Starting this school year, University of North Carolina students will be required to purchase a private insurance plan or enroll in a campus plan that includes abortion coverage.
-- From "Students can opt for insurance that excludes procedure" by Gregory Childress, The Herald-Sun (Durham, NC) 8/12/10
Members of the UNC Board of Governors said Thursday they have been inundated with calls and e-mails in recent days complaining the new policy forces students who might oppose abortions to help pay for them.
In a statement posted on the Arlington, Va.-based Students for Life of America's website, Sarah Hardin, president of the N.C. State chapter of the anti-abortion group, said she was "dumbfounded" to learn last week that the university coverage included elective abortion.
"As a pro-life student at N.C. State, I am dismayed that my classmates will not only be forced to purchase health insurance, but will also be forced to pay into a pool that will go to aborting the children of other North Carolina students," Hardin said.
Under the new policy, approved by the board last August, students must have health insurance. They may opt out of the system's plan, which costs about $360 a semester, by showing proof of insurance elsewhere.
[UNC System President Erskine] Bowles said the inclusion of the elective abortion coverage had no impact on the premium for the university-sponsored plan, and individuals who choose to drop the abortion provision from the university coverage will not see a decrease in their premium.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
From "N.C. Students Who Opt Out of Abortion Coverage in Campus Health Plan Won’t Get Premium Reduction" by Christopher A. Guzman, CNSNews.com 8/17/10
. . . while the UNC administration has agreed under pressure from pro-lifers to opt out of the abortion coverage aspect of the campus plan, students on the 16 campuses in the UNC system who opt out will pay the same premiums as those who do not.
Under the plan, a benefit of up to $500 as well as 80 percent Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) coverage is available for “Elective Abortion.”
[Students for Life of America,] SLFA is concerned that students opposed to abortion on moral grounds may still have to pay into an insurance pool that subsidizes abortion coverage since costs for the insurance plan are included in student tuition.
For students opposed to abortion who can afford only the university health insurance, the policy allows them to remove the abortion option from their student account. But if students choose to remove their abortion coverage, their premium remains the same.
Unless students provide proof of private insurance, they automatically are enrolled in the campus insurance program, under insurance provider Pearce and Pearce.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Obama's Advancement of the Gay Agenda Enumerated
Democrat leader says, "No one should rest until we have full LGBT equality. But after eight years of Republican disrespect, progress is being made."
-- From "Accomplishments by the Administration and Congress on LGBT Equality" by Andrew Tobias, Democratic National Committee Treasurer
In its first 19 months, the Obama Administration has...
CLICK HERE to read the full list of 39 accomplishments by the Obama Administration in advancing the Gay Agenda.
-- From "Accomplishments by the Administration and Congress on LGBT Equality" by Andrew Tobias, Democratic National Committee Treasurer
In its first 19 months, the Obama Administration has...
CLICK HERE to read the full list of 39 accomplishments by the Obama Administration in advancing the Gay Agenda.
Will Supreme Court Outlaw Christianity?
Amid the concern that America is trending toward socialism (a form of government at odds with religious liberty), comes the California same-sex "marriage" ruling wherein the judge criticizes Christian beliefs -- a case headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
-- From "Prop 8 Ruling Could Criminalize Christianity, Leaders Warn" by Pete Winn, CNSNews.com Senior Writer/Editor 8/16/10
In a 136-page decision barring California’s Proposition 8, which limited marriage to one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found that “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University Law School and chairman of the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, said Walker's finding is shocking, and, if upheld, would have ominous implications for Christians wanting to present the Bible’s position on homosexuality.
The judge based his finding on testimony of witnesses produced by the plaintiffs and on quotations from documents from the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Orthodox Church and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
One Catholic document that the judge said “hurts” homosexuals, published by the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith, titled “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,” states: “Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as ‘a serious depravity.’”
Another document he cited -- a resolution the Southern Baptist Convention passed in June of 2003 -- says: “Legalizing ‘same-sex marriage’ would convey a societal approval of a homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible calls sinful and dangerous both to the individuals involved and to society at large.”
Christian counselor Joe Dallas, who operates a center that uses Scripture to counsel people on homosexuality, is concerned about the implications of the judge's finding.
“For a judge to say that it is literally damaging to homosexual people when churches simply express and maintain a clearly defined biblical approach to homosexuality, is to introduce the concept that the ‘damage’ that’s being done to homosexuals needs to be stopped. That damage will have to be stopped by silencing the Church,” Dallas said. “There’s really no other way to read that particular finding.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below for related articles:
Supreme Court Ends Christian Witness on Campus
Prayer Declared Illegal at U.S. Supreme Court
Atheist Organization Swamped Suing to Stop Prayer
New York Christian in Jail for Praying at 'Gay Event'
Obama Signs Law to End Christian Witness - 'Hate Crimes'
Pastors Tell White House 'Hate Crimes' Law Unconstitutional
Preachers Beware - Obama Justice Dept. to Enforce New Hate Speech Law
Mass. Court Rules Against Christian Free Speech
Fed. Judge OKs Christians Expelled over Morals
Christian Fired for 'Hate Speech' by Univ. of Illinois
Preacher Threatened with Arrest for Publicly Reading Bible
Pastor Jailed for Saying Homosexuality is Sin
Maine Fines Christians for Criticizing Islam
ENDA: Congress Advances Gay Agenda in Workplace
-- From "Prop 8 Ruling Could Criminalize Christianity, Leaders Warn" by Pete Winn, CNSNews.com Senior Writer/Editor 8/16/10
In a 136-page decision barring California’s Proposition 8, which limited marriage to one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found that “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University Law School and chairman of the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, said Walker's finding is shocking, and, if upheld, would have ominous implications for Christians wanting to present the Bible’s position on homosexuality.
The judge based his finding on testimony of witnesses produced by the plaintiffs and on quotations from documents from the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Orthodox Church and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
One Catholic document that the judge said “hurts” homosexuals, published by the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith, titled “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,” states: “Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as ‘a serious depravity.’”
Another document he cited -- a resolution the Southern Baptist Convention passed in June of 2003 -- says: “Legalizing ‘same-sex marriage’ would convey a societal approval of a homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible calls sinful and dangerous both to the individuals involved and to society at large.”
Christian counselor Joe Dallas, who operates a center that uses Scripture to counsel people on homosexuality, is concerned about the implications of the judge's finding.
“For a judge to say that it is literally damaging to homosexual people when churches simply express and maintain a clearly defined biblical approach to homosexuality, is to introduce the concept that the ‘damage’ that’s being done to homosexuals needs to be stopped. That damage will have to be stopped by silencing the Church,” Dallas said. “There’s really no other way to read that particular finding.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below for related articles:
Supreme Court Ends Christian Witness on Campus
Prayer Declared Illegal at U.S. Supreme Court
Atheist Organization Swamped Suing to Stop Prayer
New York Christian in Jail for Praying at 'Gay Event'
Obama Signs Law to End Christian Witness - 'Hate Crimes'
Pastors Tell White House 'Hate Crimes' Law Unconstitutional
Preachers Beware - Obama Justice Dept. to Enforce New Hate Speech Law
Mass. Court Rules Against Christian Free Speech
Fed. Judge OKs Christians Expelled over Morals
Christian Fired for 'Hate Speech' by Univ. of Illinois
Preacher Threatened with Arrest for Publicly Reading Bible
Pastor Jailed for Saying Homosexuality is Sin
Maine Fines Christians for Criticizing Islam
ENDA: Congress Advances Gay Agenda in Workplace
Christians Pray, "God Save America"
An Egyptian-born megachurch pastor is calling out for 100,000 “Bible-believing” Americans to pray for the United States.
“Real change in America is still possible as long as there are Christians willing to consecrate themselves to God in prayer for the spiritual state of this nation.”
-- From "Megachurch Pastor Seeks 100,000 Christians to 'Save America'" by Michelle A. Vu, Christian Post Reporter 7/27/10
Dr. Michael Youssef, founding pastor of The Church of The Apostles and president of the ministry Leading the Way in Atlanta, has found 42,450 people so far to join him in daily prayer for the United States since the “God Save America” campaign launched on July 4.
A major emphasis of the prayer campaign is to remind American Christians that the United States was founded on dependence upon God. But today, Youssef says, the country’s leaders and citizens try to attain success in their own terms.
Participants of the “God Save America” campaign are expected to offer up prayers of gratitude for the rich Christian history of America; repentance for individual and national sins; petition for God’s blessing on America; and pray for wisdom and discernment for elected officials as well as for boldness and strength to share the Gospel with neighbors.
“The reason for our country’s decay – our economic turmoil, our social ills, the church’s coldness and apostasy from the Truth … is because we have departed from the one true God,” Youssef said. “He wants to bless our country in His sovereignty and mercy, but we need to repent of our pride and willful independence.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
“Real change in America is still possible as long as there are Christians willing to consecrate themselves to God in prayer for the spiritual state of this nation.”
-- From "Megachurch Pastor Seeks 100,000 Christians to 'Save America'" by Michelle A. Vu, Christian Post Reporter 7/27/10
Dr. Michael Youssef, founding pastor of The Church of The Apostles and president of the ministry Leading the Way in Atlanta, has found 42,450 people so far to join him in daily prayer for the United States since the “God Save America” campaign launched on July 4.
A major emphasis of the prayer campaign is to remind American Christians that the United States was founded on dependence upon God. But today, Youssef says, the country’s leaders and citizens try to attain success in their own terms.
Participants of the “God Save America” campaign are expected to offer up prayers of gratitude for the rich Christian history of America; repentance for individual and national sins; petition for God’s blessing on America; and pray for wisdom and discernment for elected officials as well as for boldness and strength to share the Gospel with neighbors.
“The reason for our country’s decay – our economic turmoil, our social ills, the church’s coldness and apostasy from the Truth … is because we have departed from the one true God,” Youssef said. “He wants to bless our country in His sovereignty and mercy, but we need to repent of our pride and willful independence.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Pastor Wins Free Speech Lawsuit Over Mall
Court rules in favor of California youth pastor who was arrested for witnessing his faith to a few accepting women -- the "mall rules" violated his freedom of speech.
-- From "Roseville galleria's rules deny free speech, state appeals court says" by Denny Walsh, Sacramento Bee 8/14/10
Owners of the Westfield Galleria at Roseville didn't want strangers talking to each other if they weren't talking about the mall.
A three-judge panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal said Wednesday in a 43-page opinion that the company's rules of conduct "are unconstitutional on their face" under the California Constitution's free speech guarantee.
The specific rule at issue prohibits a person in the center's common areas from "approaching patrons with whom he or she was not previously acquainted for the purpose of communicating with them on a topic unrelated to the business interests" of the mall or its tenants.
Writing on behalf of the unanimous appellate panel, Associate Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye concluded "the rules allow conversation between strangers on matters related to the Galleria … while prohibiting peaceful, consensual, spontaneous conversations between strangers in common areas of the mall on topics unrelated to the … mall."
The panel reversed Placer Superior Court Judge Larry D. Gaddis' ruling in favor of Westfield LLC and sent the case back to him for further proceedings.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Shopping mall's speech restrictions torpedoed" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 8/13/10
"The [mall's] rules treat all applicants for noncommercial expressive activity the same way, but the rules are not content neutral because they prohibit or restrict speech unrelated to the mall's interests while permitting speech that is related to the mall's interest. The rules are content based," said the opinion from Associate Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
According to the Pacific Justice Institute, which represented a youth pastor targeted by mall enforcement of its speech rules, the case arose after a Matthew Snatchko was arrested at the Roseville Galleria Mall in 2007 for striking up a casual conversation with other shoppers about faith.
Pacific Justice said that under the mall's rules, shoppers are not allowed to engage in conversations about potentially controversial topics such as religion or politics unless they already know the person they are talking to. Another mall rule bans the wearing of any clothing with religious or political messages.
The court noted the seemingly innocuous behavior that prompted the mall to arrest the youth pastor.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Roseville galleria's rules deny free speech, state appeals court says" by Denny Walsh, Sacramento Bee 8/14/10
Owners of the Westfield Galleria at Roseville didn't want strangers talking to each other if they weren't talking about the mall.
A three-judge panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal said Wednesday in a 43-page opinion that the company's rules of conduct "are unconstitutional on their face" under the California Constitution's free speech guarantee.
The specific rule at issue prohibits a person in the center's common areas from "approaching patrons with whom he or she was not previously acquainted for the purpose of communicating with them on a topic unrelated to the business interests" of the mall or its tenants.
Writing on behalf of the unanimous appellate panel, Associate Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye concluded "the rules allow conversation between strangers on matters related to the Galleria … while prohibiting peaceful, consensual, spontaneous conversations between strangers in common areas of the mall on topics unrelated to the … mall."
The panel reversed Placer Superior Court Judge Larry D. Gaddis' ruling in favor of Westfield LLC and sent the case back to him for further proceedings.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Shopping mall's speech restrictions torpedoed" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 8/13/10
"The [mall's] rules treat all applicants for noncommercial expressive activity the same way, but the rules are not content neutral because they prohibit or restrict speech unrelated to the mall's interests while permitting speech that is related to the mall's interest. The rules are content based," said the opinion from Associate Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
According to the Pacific Justice Institute, which represented a youth pastor targeted by mall enforcement of its speech rules, the case arose after a Matthew Snatchko was arrested at the Roseville Galleria Mall in 2007 for striking up a casual conversation with other shoppers about faith.
Pacific Justice said that under the mall's rules, shoppers are not allowed to engage in conversations about potentially controversial topics such as religion or politics unless they already know the person they are talking to. Another mall rule bans the wearing of any clothing with religious or political messages.
The court noted the seemingly innocuous behavior that prompted the mall to arrest the youth pastor.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Conforming The Church to the Culture: Wall Street Journal
But one of the most popular—and arguably most unseemly—methods of making Christianity hip is to make it shocking. What better way to appeal to younger generations than to push the envelope and go where no fundamentalist has gone before?
-- From "The Perils of 'Wannabe Cool' Christianity" by Brett McCracken, posted at The Wall Street Journal 8/13/10
Recent statistics have shown an increasing exodus of young people from churches, especially after they leave home and live on their own. In a 2007 study, Lifeway Research determined that 70% of young Protestant adults between 18-22 stop attending church regularly.
Increasingly, the "plan" has taken the form of a total image overhaul, where efforts are made to rebrand Christianity as hip, countercultural, relevant. As a result, in the early 2000s, we got something called "the emerging church"—a sort of postmodern stab at an evangelical reform movement.
"Wannabe cool" Christianity also manifests itself as an obsession with being on the technological cutting edge. . . .
Sex is a popular shock tactic. . . . many churches are finding creative ways to use sex-themed marketing gimmicks to lure people into church.
. . . probably the first and only pastor I have ever heard say the word "vulva" during a sermon.
But are these gimmicks really going to bring young people back to church? Is this what people really come to church for? Maybe sex sermons and indie- rock worship music do help in getting people in the door, and maybe even in winning new converts. But what sort of Christianity are they being converted to?
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "The Perils of 'Wannabe Cool' Christianity" by Brett McCracken, posted at The Wall Street Journal 8/13/10
Recent statistics have shown an increasing exodus of young people from churches, especially after they leave home and live on their own. In a 2007 study, Lifeway Research determined that 70% of young Protestant adults between 18-22 stop attending church regularly.
Increasingly, the "plan" has taken the form of a total image overhaul, where efforts are made to rebrand Christianity as hip, countercultural, relevant. As a result, in the early 2000s, we got something called "the emerging church"—a sort of postmodern stab at an evangelical reform movement.
"Wannabe cool" Christianity also manifests itself as an obsession with being on the technological cutting edge. . . .
Sex is a popular shock tactic. . . . many churches are finding creative ways to use sex-themed marketing gimmicks to lure people into church.
. . . probably the first and only pastor I have ever heard say the word "vulva" during a sermon.
But are these gimmicks really going to bring young people back to church? Is this what people really come to church for? Maybe sex sermons and indie- rock worship music do help in getting people in the door, and maybe even in winning new converts. But what sort of Christianity are they being converted to?
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
New Abortion Pill Approved For Sale
In contrast to the past, the Obama FDA's rush to put the latest "emergency contraceptive pill" on the market will result in more women harmed and more death of unborn babies.
UPDATE 10/1/10 video:
UPDATE 8/3/11: Don't be Misled, Ella Drug Causes Abortions
UPDATE 7/19/11: NPR, Planned Parenthood Mislead on Abortion Nature of Ella Drug
UPDATE 9/21/10: Dangers of ‘Emergency Contraception’ Drug
-- From "F.D.A. Approves 5-Day Emergency Contraceptive" by Gardiner Harris, New York Times 8/13/10
The pill, called ella, will be available by prescription only. Developed in government laboratories, it is more effective than Plan B, the morning-after pill now available over the counter to women 17 and older.
That [Plan B] pill gradually loses efficacy and can be taken at most three days after sex. Ella, by contrast, works just as well on the fifth day as the first after sex.
Women who have unprotected intercourse have about 1 chance in 20 of becoming pregnant. Those who take Plan B within three days cut that risk to about 1 in 40, while those who take ella would cut that risk to about 1 in 50, regulators say. Studies show that ella is less effective in obese women.
Still, the decision by the Food and Drug Administration to approve ella, less than two months after a federal advisory committee voted unanimously to recommend approval, marks a decided shift for the agency.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "FDA approves ella as 5-day-after emergency contraceptive" by Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer 8/14/10
The decision to allow the sale of the pill, which will be marketed under the brand name "ella," was welcomed by family-planning proponents as a crucial new option to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But critics condemned the decision, arguing that it was misleading to approve ella as a contraceptive because the drug could also be used to induce an abortion.
If the history of Plan B is any indication, ella's approval is likely to mark the beginning of many years of political and regulatory battles over the drug.
Critics are already concerned that ella's approval as a contraceptive will make it eligible to receive federal tax subsidies, which are banned for the abortion pill RU-486,. They also are concerned that ella will be included in the services that health plans will have to pay for under the new health-care overhaul law.
"By misclassifying ella as emergency contraception, this administration has paved the way to covertly allow federal funding for abortion," said Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), who called on Obama to issue an executive order prohibiting federal funds from paying for ella.
Ella is also likely to exacerbate a long-running debate over whether doctors have an obligation to write prescriptions for medication they oppose on moral grounds and whether pharmacists have an obligation to fill them. Many doctors and pharmacists refuse to write or fill prescriptions for Plan B or refer patients elsewhere for it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/1/10 video:
UPDATE 8/3/11: Don't be Misled, Ella Drug Causes Abortions
UPDATE 7/19/11: NPR, Planned Parenthood Mislead on Abortion Nature of Ella Drug
UPDATE 9/21/10: Dangers of ‘Emergency Contraception’ Drug
-- From "F.D.A. Approves 5-Day Emergency Contraceptive" by Gardiner Harris, New York Times 8/13/10
The pill, called ella, will be available by prescription only. Developed in government laboratories, it is more effective than Plan B, the morning-after pill now available over the counter to women 17 and older.
That [Plan B] pill gradually loses efficacy and can be taken at most three days after sex. Ella, by contrast, works just as well on the fifth day as the first after sex.
Women who have unprotected intercourse have about 1 chance in 20 of becoming pregnant. Those who take Plan B within three days cut that risk to about 1 in 40, while those who take ella would cut that risk to about 1 in 50, regulators say. Studies show that ella is less effective in obese women.
Still, the decision by the Food and Drug Administration to approve ella, less than two months after a federal advisory committee voted unanimously to recommend approval, marks a decided shift for the agency.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "FDA approves ella as 5-day-after emergency contraceptive" by Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer 8/14/10
The decision to allow the sale of the pill, which will be marketed under the brand name "ella," was welcomed by family-planning proponents as a crucial new option to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But critics condemned the decision, arguing that it was misleading to approve ella as a contraceptive because the drug could also be used to induce an abortion.
If the history of Plan B is any indication, ella's approval is likely to mark the beginning of many years of political and regulatory battles over the drug.
Critics are already concerned that ella's approval as a contraceptive will make it eligible to receive federal tax subsidies, which are banned for the abortion pill RU-486,. They also are concerned that ella will be included in the services that health plans will have to pay for under the new health-care overhaul law.
"By misclassifying ella as emergency contraception, this administration has paved the way to covertly allow federal funding for abortion," said Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), who called on Obama to issue an executive order prohibiting federal funds from paying for ella.
Ella is also likely to exacerbate a long-running debate over whether doctors have an obligation to write prescriptions for medication they oppose on moral grounds and whether pharmacists have an obligation to fill them. Many doctors and pharmacists refuse to write or fill prescriptions for Plan B or refer patients elsewhere for it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Homosexual College Presidents Strategize Gay Agenda
The meeting was the first attempt to gather the growing number of out [homosexual] college presidents (25 were invited) — and participants said in interviews after the event that they wanted to encourage more gay academics to aspire to leadership positions and wanted to push higher education to include issues of sexual orientation when talking about diversity.
"My advice is to be out since you are a baby or as soon as possible."
UPDATE 6/15/11: Carolyn "Biddy" Martin first homosexual & first woman president of Amherst College
-- From "Gay college presidents form group" by Daniel de Vise, Washington Post 8/9/10
Nine openly gay college presidents gathered in Chicago last weekend and resolved to form an organization to provide professional support to "out" presidents and faculty.
Gay and lesbian presidents were considerably less usual as recently as the mid-1990s, attendees said. "Skittish governing boards" often resist hiring or promoting gay presidents for fear of alienating donors or lawmakers, the Chronicle reports. Gay provosts and deans might never offer themselves as candidates for a presidency simply to avoid the scrutiny that comes with a candidacy.
The Chronicle of Higher Education compiled a list of 11 openly gay or lesbian presidents in 2007. Several more have been hired more recently, including the presidents of Grinnell and Montgomery colleges.
Rounding out the Chronicle's list are Michael Hoyle, president of McIntosh College in New Hampshire; Neal King, president of Antioch University in Los Angeles; Sean Buffington, University of the Arts; Raymond Crossman, Adler School of Professional Psychology; Ralph Hexter, Hampshire College; Cynthia Huggins, University of Maine at Machias; Theodora Kalikow, University of Maine at Farmington; Charles Middleton, Roosevelt University; Richard Ortner, Boston Conservatory; Biddy Martin, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison; and James Warwick, American Academy of Dramatic Arts, Los Angeles Division.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay, lesbian college presidents form new group" by Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed, USA Today 8/10/10
The new organization has been named the LGBTQ Presidents in Higher Education, said Charles Middleton, president of Roosevelt University and co-host of the meeting. The group plans to reconvene first in a few months, and then perhaps at next year's meeting of the American Council on Education.
. . . the group will focus on leadership development for those who are gay presidents or who aspire to be, professional development for gay people at all levels of academe, and on education and advocacy to promote equity and diversity.
Several of the presidents noted that they came together at a time when issues of gay rights are very much in the news — both for society as a whole and higher education in particular. The presidents met the same week that a federal judge rejected California's ban on gay marriage and the same year that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of public colleges to require all recognized student groups to abide by anti-bias policies — including policies that some religious groups object to because they cover sexual orientation.
. . . the current gay presidents "are pioneers in a way" and "I think you are going to see a lot more in the next five years."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
"My advice is to be out since you are a baby or as soon as possible."
UPDATE 6/15/11: Carolyn "Biddy" Martin first homosexual & first woman president of Amherst College
-- From "Gay college presidents form group" by Daniel de Vise, Washington Post 8/9/10
Nine openly gay college presidents gathered in Chicago last weekend and resolved to form an organization to provide professional support to "out" presidents and faculty.
Gay and lesbian presidents were considerably less usual as recently as the mid-1990s, attendees said. "Skittish governing boards" often resist hiring or promoting gay presidents for fear of alienating donors or lawmakers, the Chronicle reports. Gay provosts and deans might never offer themselves as candidates for a presidency simply to avoid the scrutiny that comes with a candidacy.
The Chronicle of Higher Education compiled a list of 11 openly gay or lesbian presidents in 2007. Several more have been hired more recently, including the presidents of Grinnell and Montgomery colleges.
Rounding out the Chronicle's list are Michael Hoyle, president of McIntosh College in New Hampshire; Neal King, president of Antioch University in Los Angeles; Sean Buffington, University of the Arts; Raymond Crossman, Adler School of Professional Psychology; Ralph Hexter, Hampshire College; Cynthia Huggins, University of Maine at Machias; Theodora Kalikow, University of Maine at Farmington; Charles Middleton, Roosevelt University; Richard Ortner, Boston Conservatory; Biddy Martin, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison; and James Warwick, American Academy of Dramatic Arts, Los Angeles Division.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay, lesbian college presidents form new group" by Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed, USA Today 8/10/10
The new organization has been named the LGBTQ Presidents in Higher Education, said Charles Middleton, president of Roosevelt University and co-host of the meeting. The group plans to reconvene first in a few months, and then perhaps at next year's meeting of the American Council on Education.
. . . the group will focus on leadership development for those who are gay presidents or who aspire to be, professional development for gay people at all levels of academe, and on education and advocacy to promote equity and diversity.
Several of the presidents noted that they came together at a time when issues of gay rights are very much in the news — both for society as a whole and higher education in particular. The presidents met the same week that a federal judge rejected California's ban on gay marriage and the same year that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of public colleges to require all recognized student groups to abide by anti-bias policies — including policies that some religious groups object to because they cover sexual orientation.
. . . the current gay presidents "are pioneers in a way" and "I think you are going to see a lot more in the next five years."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Another Homosexualist in Obama Administration
Conservative groups are expressing concern that David Hansell, an openly homosexual man and former AIDS activist, is currently serving as the acting head – the assistant secretary – of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
UPDATE June 2011: For documentation of President Obama's compliance with the Gay Agenda, CLICK HERE to see the vast list of homosexualist appointments.
-- From "Homosexual Activist Serves as Acting Head of HHS Agency for Children and Families" by Jane McGrath, CNSNews.com 8/12/10
Hansell is the former director of legal services and deputy director for government and public affairs at the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, a homosexual activist group that has lobbied the federal government on HIV/AIDS.
Hansell actually holds the number two position in the ACF, as principal deputy assistant secretary, but has been carrying out the duties of the assistant secretary job until the Obama administration nominates a replacement for Assistant Secretary Carmen Nazario, who resigned from the position earlier this year.
The Senate would have to confirm the president’s nomination.
. . . Hansell has already used the power of the position to cut funding to states that do not permit homosexual couples to adopt children.
In a profile piece on him in The (Albany, N.Y.) Times Union, Hansell responded to a question about whether he felt “pressure to represent” the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender (LGBT) community.
"I've been told that I'm the first openly gay man appointed commissioner in the state,” Hansell responded. “I think that it's a tribute to both Gov. (Elliot) Spitzer and Gov. (David) Paterson. I feel that I bring with me to this job a commitment to serve that community, as well as everyone in the state. And I think it’s a reflection of how far the LGBT community has come."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE June 2011: For documentation of President Obama's compliance with the Gay Agenda, CLICK HERE to see the vast list of homosexualist appointments.
-- From "Homosexual Activist Serves as Acting Head of HHS Agency for Children and Families" by Jane McGrath, CNSNews.com 8/12/10
Hansell is the former director of legal services and deputy director for government and public affairs at the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, a homosexual activist group that has lobbied the federal government on HIV/AIDS.
Hansell actually holds the number two position in the ACF, as principal deputy assistant secretary, but has been carrying out the duties of the assistant secretary job until the Obama administration nominates a replacement for Assistant Secretary Carmen Nazario, who resigned from the position earlier this year.
The Senate would have to confirm the president’s nomination.
. . . Hansell has already used the power of the position to cut funding to states that do not permit homosexual couples to adopt children.
In a profile piece on him in The (Albany, N.Y.) Times Union, Hansell responded to a question about whether he felt “pressure to represent” the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender (LGBT) community.
"I've been told that I'm the first openly gay man appointed commissioner in the state,” Hansell responded. “I think that it's a tribute to both Gov. (Elliot) Spitzer and Gov. (David) Paterson. I feel that I bring with me to this job a commitment to serve that community, as well as everyone in the state. And I think it’s a reflection of how far the LGBT community has come."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Moral Aspect Wanes in Calif. Marriage Debate
While Republican politicians increasingly shy away from hot-button cultural issues (click here), the liberal mainstream media shift the same-sex 'marriage' debate from morals to secular democracy.
UPDATE 8/17/10: Why conservatives have abandoned The Culture War (commentary)
-- From "Proposition 8 backers unhappy with federal judge's ruling" By Mike Anton, Los Angeles Times 8/13/10
What was once a moral argument has morphed into a debate over the democratic process and the propriety of judges overturning laws approved by voters. It raises one of the oldest conflicts in the nation — the tension between "majority rule" and a Constitution designed to protect the rights of individuals against the majority.
Judge Walker ruled in a 136-page decision that "moral disapproval" of same-sex marriages wasn't a valid reason to deny gay men and lesbians their constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Some liken the court's action on Proposition 8 to what happened to California's Proposition 187, which would have cut state services to illegal immigrants. Approved by voters in 1994, it too was invalidated as unconstitutional by a federal judge.
"Why should I waste my time voting if the opposition can find one judge to overturn the will of the people," said Bill Petersen, 66, of Tustin. "It doesn't make sense."
Morality was the issue when voters went to the polls. But it isn't now . . .
. . . the ruling on Proposition 8 "opens up the door for more like this. Liberals are deciding what should happen in our world."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 8/17/10: Why conservatives have abandoned The Culture War (commentary)
-- From "Proposition 8 backers unhappy with federal judge's ruling" By Mike Anton, Los Angeles Times 8/13/10
What was once a moral argument has morphed into a debate over the democratic process and the propriety of judges overturning laws approved by voters. It raises one of the oldest conflicts in the nation — the tension between "majority rule" and a Constitution designed to protect the rights of individuals against the majority.
Judge Walker ruled in a 136-page decision that "moral disapproval" of same-sex marriages wasn't a valid reason to deny gay men and lesbians their constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Some liken the court's action on Proposition 8 to what happened to California's Proposition 187, which would have cut state services to illegal immigrants. Approved by voters in 1994, it too was invalidated as unconstitutional by a federal judge.
"Why should I waste my time voting if the opposition can find one judge to overturn the will of the people," said Bill Petersen, 66, of Tustin. "It doesn't make sense."
Morality was the issue when voters went to the polls. But it isn't now . . .
. . . the ruling on Proposition 8 "opens up the door for more like this. Liberals are deciding what should happen in our world."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Americans Oppose Homosexuality in Military; Liberals Don't
About half of likely voters don't want a repeal of the 1993 law barring open homosexuality in the military, while 59% of Democrats want Congress to ignore top military commanders on the subject and instead listen to homosexualists.
Also, about half of likely voters oppose legislation that would "allow abortions in military medical facilities in the United States and overseas."
UPDATE 8/22/10: Mainstream media finally reports this story
-- From "New Poll Finds Most Oppose DADT Repeal" by Bryant Jordan, Military.com 8/10/10
Groups dedicated to keeping in place the ban on gays serving openly have released the results of a survey indicating the majority of Americans oppose lifting the so-called Don't Ask, Don't Tell prohibition.
The poll, sponsored by the Center for Military Readiness and the Military Culture Coalition, found a majority of respondents – 48 percent – oppose repealing the 1993 law.
Additionally the poll found that lawmakers who vote to lift the current prohibition on abortions at military medical facilities do so "at their own political peril."
The CMR/Coalition poll found 49 percent opposed to using military facilities for abortions.
The poll of 1,000 respondents was conducted in mid-July by the polling company/WomanTrend of Washington, D.C., said Kellyanne Conway, founder and chief executive officer of the company.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Likely voters support 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'" by Michael Foust, an assistant editor of Baptist Press 8/10/10
[In constrast, a] CNN/Opinion Research Poll from May showed that 78 percent of adults supported allowing "people who are openly gay or homosexual" to "serve in the U.S. military." But that poll was of all adults; the latest poll is of likely voters. Other polls with similarly worded questions have found comparable results.
"Those questions are not biased, but I do believe they are incomplete," Kellyanne Conway, president of the Polling Company/WomanTrend, said during the conference call.
Other polls are incomplete, she said, because they do not give respondents an option of keeping the current law. The Polling Company's poll asked: "Would you prefer that your elected representatives in Washington, D.C. vote to overturn the 1993 law and allow homosexual persons to serve openly in the military, or vote to keep the law as it is?"
Republicans preferred keeping the current law, 67-26 percent, as did independents, 47-44 percent. Democrats favored overturning it, 65-29 percent. Most of the likely voter models in recent months have shown Republicans as more likely to vote during the general election.
In April more than 40 retired military chaplains sent a letter to President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates warning that the careers of many if not most military chaplains will end if Don't Ask, Don't Tell is overturned. The letter warned that reversing the policy will negatively impact religious freedom and could even affect military readiness and troop levels because the military would be marginalizing "deeply held" religious beliefs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Most Democrats Favor Punishing Soldiers Who Oppose Homosexuality, Survey Finds" by Adam Cassandra, CNSNews.com 8/11/10
The survey also showed that half of Democrats support penalizing soldiers opposed to homosexuality, including those who oppose it for religious reasons.
The 1993 law (U.S. Code Title 10, Sec. 654), passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, prohibits homosexuals from serving in the military.
The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy was implemented in a Defense Department directive approved by President Clinton in 1993 as a semi-compromise – homosexuals could serve in the military provided they did not disclose their sexual preference; and military officials could not ask about a person’s sexual preference.
While the DADT policy could be revised by the president and the Defense Department, the federal law (U.S. Code Title 10, Sec. 654) against homosexuals serving in the armed forces, to be changed, would have to be revised or repealed by Congress.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "America says Obama playing politics with soldiers" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 8/10/10
More than half of likely voters believe the president is working to destroy the military's policy toward homosexuals of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for political reasons, according to a new poll.
"By a 26-point margin (57 percent vs. 31 percent) more survey respondents perceived President Obama's campaign promise to repeal … 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (and which uses the word 'homosexual') as motivated more by politics than principle," a report on the new poll from WomanTrend said today.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also, about half of likely voters oppose legislation that would "allow abortions in military medical facilities in the United States and overseas."
UPDATE 8/22/10: Mainstream media finally reports this story
-- From "New Poll Finds Most Oppose DADT Repeal" by Bryant Jordan, Military.com 8/10/10
Groups dedicated to keeping in place the ban on gays serving openly have released the results of a survey indicating the majority of Americans oppose lifting the so-called Don't Ask, Don't Tell prohibition.
The poll, sponsored by the Center for Military Readiness and the Military Culture Coalition, found a majority of respondents – 48 percent – oppose repealing the 1993 law.
Additionally the poll found that lawmakers who vote to lift the current prohibition on abortions at military medical facilities do so "at their own political peril."
The CMR/Coalition poll found 49 percent opposed to using military facilities for abortions.
The poll of 1,000 respondents was conducted in mid-July by the polling company/WomanTrend of Washington, D.C., said Kellyanne Conway, founder and chief executive officer of the company.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Likely voters support 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'" by Michael Foust, an assistant editor of Baptist Press 8/10/10
[In constrast, a] CNN/Opinion Research Poll from May showed that 78 percent of adults supported allowing "people who are openly gay or homosexual" to "serve in the U.S. military." But that poll was of all adults; the latest poll is of likely voters. Other polls with similarly worded questions have found comparable results.
"Those questions are not biased, but I do believe they are incomplete," Kellyanne Conway, president of the Polling Company/WomanTrend, said during the conference call.
Other polls are incomplete, she said, because they do not give respondents an option of keeping the current law. The Polling Company's poll asked: "Would you prefer that your elected representatives in Washington, D.C. vote to overturn the 1993 law and allow homosexual persons to serve openly in the military, or vote to keep the law as it is?"
Republicans preferred keeping the current law, 67-26 percent, as did independents, 47-44 percent. Democrats favored overturning it, 65-29 percent. Most of the likely voter models in recent months have shown Republicans as more likely to vote during the general election.
In April more than 40 retired military chaplains sent a letter to President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates warning that the careers of many if not most military chaplains will end if Don't Ask, Don't Tell is overturned. The letter warned that reversing the policy will negatively impact religious freedom and could even affect military readiness and troop levels because the military would be marginalizing "deeply held" religious beliefs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Most Democrats Favor Punishing Soldiers Who Oppose Homosexuality, Survey Finds" by Adam Cassandra, CNSNews.com 8/11/10
The survey also showed that half of Democrats support penalizing soldiers opposed to homosexuality, including those who oppose it for religious reasons.
The 1993 law (U.S. Code Title 10, Sec. 654), passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, prohibits homosexuals from serving in the military.
The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy was implemented in a Defense Department directive approved by President Clinton in 1993 as a semi-compromise – homosexuals could serve in the military provided they did not disclose their sexual preference; and military officials could not ask about a person’s sexual preference.
While the DADT policy could be revised by the president and the Defense Department, the federal law (U.S. Code Title 10, Sec. 654) against homosexuals serving in the armed forces, to be changed, would have to be revised or repealed by Congress.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "America says Obama playing politics with soldiers" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 8/10/10
More than half of likely voters believe the president is working to destroy the military's policy toward homosexuals of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for political reasons, according to a new poll.
"By a 26-point margin (57 percent vs. 31 percent) more survey respondents perceived President Obama's campaign promise to repeal … 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (and which uses the word 'homosexual') as motivated more by politics than principle," a report on the new poll from WomanTrend said today.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Atheists Boot Christians from County Fair
Annual Sunday church services canceled at Montana fair after accusations from out-of-state atheist group saying free admission to the fair for the church service is discriminatory.
Same atheists fail in South Carolina: Atheists' Prayer Threat Rejected by Municipalities
-- From "Fair church service, concert moved after pressure from out-of-state 'free thinkers'" by Jessie Higgins, The Missoulian 8/8/10
Missoula [MT] businessman Michael Burks said he worked with fair managers all summer, hoping to host the traditional church service and a Christian rock concert in the fairgrounds' grassy infield arena on Sunday, Aug. 15, but was ultimately turned away.
The county said it did not have adequate time to ensure the church service abided by state and federal laws mandating the separation of church and state, said Missoula County Chief Administrative Officer Dale Bickell.
The county's decision was influenced by a complaint sent to the Missoula Board of County Commissioners in April by the Freedom From Religion Foundation - a Wisconsin-based group of atheists and agnostics who call themselves "free thinkers."
The group "works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism, and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state," according to its website. "Since 1978, the Foundation has acted on countless violations of the separation of state and church, and has taken and won many significant complaints and important lawsuits to end state/church entanglements and challenge the ‘faith-based initiative.' "
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "In Montana, a Fight Over Separation of Church and Fairgrounds" By Tess Civantos, FoxNews.com 8/11/10
Sunday morning church is a long-standing tradition at the Missoula County Fair, thanks to the Missoula Christian Network’s planning. But that tradition fell by the wayside this year after complaints from a national atheist group, which called the service “a violation of civil rights.”
Rebecca Markert, staff attorney for the atheist/agnostic group Freedom From Religion, said, “Anyone who went to the church service received free admission to the county fair, which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. It discriminates against non-churchgoers.”
According to Steve Earle, director of the Missoula County Fairgrounds, the churchgoers did receive free admission – but so did every other Sunday morning fair attendee. The fair does not offer churchgoers any special privileges, Earle told FoxNews.com.
Keith Mobley, a pastor with the Missoula Christian Network, said, “There are people in this town that are very anti-Christ, anti-religion, anti-Church. You could say this is Liberal-ville, Montana. But we’re not going to let some out-of-state group tell us we can’t meet at our county fair to worship.”
Meanwhile, Mobley is hopeful the church service will return to next year’s County Fair.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Same atheists fail in South Carolina: Atheists' Prayer Threat Rejected by Municipalities
-- From "Fair church service, concert moved after pressure from out-of-state 'free thinkers'" by Jessie Higgins, The Missoulian 8/8/10
Missoula [MT] businessman Michael Burks said he worked with fair managers all summer, hoping to host the traditional church service and a Christian rock concert in the fairgrounds' grassy infield arena on Sunday, Aug. 15, but was ultimately turned away.
The county said it did not have adequate time to ensure the church service abided by state and federal laws mandating the separation of church and state, said Missoula County Chief Administrative Officer Dale Bickell.
The county's decision was influenced by a complaint sent to the Missoula Board of County Commissioners in April by the Freedom From Religion Foundation - a Wisconsin-based group of atheists and agnostics who call themselves "free thinkers."
The group "works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism, and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state," according to its website. "Since 1978, the Foundation has acted on countless violations of the separation of state and church, and has taken and won many significant complaints and important lawsuits to end state/church entanglements and challenge the ‘faith-based initiative.' "
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "In Montana, a Fight Over Separation of Church and Fairgrounds" By Tess Civantos, FoxNews.com 8/11/10
Sunday morning church is a long-standing tradition at the Missoula County Fair, thanks to the Missoula Christian Network’s planning. But that tradition fell by the wayside this year after complaints from a national atheist group, which called the service “a violation of civil rights.”
Rebecca Markert, staff attorney for the atheist/agnostic group Freedom From Religion, said, “Anyone who went to the church service received free admission to the county fair, which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. It discriminates against non-churchgoers.”
According to Steve Earle, director of the Missoula County Fairgrounds, the churchgoers did receive free admission – but so did every other Sunday morning fair attendee. The fair does not offer churchgoers any special privileges, Earle told FoxNews.com.
Keith Mobley, a pastor with the Missoula Christian Network, said, “There are people in this town that are very anti-Christ, anti-religion, anti-Church. You could say this is Liberal-ville, Montana. But we’re not going to let some out-of-state group tell us we can’t meet at our county fair to worship.”
Meanwhile, Mobley is hopeful the church service will return to next year’s County Fair.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Teacher Viagra Bailout Demanded
With the district in a financial crisis and hundreds of its members facing layoffs, the Milwaukee teachers union is taking a peculiar stand: fighting to get their taxpayer-funded Viagra back.
-- From "Milwaukee Teachers Fight for Viagra Drug Coverage" by Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press 8/6/10
The union has asked a judge to order the school board to again include Pfizer Inc.'s erectile dysfunction drug and similar pills in its health insurance plans.
The filing last month comes as the union, the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association, is also protesting hundreds of layoff notices issued to teachers for the coming school year. Citing a "financial crisis" caused by exploding benefit costs and revenue shortfalls, the district's outgoing superintendent proposed laying off 682 employees in April.
State Rep. Jason Fields argues that the money could be better spent any number of ways - including saving jobs.
"You've got to be kidding me," said Fields, a Milwaukee Democrat. "The fact that is the point of contention is kind of frightening. What are our priorities? I'm all for love and peace. But almost 1 million dollars? And you go to court over this issue?"
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Milwaukee Teachers Fight for Viagra Drug Coverage" by Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press 8/6/10
The union has asked a judge to order the school board to again include Pfizer Inc.'s erectile dysfunction drug and similar pills in its health insurance plans.
The filing last month comes as the union, the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association, is also protesting hundreds of layoff notices issued to teachers for the coming school year. Citing a "financial crisis" caused by exploding benefit costs and revenue shortfalls, the district's outgoing superintendent proposed laying off 682 employees in April.
State Rep. Jason Fields argues that the money could be better spent any number of ways - including saving jobs.
"You've got to be kidding me," said Fields, a Milwaukee Democrat. "The fact that is the point of contention is kind of frightening. What are our priorities? I'm all for love and peace. But almost 1 million dollars? And you go to court over this issue?"
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Can a Man be a Widow?
That is what courts in Texas are trying to determine in the case of Nikki Araguz, a transgendered person who was born as Justin Purdue and is being barred from spending or collecting the death benefits of her [sic] husband, Capt. Thomas Araguz, a 30-year-old firefighter killed in the line of duty July 4.
UPDATE 6/2/11: Judge rules 'marriage' invalid -- so-called widow loses, then arrested for unrelated theft
UPDATE 8/16/10: Mother of fireman will oversee his estate during adjudication
-- From "Born a boy, but fighting for death benefits as widow" by Kathryn Watson, The Washington Times 8/10/10
The case, which transgender advocates hope will result in the overturning of a Texas law that says a person's sex is defined at birth, immediately concerns about $600,000 in survivor benefits, with Nikki Araguz on one side and Simona Longoria, the mother of Capt. Araguz, on the other.
Mrs. Longoria is arguing, on behalf of her grandchildren, that Nikki Araguz was born a man and that since Texas defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the marriage is void and she has no rights to spousal and survivor benefits.
The case has prompted charges and countercharges about deception and about whether Capt. Araguz knew that his wife was born a boy, and has the potential to break new legal ground in the definitions of "marriage" and "sex/gender."
The current precedent in Texas is a 1991 state court case, Littleton v. Prange, which says three factors determine a person's gender at birth: gonads, genitalia and chromosomes. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines transgender as a person "who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth."
Nicole Haagenson, a spokeswoman for Nikki Araguz, said the union between the two was clearly a valid marriage.
"They had a marriage license," she said. "They have pictures and documents."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 6/2/11: Judge rules 'marriage' invalid -- so-called widow loses, then arrested for unrelated theft
UPDATE 8/16/10: Mother of fireman will oversee his estate during adjudication
-- From "Born a boy, but fighting for death benefits as widow" by Kathryn Watson, The Washington Times 8/10/10
The case, which transgender advocates hope will result in the overturning of a Texas law that says a person's sex is defined at birth, immediately concerns about $600,000 in survivor benefits, with Nikki Araguz on one side and Simona Longoria, the mother of Capt. Araguz, on the other.
Mrs. Longoria is arguing, on behalf of her grandchildren, that Nikki Araguz was born a man and that since Texas defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the marriage is void and she has no rights to spousal and survivor benefits.
The case has prompted charges and countercharges about deception and about whether Capt. Araguz knew that his wife was born a boy, and has the potential to break new legal ground in the definitions of "marriage" and "sex/gender."
The current precedent in Texas is a 1991 state court case, Littleton v. Prange, which says three factors determine a person's gender at birth: gonads, genitalia and chromosomes. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines transgender as a person "who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth."
Nicole Haagenson, a spokeswoman for Nikki Araguz, said the union between the two was clearly a valid marriage.
"They had a marriage license," she said. "They have pictures and documents."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Atheists' Prayer Threat Rejected by Municipalities
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is on a rampage threatening city councils to stop praying to God and "in the name of Jesus Christ," but residents and officials of the South Carolina cities of Woodruff, Aiken, and Spartanburg are defiantly refusing to deny their "Lord and Savior."
-- From "Backers show up in force to Aiken prayer rally" by Julia Sellers, South Carolina Bureau Chief, The Augusta Chronicle 8/10/10
Christians spilled into The Alley and lobby of the Aiken municipal building Monday night after showing up in force to support keeping prayer public in government meetings.
The crowd was estimated between 500 and 700 people, with passers-by drifting among the masses in The Alley to see what was happening.
Lakeside Baptist Church, of Bath, played host to the rally. The city had received an eight-page letter in June from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Madison, Wis., labeling the city's prayer unnecessary at a secular meeting
The group said Aiken City Council also violates a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against government-sponsored prayers that are sectarian, denominational and invoke a particular faith or deity.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "SC City Council Affirms Prayer Policy After Warning From Anti-Religion Group" by Adam Cassandra, CNSNews.com 8/10/10
After being warned by an anti-religion group that praying before city council meetings was unconstitutional, the Woodruff, S.C. City Council partnered with a Christian legal group to adopt a new city policy approving prayer before council meetings.
“As long as I’m here, and I think as long as these people who were elected sit in front of you, we’re gonna’ open every meeting we have with prayer,” Woodruff Mayor Brad Burnett said at a city council meeting in June. “It makes no difference whether you appreciate that or don’t appreciate that. We’re gonna’ open our meetings with prayer.”
“America’s founders opened public meetings with prayer, and public officials today should be able to do the same,” Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) senior legal counsel Brett Harvey said in a statement on Friday. “We were happy to assist the city of Woodruff with a prayer policy that can be followed with confidence.”
“The citizens of Woodruff and the council members themselves can organize and pray and express themselves and worship in ways that they see fit,” FFRF staff attorney Patrick Elliott told CNSNews.com. “We just think that the best policy is for government meetings and government business to refrain from taking on divine matters, and should focus on city matters.”
A complaint submitted on the FFRF Web site alleges that council member Mattie Norman invoked the name of Jesus Christ several times in a prayer. The FFRF also asked the Woodruff City Council to discontinue prayer at council meetings, and “immediately remove the Latin cross and word ‘church’ from its official city seal.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read, Jesus OK: Fed. Judge Rules Against Atheists
-- From "Backers show up in force to Aiken prayer rally" by Julia Sellers, South Carolina Bureau Chief, The Augusta Chronicle 8/10/10
Christians spilled into The Alley and lobby of the Aiken municipal building Monday night after showing up in force to support keeping prayer public in government meetings.
The crowd was estimated between 500 and 700 people, with passers-by drifting among the masses in The Alley to see what was happening.
Lakeside Baptist Church, of Bath, played host to the rally. The city had received an eight-page letter in June from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Madison, Wis., labeling the city's prayer unnecessary at a secular meeting
The group said Aiken City Council also violates a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against government-sponsored prayers that are sectarian, denominational and invoke a particular faith or deity.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "SC City Council Affirms Prayer Policy After Warning From Anti-Religion Group" by Adam Cassandra, CNSNews.com 8/10/10
After being warned by an anti-religion group that praying before city council meetings was unconstitutional, the Woodruff, S.C. City Council partnered with a Christian legal group to adopt a new city policy approving prayer before council meetings.
“As long as I’m here, and I think as long as these people who were elected sit in front of you, we’re gonna’ open every meeting we have with prayer,” Woodruff Mayor Brad Burnett said at a city council meeting in June. “It makes no difference whether you appreciate that or don’t appreciate that. We’re gonna’ open our meetings with prayer.”
“America’s founders opened public meetings with prayer, and public officials today should be able to do the same,” Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) senior legal counsel Brett Harvey said in a statement on Friday. “We were happy to assist the city of Woodruff with a prayer policy that can be followed with confidence.”
“The citizens of Woodruff and the council members themselves can organize and pray and express themselves and worship in ways that they see fit,” FFRF staff attorney Patrick Elliott told CNSNews.com. “We just think that the best policy is for government meetings and government business to refrain from taking on divine matters, and should focus on city matters.”
A complaint submitted on the FFRF Web site alleges that council member Mattie Norman invoked the name of Jesus Christ several times in a prayer. The FFRF also asked the Woodruff City Council to discontinue prayer at council meetings, and “immediately remove the Latin cross and word ‘church’ from its official city seal.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read, Jesus OK: Fed. Judge Rules Against Atheists
Feds Fund Homosexual Teen Anal Sex Diaries
“The study's second aim is to assess the feasibility of using web-based sex diaries to collect sexual behavior data and to identify the appropriate diary schedule. MSM [men who have sex with men] will be randomly assigned diary schedules and we will compare the frequency of reported behaviors across diary schedules and against the retrospective questionnaire data,” the grant abstract states.
Note that the program does NOT help the young victims, but rather studies them like lab rats.
-- From "U.S. Government Funded Study Establishing 'Web-Based Sex Diaries' for Gay Males As Young as 16" by Matt Cover, Staff Writer CNSNews.com 8/10/10
The National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has awarded $126,000 over the past two years to a University of Washington study that established "web-based sex diaries" for gay males as young as 16.
By the time the grants end in 2011, taxpayers will have spent more than $250,000 for the study.
The study, titled “The Importance of Early Sexual Experiences Among Men Who Have Sex with Men,” seeks to find out if the circumstances under which young homosexuals first engage in homosexual acts impacts their future sexual behavior.
Researchers will attempt to follow 100 gay men ages 16-20 who have had fewer than three gay sex partners or are “within three years of their same-sex debut,” meaning that they had their first gay sexual experience within the past three years.
The 100 gay men will be asked to fill out an online questionnaire about their early gay experiences, take regular HIV tests, and fill out the sex diaries detailing the gay sex acts they engage in.
“Men who have sex with men (MSM) experience rates of HIV and bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STI) that are many times those experienced by heterosexuals in the U.S.,” the abstract states.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Note that the program does NOT help the young victims, but rather studies them like lab rats.
-- From "U.S. Government Funded Study Establishing 'Web-Based Sex Diaries' for Gay Males As Young as 16" by Matt Cover, Staff Writer CNSNews.com 8/10/10
The National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has awarded $126,000 over the past two years to a University of Washington study that established "web-based sex diaries" for gay males as young as 16.
By the time the grants end in 2011, taxpayers will have spent more than $250,000 for the study.
The study, titled “The Importance of Early Sexual Experiences Among Men Who Have Sex with Men,” seeks to find out if the circumstances under which young homosexuals first engage in homosexual acts impacts their future sexual behavior.
Researchers will attempt to follow 100 gay men ages 16-20 who have had fewer than three gay sex partners or are “within three years of their same-sex debut,” meaning that they had their first gay sexual experience within the past three years.
The 100 gay men will be asked to fill out an online questionnaire about their early gay experiences, take regular HIV tests, and fill out the sex diaries detailing the gay sex acts they engage in.
“Men who have sex with men (MSM) experience rates of HIV and bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STI) that are many times those experienced by heterosexuals in the U.S.,” the abstract states.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, August 09, 2010
Bar Obama from Ceding Parental Rights to U.N
Sen. Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) said that if President Barack Obama gets his way and the Senate ratifies the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the precedent would be set to place parental rights under the jurisdiction of the international community.
-- From "Indigenous Children - Their Human Rights, Mortality, and the Millennium Development Goals" by Jane Freemantle, UN Chronicle 8/9/10
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights, describing child-specific needs and rights. These human rights included civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights, as well as aspects of humanitarian law. The UNCRC was signed in 1989, and entered into force in 1990. As of May 2010, it had 193 parties which had ratified, accepted, or acceded with stated reservations or interpretations, including every member of the United Nations except Somalia and the United States, which have only signed.
Nations that ratify this international convention are bound to it by international law. While all the rights contained in the Convention apply to all children, whether indigenous or not . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children’s Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights ‘Over to International Community’" by Christopher A. Guzman, CNSNews.com 8/6/10
“We believe we need to take clear action here in Congress to protect the rights of parents to raise their children," DeMint said at a Wednesday panel discussion. "This treaty would, in fact, establish a precedent that those rights have been given over to the international community."
DeMint is lead sponsor of S. Res. 519, a resolution to protect parental rights, which is co-sponsored by 30 senators total. Only four more senators need to sign on to inform President Obama that he does not have enough votes in the Senate to ratify the treaty, DeMint said.
DeMint has also introduced a joint resolution, proposing a constitutional amendment to protect parental rights.
Under Article 2, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution, treaties must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate for them to take effect.
DeMint said there is a “pervasive attitude” in Washington at present that the federal government has “complete control over everything.” The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, he said, is government intrusion to the last degree.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Indigenous Children - Their Human Rights, Mortality, and the Millennium Development Goals" by Jane Freemantle, UN Chronicle 8/9/10
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights, describing child-specific needs and rights. These human rights included civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights, as well as aspects of humanitarian law. The UNCRC was signed in 1989, and entered into force in 1990. As of May 2010, it had 193 parties which had ratified, accepted, or acceded with stated reservations or interpretations, including every member of the United Nations except Somalia and the United States, which have only signed.
Nations that ratify this international convention are bound to it by international law. While all the rights contained in the Convention apply to all children, whether indigenous or not . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children’s Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights ‘Over to International Community’" by Christopher A. Guzman, CNSNews.com 8/6/10
“We believe we need to take clear action here in Congress to protect the rights of parents to raise their children," DeMint said at a Wednesday panel discussion. "This treaty would, in fact, establish a precedent that those rights have been given over to the international community."
DeMint is lead sponsor of S. Res. 519, a resolution to protect parental rights, which is co-sponsored by 30 senators total. Only four more senators need to sign on to inform President Obama that he does not have enough votes in the Senate to ratify the treaty, DeMint said.
DeMint has also introduced a joint resolution, proposing a constitutional amendment to protect parental rights.
Under Article 2, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution, treaties must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate for them to take effect.
DeMint said there is a “pervasive attitude” in Washington at present that the federal government has “complete control over everything.” The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, he said, is government intrusion to the last degree.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Homosexual Judge Says Children Don't Need Parents
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled last week that a voter-approved amendment to California’s constitution that limited marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, based that ruling in part on his finding that a child does not need and has no right to a mother. Nor, he found, does a child have a need or a right to a father.
UPDATE 4/26/11: Marriage Defenders File Motion Saying Walker Ruling Biased
UPDATE 4/8/11: Judge says being a homosexual did not prejudice him
UPDATE 9/30/10: Homosexual judge retires after accomplishing his Gay Agenda
UPDATE 10/1/10: Absent the activist judge -- possibly a game changer
-- From "Same-Sex Marriage Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a Right to a Mother" by Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief CNSNews.com 8/9/10
“Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted,” the judge wrote in finding of fact No. 71 in his opinion.
“The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment,” the judge stated in finding of fact No. 70. “The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”
Despite Walker’s claim that this “fact” is “beyond serious debate,” one of the sources he cited for it was a brochure published by the American Psychological Association (APA) that was entered into evidence in the case, which specifically stated twice: “Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.” Walker did not quote this part of the brochure in his opinion.
However, Walker did quote this same brochure as saying: “[S]ocial science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents--concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people--are unfounded.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 4/26/11: Marriage Defenders File Motion Saying Walker Ruling Biased
UPDATE 4/8/11: Judge says being a homosexual did not prejudice him
UPDATE 9/30/10: Homosexual judge retires after accomplishing his Gay Agenda
UPDATE 10/1/10: Absent the activist judge -- possibly a game changer
-- From "Same-Sex Marriage Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a Right to a Mother" by Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief CNSNews.com 8/9/10
“Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted,” the judge wrote in finding of fact No. 71 in his opinion.
“The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment,” the judge stated in finding of fact No. 70. “The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”
Despite Walker’s claim that this “fact” is “beyond serious debate,” one of the sources he cited for it was a brochure published by the American Psychological Association (APA) that was entered into evidence in the case, which specifically stated twice: “Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.” Walker did not quote this part of the brochure in his opinion.
However, Walker did quote this same brochure as saying: “[S]ocial science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents--concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people--are unfounded.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Obama Wins - Kenya Advances Abortion
President Obama on Thursday praised the passage of Kenya's new constitution, which was approved by an overwhelming majority amid claims that the United States improperly meddled in promoting passage of the document, which contains controversial abortion language.
UPDATE 11/17/11: Obama admin ‘hired surrogates’ to push for abortion in Kenya
UPDATE 10/6/10: Congressman Wants Probe of Obama's Illegal Abortion Push in Kenya
UPDATE 10/2/10: USAID rules Obama did not illegally fund legalization of abortion in Kenya
UPDATE 8/27/10: Kenya's president Omar al-Bashir signs new constitution into law
-- From "Vote in Kenya: Why U.S. Abortion Debate Has Become a Factor" by Dana Hughes, ABC News
Millions of Kenyans have taken to the polls in one of the country's most historic elections. They are voting for a new draft constitution that . . . will overhaul the current constitution, which was ratified at the country's independence in 1963.
[It] includes a provision on abortion that the Kenyan clergy and religious leaders say opens up the door to "abortion on demand." The clause still outlaws the act, but says that if the mother's health or life is in danger a qualified "health professional" may perform one. The health professional language allows for abuse, say religious leaders and anti-abortion activists.
Though the argument may not win over Kenyans, it has found support from an unlikely source – members of the U.S. Congress. . . .
[New Jersey Representative Chris Smith] cites a State Department Inspector General Report showing that some of the groups associated with voter education projects and which are being funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, are also tied to abortion-rights groups. In response to the report the US Embassy in Nairobi said it suspended funding to some of the voter education programs in question. There have also been accusations that anti-abortion rights groups linked to the Christian Right in the United States have helped fund the campaign against the referendum.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama Lauds Passage of Kenyan Constitution As Critics Slam Its Abortion Rights Stand" FoxNews.com 8/5/10
Results showed nearly 70 percent of Kenyan voters backed the document . . .
Obama applauded the Kenyan people for approving the document and conducting a "peaceful, transparent and credible" vote.
[A] federal law makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion overseas -- Smith cited a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development that estimated more than $23 million in taxpayer funds were spent on the referendum.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Kenyans approve constitution that legalizes abortion following congressional inquiry into U.S. funding" by Amanda Carey, The Daily Caller 8/6/10
A report released by the Office of Inspector General of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) after the congressional inquiry showed that the federal government had used $23 million in American taxpayer money to support the passage of the Kenyan constitution, which contradicted earlier statements from the U.S. Embassy in Kenya. Using taxpayer dollars to lobby for or against abortion violates federal law.
The White House has yet to address such concerns. It did however, voice support for passage. Vice President Biden traveled to Kenya earlier this summer to urge Kenyans to vote “yes.” On Thursday President Obama released a statement congratulating the people of Kenya on passing the constitution.
In a recent press conference, Smith restated his concerns about the White House’s involvement in the Kenyan referendum. “There has been U.S. complicity at every turn,” he told The Daily Caller.
Smith said that in recent months, officials from the Kenyan government visited the White House asking for financial support for their constitutional process.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 11/17/11: Obama admin ‘hired surrogates’ to push for abortion in Kenya
UPDATE 10/6/10: Congressman Wants Probe of Obama's Illegal Abortion Push in Kenya
UPDATE 10/2/10: USAID rules Obama did not illegally fund legalization of abortion in Kenya
UPDATE 8/27/10: Kenya's president Omar al-Bashir signs new constitution into law
-- From "Vote in Kenya: Why U.S. Abortion Debate Has Become a Factor" by Dana Hughes, ABC News
Millions of Kenyans have taken to the polls in one of the country's most historic elections. They are voting for a new draft constitution that . . . will overhaul the current constitution, which was ratified at the country's independence in 1963.
[It] includes a provision on abortion that the Kenyan clergy and religious leaders say opens up the door to "abortion on demand." The clause still outlaws the act, but says that if the mother's health or life is in danger a qualified "health professional" may perform one. The health professional language allows for abuse, say religious leaders and anti-abortion activists.
Though the argument may not win over Kenyans, it has found support from an unlikely source – members of the U.S. Congress. . . .
[New Jersey Representative Chris Smith] cites a State Department Inspector General Report showing that some of the groups associated with voter education projects and which are being funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, are also tied to abortion-rights groups. In response to the report the US Embassy in Nairobi said it suspended funding to some of the voter education programs in question. There have also been accusations that anti-abortion rights groups linked to the Christian Right in the United States have helped fund the campaign against the referendum.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama Lauds Passage of Kenyan Constitution As Critics Slam Its Abortion Rights Stand" FoxNews.com 8/5/10
Results showed nearly 70 percent of Kenyan voters backed the document . . .
Obama applauded the Kenyan people for approving the document and conducting a "peaceful, transparent and credible" vote.
[A] federal law makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion overseas -- Smith cited a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development that estimated more than $23 million in taxpayer funds were spent on the referendum.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Kenyans approve constitution that legalizes abortion following congressional inquiry into U.S. funding" by Amanda Carey, The Daily Caller 8/6/10
A report released by the Office of Inspector General of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) after the congressional inquiry showed that the federal government had used $23 million in American taxpayer money to support the passage of the Kenyan constitution, which contradicted earlier statements from the U.S. Embassy in Kenya. Using taxpayer dollars to lobby for or against abortion violates federal law.
The White House has yet to address such concerns. It did however, voice support for passage. Vice President Biden traveled to Kenya earlier this summer to urge Kenyans to vote “yes.” On Thursday President Obama released a statement congratulating the people of Kenya on passing the constitution.
In a recent press conference, Smith restated his concerns about the White House’s involvement in the Kenyan referendum. “There has been U.S. complicity at every turn,” he told The Daily Caller.
Smith said that in recent months, officials from the Kenyan government visited the White House asking for financial support for their constitutional process.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Prayer Essential to Save America
"We [will] come together and ask God for some kind of sovereign intervention. We need to pray for a great awakening."
Christians: Commit to prayer now (2 Chron. 7:14)
-- From "Prop. 8 Supporters Prepare for Long Legal Battle" by Adrienne S. Gaines, Charisma News Online 8/4/10
Proposition 8 [California traditional marriage] advocates argue that same-sex marriage is not ideal for child rearing, but they say it also has serious implications on religious freedom.
"It's a chilling moment," said TheCall founder Lou Engle, who organized a prayer rally in support of Proposition 8 in September 2008. "Democracy is crumbling, and I believe, again, we're going to see the persecution of the church. ... Across the board, religious freedom now is being trumped by gender freedom."
[California pastor Jim Garlow, who helped organize the ProtectMarriage.com -Yes on 8 campaign] said in several areas where gay marriage has been legalized, Christians have lost personal and religious liberties. He points to Swedish pastor Ake Green, who was jailed after preaching that homosexuality is a sin, and to a Christian camp in Ocean Grove, N.J., that lost a discrimination lawsuit filed after it refused to allow a lesbian couple to hold a commitment ceremony at its facility.
[Garlow] and Engle are encouraging . . . activism through Pray & Act, an initiative calling for 40 days of prayer and fasting in the run up to Nov. 2. The effort begins Sept. 20 and ends with a webcast event at the Lincoln Memorial Oct. 30.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also read: Pastor Warns America of Socialism, Calls for Prayer
Christians: Commit to prayer now (2 Chron. 7:14)
-- From "Prop. 8 Supporters Prepare for Long Legal Battle" by Adrienne S. Gaines, Charisma News Online 8/4/10
Proposition 8 [California traditional marriage] advocates argue that same-sex marriage is not ideal for child rearing, but they say it also has serious implications on religious freedom.
"It's a chilling moment," said TheCall founder Lou Engle, who organized a prayer rally in support of Proposition 8 in September 2008. "Democracy is crumbling, and I believe, again, we're going to see the persecution of the church. ... Across the board, religious freedom now is being trumped by gender freedom."
[California pastor Jim Garlow, who helped organize the ProtectMarriage.com -Yes on 8 campaign] said in several areas where gay marriage has been legalized, Christians have lost personal and religious liberties. He points to Swedish pastor Ake Green, who was jailed after preaching that homosexuality is a sin, and to a Christian camp in Ocean Grove, N.J., that lost a discrimination lawsuit filed after it refused to allow a lesbian couple to hold a commitment ceremony at its facility.
[Garlow] and Engle are encouraging . . . activism through Pray & Act, an initiative calling for 40 days of prayer and fasting in the run up to Nov. 2. The effort begins Sept. 20 and ends with a webcast event at the Lincoln Memorial Oct. 30.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also read: Pastor Warns America of Socialism, Calls for Prayer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)