives. You can bet that they have taken great note of what France was doing,” Jacobson added.
Jacobson said that, ironically, the French and British – and other industrialized European nations – are busy promoting a new form of “imperialism” – a cultural imperialism to force a radical pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda on the world.
“This is a form of imperialism that is coming out of a very liberal mindset in Europe – and increasingly in the U.S -- to force smaller, less powerful countries to conform to their will in their internal policies in matters of sexuality," he said.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
-- From "Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights" by Joseph Abrams, FOXNews.com 2/25/09
Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. [a.k.a. the Obama administration] to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.
The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.
Critics say the treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.
Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered "the supreme law of the land," superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States.
Nearly every country in the world is party to it -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not -- but the convention has gained little support in the U.S. and never been sent to the Senate for ratification.
The U.S. is already party to two optional pieces of the treaty regarding child soldiers and child prostitution and pornography, but has refused to sign on to the full agreement . . .
That could change soon.
During the Oct. 22, 2008, presidential youth debate, Obama promised to "review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."
During U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's January confirmation hearing, Rice called the convention "a very important treaty and a noble cause," and said it was "a shame" for the U.S. to be in company with Somalia, which has no real government.
Rice told Boxer that "there can be no doubt that [President Obama] and Secretary Clinton and I share a commitment to the objectives of this treaty and will take it up as an early question," promising to review the treaty "to ensure that the United States is playing and resumes its global leadership role in human rights."
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
From "Sen. Boxer tries to hurry children's 'rights' treaty" © 2009 WorldNetDaily 2/26/09
. . . Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org and chancellor of Patrick Henry College, said the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child would mean every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.
"The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election," he warned.
The international treaty creates specific civil, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." While the treaty states parents or legal guardians "have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child," Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents' decisions are in their children's best interest.
According to the Parental Rights website, the CRC dictates the following:
* Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
* The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
* A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.
"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
From "United Nations Population Fund Leader Says Family Breakdown is a Triumph for Human Rights" by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, LifeSiteNews.com 2/3/09
A leader in the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has declared that the breakdown of traditional families, far from being a “crisis,” is actually a triumph for human rights.
Speaking at a colloquium held last month at Colegio Mexico in Mexico City, UNFPA representative Arie Hoekman denounced the idea that high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births represent a social crisis, claiming that they represent instead the triumph of “human rights” against “patriarchy.”
"In the eyes of conservative forces, these changes mean that the family is in crisis," he said. "In crisis? More than a crisis, we are in the presence of a weakening of the patriarchal structure, as a result of the disappearance of the economic base that sustains it and because of the rise of new values centered in the recognition of fundamental human rights."
"Day after day, Mexico experiences a process of this diversity and there are those who understand it as a crisis, because they only recognize one type of family," one of the speakers on the panel also told the audience.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
From "Conservatives Expect U.N. Battle Over Homosexuality as a ‘Human Right’ to Begin in '09" by Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor CNSNews.com 12/24/08
France fired the opening salvo [in mid-December 2008] in a battle at the United Nations over making homosexuality a “human right.”
The European nation tried but failed to get the U.N. to approve a non-binding resolution decriminalizing homosexuality worldwide. The United States refused to sign onto the measure, the only Western power to do so.
Note that this was the U.S. position BEFORE Barack Obama was inaugurated; note the Obama Administration policy now.
France, which heads the European Union (EU) until the end of the year [2008], garnered support from only 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries. But all of the EU countries voted for the resolution.
Conservative U.N. analyst Thomas Jacobson said he expects France will try again soon.
“I would fully expect that France and the European Union will push for ‘LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender) rights’ and ‘gender-identity rights’ and collaborate heavily with the Obama administration, beginning in the first quarter of 2009,” Jacobson, who works for the conservative Focus on the Family, told CNSNews.com
He said France was “greatly emboldened” by the U.S. election of Barack Obama as president. adding, "They know they are going to have a partner to work with at the U.N.”.
Obama, Jacobson said, has been very clear in his support of the homosexual activist agenda . . .
“As soon as the Obama administration has all of its people in place, this will be one of their primary initiatives. You can bet that they have taken great note of what France was doing,” Jacobson added.
Jacobson said that, ironically, the French and British – and other industrialized European nations – are busy promoting a new form of “imperialism” – a cultural imperialism to force a radical pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda on the world.
“This is a form of imperialism that is coming out of a very liberal mindset in Europe – and increasingly in the U.S -- to force smaller, less powerful countries to conform to their will in their internal policies in matters of sexuality," he said.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Congress Pushing Money toward Planned Parenthood, Again!
The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute has issued a heavily-biased report to provide backing to Congress for increasing the flow of tax dollars to abortion providers.
Friends of Planned Parenthood are currently ramming the "Prevention First Act" (HR 463 & S 21) through Congress.
Illinois residents, CLICK HERE to E-mail your congressman
-- From "Report urges boost for US family planning program" by David Crary, Associated Press 2/23/09
Publicly funded family planning prevents nearly 2 million unintended pregnancies and more than 800,000 abortions in the United States each year, saving billions of dollars, according to new research intended to counter conservative objections to expanding the program.
Report co-author Rachel Benson Gold called the family planning program "smart government at its best," asserting that every dollar spent on it saves taxpayers $4 in costs associated with unintended births to mothers eligible for Medicaid-funded natal care.
Despite such arguments, federal funding for family planning is a divisive issue.
Last month, under withering Republican criticism, House Democrats abandoned an attempt to include an expansion of family planning services for the poor in the economic stimulus bill. One anti-abortion activist, Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, called the short-lived proposal a "shameful population control program that targeted low-income families."
However, Democrats in Congress are not abandoning their overall goal. They plan to push soon for a major funding increase for Title X, the main federal family planning program, as part of broader legislation endorsed by President Barack Obama to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.
The Guttmacher report provides ammunition for those who will advocate the funding increase.
The report also endorses pending congressional legislation that would increase funding for Title X family planning. Some advocacy groups hope to more than double the current funding to $700 million a year.
Some conservatives, however, dislike Title X because one of its big recipients is the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a major provider of abortions as well as family planning services. Title X funds cannot be used for abortions, but critics contend the federal money frees up other Planned Parenthood funds for its abortion services.
Other findings:
* More than 9 million women — including nearly 2 million under 20 — received publicly funded contraceptive services in 2006.
* Public expenditures for family planning in 2006 totaled $1.85 billion, with 71 percent of the funds coming from the joint federal-state Medicaid program. Twenty-seven states have expanded eligibility for family planning for low-income women who otherwise wouldn't qualify for Medicaid.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friends of Planned Parenthood are currently ramming the "Prevention First Act" (HR 463 & S 21) through Congress.
Illinois residents, CLICK HERE to E-mail your congressman
-- From "Report urges boost for US family planning program" by David Crary, Associated Press 2/23/09
Publicly funded family planning prevents nearly 2 million unintended pregnancies and more than 800,000 abortions in the United States each year, saving billions of dollars, according to new research intended to counter conservative objections to expanding the program.
Report co-author Rachel Benson Gold called the family planning program "smart government at its best," asserting that every dollar spent on it saves taxpayers $4 in costs associated with unintended births to mothers eligible for Medicaid-funded natal care.
Despite such arguments, federal funding for family planning is a divisive issue.
Last month, under withering Republican criticism, House Democrats abandoned an attempt to include an expansion of family planning services for the poor in the economic stimulus bill. One anti-abortion activist, Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, called the short-lived proposal a "shameful population control program that targeted low-income families."
However, Democrats in Congress are not abandoning their overall goal. They plan to push soon for a major funding increase for Title X, the main federal family planning program, as part of broader legislation endorsed by President Barack Obama to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.
The Guttmacher report provides ammunition for those who will advocate the funding increase.
The report also endorses pending congressional legislation that would increase funding for Title X family planning. Some advocacy groups hope to more than double the current funding to $700 million a year.
Some conservatives, however, dislike Title X because one of its big recipients is the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a major provider of abortions as well as family planning services. Title X funds cannot be used for abortions, but critics contend the federal money frees up other Planned Parenthood funds for its abortion services.
Other findings:
* More than 9 million women — including nearly 2 million under 20 — received publicly funded contraceptive services in 2006.
* Public expenditures for family planning in 2006 totaled $1.85 billion, with 71 percent of the funds coming from the joint federal-state Medicaid program. Twenty-seven states have expanded eligibility for family planning for low-income women who otherwise wouldn't qualify for Medicaid.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Episcopalians Elect Ordained Zen Buddhist as ECUSA Bishop
Northern Michigan's Episcopal congregations and delegates overwhelmingly elected the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester at their convention on Saturday [2/21/09].
-- From "New Episcopal Bishop Is A Zen Buddhist" Associated Press 2/24/09
The diocesan Web site says Thew Forrester "has practiced Zen meditation for almost a decade," and the Buddhist community welcomed his commitment by granting him "lay ordination."
-- From "Northern Michigan Elects ‘Christian-Buddhist’ Bishop" The Living Church News Service (Anglican) 2/23/09
Fr. Forrester, the only candidate on the slate, was elected on the first ballot, receiving 88 percent of delegate votes and 91 percent of congregational votes, according to a diocesan news release.
The bishop-elect has served the diocese since 2001 as its ministry development coordinator and more recently as rector of St. Paul’s Church, Marquette, and St. John’s, Negaunee.
Assuming sufficient consents are received from a majority of standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction, Fr. Forrester will be consecrated Oct. 17 in Marquette.
-- From "New Episcopal Bishop Is A Zen Buddhist" Associated Press 2/24/09
The diocesan Web site says Thew Forrester "has practiced Zen meditation for almost a decade," and the Buddhist community welcomed his commitment by granting him "lay ordination."
-- From "Northern Michigan Elects ‘Christian-Buddhist’ Bishop" The Living Church News Service (Anglican) 2/23/09
Fr. Forrester, the only candidate on the slate, was elected on the first ballot, receiving 88 percent of delegate votes and 91 percent of congregational votes, according to a diocesan news release.
The bishop-elect has served the diocese since 2001 as its ministry development coordinator and more recently as rector of St. Paul’s Church, Marquette, and St. John’s, Negaunee.
Assuming sufficient consents are received from a majority of standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction, Fr. Forrester will be consecrated Oct. 17 in Marquette.
Intelligent Design Documentaries Now on YouTube
View these thought-provoking documentaries from Illustra Media, free of charge: Unlocking the Mystery of Life, The Privileged Planet, or The Case for a Creator.
Science often insists that life and the universe are nothing more than cosmic accidents or the products of time, chance, and Darwinian evolution. But, where does the evidence really lead? Now you can explore compelling evidence for design and purpose in the universe with these three internationally-acclaimed DVDS from Illustra Media.
Watch the introductory video below:
Science often insists that life and the universe are nothing more than cosmic accidents or the products of time, chance, and Darwinian evolution. But, where does the evidence really lead? Now you can explore compelling evidence for design and purpose in the universe with these three internationally-acclaimed DVDS from Illustra Media.
Watch the introductory video below:
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Montana Senate Approves Pro-Life Personhood Amendment
Montana became the first state on Thursday to pass a Personhood Amendment – which establishes legal rights for humans from the moment of conception – in the state Senate.
-- From "Montana Senate Approves Pro-Life Personhood Amendment" by Melanie Hunter-Omar, CNSNews.com 2/26/09
SB 406 states: “All persons are born free and have certain alienable rights … person means a human being at all stages of human development of life, including the state of fertilization or conception, regardless of age, health, level of functioning, or condition of dependency.”
Five states have introduced bills affirming personhood rights – including Maryland, North Dakota, Montana, South Carolina, and Alabama. Oregon has started a personhood amendment petition drive, and Mississippi is expected to launch its personhood amendment petition drive in a few weeks.
The amendment now goes to the Montana House of Representatives with a majority vote of 74. Once it passes, it will immediately become part of the state constitution.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Montana Senate Approves Pro-Life Personhood Amendment" by Melanie Hunter-Omar, CNSNews.com 2/26/09
SB 406 states: “All persons are born free and have certain alienable rights … person means a human being at all stages of human development of life, including the state of fertilization or conception, regardless of age, health, level of functioning, or condition of dependency.”
Five states have introduced bills affirming personhood rights – including Maryland, North Dakota, Montana, South Carolina, and Alabama. Oregon has started a personhood amendment petition drive, and Mississippi is expected to launch its personhood amendment petition drive in a few weeks.
The amendment now goes to the Montana House of Representatives with a majority vote of 74. Once it passes, it will immediately become part of the state constitution.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Supremes Say Cities Needn't Bow to all 'Gods'
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a small religious group cannot force a city in Utah to place a granite marker in a local park that already is home to a Ten Commandments display.
-- From "Court rules for Utah city in religious marker case" by Mark Sherman, Associated Press 2/25/09
In a case involving the Salt Lake City-based Summum, the court said that governments can decide what to display in a public park without running afoul of the First Amendment.
Pleasant Grove City, Utah, rejected the group's marker, prompting a federal lawsuit that argued that a city can't allow some private donations of displays in its public park and reject others. The federal appeals court in Denver agreed.
In his opinion for the court, Justice Samuel Alito distinguished the Summum's case from efforts to prevent groups from speaking in public parks, which ordinarily would violate the First Amendment's free speech guarantee.
Alito said "the display of a permanent monument in a public park" requires a different analysis.
Because monuments in public parks help define a city's identity, "cities and other jurisdictions take some care in accepting donated monuments," he said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Court rules for Utah city in religious marker case" by Mark Sherman, Associated Press 2/25/09
In a case involving the Salt Lake City-based Summum, the court said that governments can decide what to display in a public park without running afoul of the First Amendment.
Pleasant Grove City, Utah, rejected the group's marker, prompting a federal lawsuit that argued that a city can't allow some private donations of displays in its public park and reject others. The federal appeals court in Denver agreed.
In his opinion for the court, Justice Samuel Alito distinguished the Summum's case from efforts to prevent groups from speaking in public parks, which ordinarily would violate the First Amendment's free speech guarantee.
Alito said "the display of a permanent monument in a public park" requires a different analysis.
Because monuments in public parks help define a city's identity, "cities and other jurisdictions take some care in accepting donated monuments," he said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Homosexual Internet Advocacy Mainstreams Gay Agenda
Although pro-homosexual advocates comprise a tiny percentage of the American population, they exploit Internet capabilities to organize their grassroots. The result is that the Gay Agenda is now a cornerstone of the Obama White House.
Take note that this article is from the Washington Post; as more newspapers go bankrupt, the mainstream media is fearing the age of the Internet.
-- From "Gay Bloggers' Voices Rise in Chorus of Growing Political Influence" by Jose Antonio Vargas, Washington Post Staff Writer 2/24/09
In the past, someone like [Blogger Pam] Spaulding would have been relegated to the sidelines. She doesn't work for national gay rights organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign or the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. She lives with her partner, Kate, an audiologist, in Durham, far from San Francisco, New York or Washington, where gay activism has been historically based. But now she's helping shape the agenda, one voice in a chorus of sometimes dissonant, sometimes harmonious, often in-your-face voices that is pushing established gay groups and redefining the meaning of grass-roots action in this new media age.
Take the immediate reaction to Proposition 8, the California initiative that banned same-sex marriage: Gay bloggers and online activists scheduled rallies across the country, from Providence, R.I., to Albuquerque. Opponents of Prop. 8 gathered on a Web site called Join the Impact, founded three days after Californians passed the initiative by a vote of 52 percent to 48. Facebook groups were created. "Californians Ready to Repeal Prop. 8" has 256,000 members and "Repeal the CA Ban on Marriage Equality -- 2010" has 277,000.
"What happened after Proposition 8 caught the national gay groups completely off guard. I think it surprised them. I think it really showed them that when it comes to harnessing grass-roots energy, they need to get online," says Kevin Naff, editor of the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper. "What happened online came together overnight for little or no money, and the protests were covered by the mainstream press. If national groups wanted to coordinate the kind of mass protests we saw, they would spend $1 million and take six months to do it."
Though Andrew Sullivan, the openly gay Washington media veteran, has been blogging since 2000, for many, the gay political presence online began nearly five years ago. That's when blogger Mike Rogers, a longtime activist, began outing gay staffers on Capitol Hill who worked for Republicans supporting what he called "anti-gay" policies. It was controversial, it was provocative, it got everyone's attention. But the gay political blogosphere wasn't just about outing. From the outset, it highlighted issues that bloggers felt were misunderstood, back-burnered or not fully covered by the mainstream media.
For instance, when it was announced that the Rev. Rick Warren, whose megachurch in Orange County, Calif., endorsed Prop. 8, would deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration, gay bloggers pounced. "The press made it seem like it was just a Warren versus gays story. It wasn't. It was a Warren versus gays and a Warren versus choice story. His stance on choice got less attention," Spaulding says. On inauguration weekend, when the opening prayer by Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay priest to be ordained as a bishop in a major Christian church, was excluded from the live HBO broadcast of the concert at Lincoln Memorial, bloggers pounced again. HBO ended up re-airing the broadcast with Robinson, and pressure from the gay blogosphere was one of the reasons why.
On the Internet, no group -- however controversial or on the fringe -- is invisible.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Take note that this article is from the Washington Post; as more newspapers go bankrupt, the mainstream media is fearing the age of the Internet.
-- From "Gay Bloggers' Voices Rise in Chorus of Growing Political Influence" by Jose Antonio Vargas, Washington Post Staff Writer 2/24/09
In the past, someone like [Blogger Pam] Spaulding would have been relegated to the sidelines. She doesn't work for national gay rights organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign or the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. She lives with her partner, Kate, an audiologist, in Durham, far from San Francisco, New York or Washington, where gay activism has been historically based. But now she's helping shape the agenda, one voice in a chorus of sometimes dissonant, sometimes harmonious, often in-your-face voices that is pushing established gay groups and redefining the meaning of grass-roots action in this new media age.
Take the immediate reaction to Proposition 8, the California initiative that banned same-sex marriage: Gay bloggers and online activists scheduled rallies across the country, from Providence, R.I., to Albuquerque. Opponents of Prop. 8 gathered on a Web site called Join the Impact, founded three days after Californians passed the initiative by a vote of 52 percent to 48. Facebook groups were created. "Californians Ready to Repeal Prop. 8" has 256,000 members and "Repeal the CA Ban on Marriage Equality -- 2010" has 277,000.
"What happened after Proposition 8 caught the national gay groups completely off guard. I think it surprised them. I think it really showed them that when it comes to harnessing grass-roots energy, they need to get online," says Kevin Naff, editor of the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper. "What happened online came together overnight for little or no money, and the protests were covered by the mainstream press. If national groups wanted to coordinate the kind of mass protests we saw, they would spend $1 million and take six months to do it."
Though Andrew Sullivan, the openly gay Washington media veteran, has been blogging since 2000, for many, the gay political presence online began nearly five years ago. That's when blogger Mike Rogers, a longtime activist, began outing gay staffers on Capitol Hill who worked for Republicans supporting what he called "anti-gay" policies. It was controversial, it was provocative, it got everyone's attention. But the gay political blogosphere wasn't just about outing. From the outset, it highlighted issues that bloggers felt were misunderstood, back-burnered or not fully covered by the mainstream media.
For instance, when it was announced that the Rev. Rick Warren, whose megachurch in Orange County, Calif., endorsed Prop. 8, would deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration, gay bloggers pounced. "The press made it seem like it was just a Warren versus gays story. It wasn't. It was a Warren versus gays and a Warren versus choice story. His stance on choice got less attention," Spaulding says. On inauguration weekend, when the opening prayer by Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay priest to be ordained as a bishop in a major Christian church, was excluded from the live HBO broadcast of the concert at Lincoln Memorial, bloggers pounced again. HBO ended up re-airing the broadcast with Robinson, and pressure from the gay blogosphere was one of the reasons why.
On the Internet, no group -- however controversial or on the fringe -- is invisible.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
GOP Ostracizes Senator for Truthful Comments about Homosexuality
[Utah Sen. Chris] Buttars has been under fire for a week, after he told a documentary filmmaker that gays pose the greatest internal threat to the country, lack morals, are demanding special rights and engage in disgusting sexual practices.
-- From "Senate Republicans meet and air their frustrations with their colleague" by Robert Gehrke, The Salt Lake Tribune 2/23/09
The fallout from the anti-gay comments of Sen. Chris Buttars continues as Senate Republicans met behind closed doors for more than two hours Monday to air their concerns and views about the remarks.
Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, said on a radio show he hosts Saturday that Buttars was not reprimanded for the content of his comments, but for violating an agreement with Senate leaders not to speak publicly on gay issues because he had become a "lightning rod" on those issues.
[Republican] Senate leaders had hoped to put the issue behind them last week, after Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, stripped Buttars of his chairmanship and membership on two committees -- the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Judicial Confirmation Committee.
Senate Minority Leader Pat Jones, D-Holladay, said her party still has concerns about how the issue was handled and would like to see further action taken. The Democrats have called a news conference for Tuesday morning.
They are expected to call for Buttars to be removed from the Senate Rules Committee, which has immense power in deciding which bills progress through the Senate.
Buttars, who has said he disagreed with the decision to punish him for his comments and refused to apologize, sat through the meeting, in which members of the fractured caucus expressed their concerns.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Senate Republicans meet and air their frustrations with their colleague" by Robert Gehrke, The Salt Lake Tribune 2/23/09
The fallout from the anti-gay comments of Sen. Chris Buttars continues as Senate Republicans met behind closed doors for more than two hours Monday to air their concerns and views about the remarks.
Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, said on a radio show he hosts Saturday that Buttars was not reprimanded for the content of his comments, but for violating an agreement with Senate leaders not to speak publicly on gay issues because he had become a "lightning rod" on those issues.
[Republican] Senate leaders had hoped to put the issue behind them last week, after Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, stripped Buttars of his chairmanship and membership on two committees -- the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Judicial Confirmation Committee.
Senate Minority Leader Pat Jones, D-Holladay, said her party still has concerns about how the issue was handled and would like to see further action taken. The Democrats have called a news conference for Tuesday morning.
They are expected to call for Buttars to be removed from the Senate Rules Committee, which has immense power in deciding which bills progress through the Senate.
Buttars, who has said he disagreed with the decision to punish him for his comments and refused to apologize, sat through the meeting, in which members of the fractured caucus expressed their concerns.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Hawaii Considers Same-sex Legislation
Hawaii, the state that adopted the nation's first "defense of marriage" constitutional amendment a decade ago, has now become the latest battleground in the fight for same-sex civil unions.
-- From "Hawaii is latest civil unions battleground" by Mark Niesse, Associated Press 2/22/09
It would become the fifth state to legalize the alternative to gay marriage if the Democrat-dominated Legislature and Republican governor approve a civil union law. The measure was passed by the state House this month but it now faces the Senate, where a divided committee is to vote Tuesday.
Republican Gov. Linda Lingle has declined to comment on the issue and it's unclear whether she would veto the bill.
. . . the House Judiciary Committee passed the measure by a 12-0 vote, and the full House approved it 33-17, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a potential veto.
In 1998, nearly 70 percent of Hawaii voters approved a constitutional amendment granting the state Legislature the power to reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples. The "defense of marriage" amendment, now in more than half of state constitutions, resulted in a law banning gay marriage in Hawaii but left the door open for civil unions.
Only Massachusetts and Connecticut allow gay marriage, while Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire allow civil unions. Californians voted in November to overturn a court ruling that allowed gay marriage, but the state still offers domestic partnerships that guarantee the same rights as marriage.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Hawaii is latest civil unions battleground" by Mark Niesse, Associated Press 2/22/09
It would become the fifth state to legalize the alternative to gay marriage if the Democrat-dominated Legislature and Republican governor approve a civil union law. The measure was passed by the state House this month but it now faces the Senate, where a divided committee is to vote Tuesday.
Republican Gov. Linda Lingle has declined to comment on the issue and it's unclear whether she would veto the bill.
. . . the House Judiciary Committee passed the measure by a 12-0 vote, and the full House approved it 33-17, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a potential veto.
In 1998, nearly 70 percent of Hawaii voters approved a constitutional amendment granting the state Legislature the power to reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples. The "defense of marriage" amendment, now in more than half of state constitutions, resulted in a law banning gay marriage in Hawaii but left the door open for civil unions.
Only Massachusetts and Connecticut allow gay marriage, while Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire allow civil unions. Californians voted in November to overturn a court ruling that allowed gay marriage, but the state still offers domestic partnerships that guarantee the same rights as marriage.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)