Sunday, July 31, 2011

Now, Cohabitation is Too Much of a Commitment

A growing number of young American adults are engaging in what's called "stayover relationships," in which they spend three or more nights together each week while still having the option of going to their own homes, a new study shows.
"It is not a different relationship form. It is one thing that people do while dating."
For background, read No Marriage in Most U.S. Households: Census and also read Defeating Marriage & Destroying Family: Survey

UPDATE 1/23/12: Casual sex popularity causes skyrocketing rates of STDs among young adults

-- From "Even Living Together Is Too Much Commitment for Today's Couples" posted at HealthDay News 7/29/11

"Instead of following a clear path from courtship to marriage, individuals are choosing to engage in romantic ties on their own terms without the guidance of social norms," study author Tyler Jamison, a doctoral candidate in the human development and family studies department at the University of Missouri, said in a university news release.

The study appears in the current issue of the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Young adult dating trend slows road to marriage" by Paula Rogo, Reuters 7/29/11

"There is a gap between the teen years and adulthood during which we don't know much about the dating behaviors of young adults. Stayovers are the unique answer to what emerging adults are doing in their relationships," [said Jamison].

Jamison and the co-author of the study, Lawrence Ganong, found that comfort and convenience are the biggest attractions of stayover relationships among young adults, which allow them to maintain a form of control over the pace of their relationship and their possessions.

"None of them saw themselves as cohabiters," Jamison explained, even if they spent six or seven nights together. "It is interesting how separate they felt about their living arrangements to the point where they would act like a guest in the other person's place."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "'Stayover Relationship' is the New Marriage" posted at International Business Times 7/31/11

The "convenient" relationship allows for an arrangement that facilitates couples who are not sure they want to end up in a permanent relationship and do not want to end up living together if things go awry.

Jamison describes the phenomenon as one that has a number of benefits but not many consequences, but some experts feel it's a reflection of the general degradation of U.S. society.

"We don't want anyone hindering us from doing our thing," Aaron Turpeau, a licensed professional counselor and relationship expert in Atlanta. "You hear people say it all the time: 'You do you, and I'll do me.' Unfortunately, this obsession with independence leads to unhealthy human relationships."

"We don't value what we don't need, and we don't love what we don't value," he says. "I can say I want a relationship, but I don't need a relationship. I want a man, but I don't need a man. So we play house; we play marriage and as soon as we get tired, we go back to our own places."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Jesus' Name Unconstitutional in Public: Fed. Court

A federal appeals court sided with the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and members of the local Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in ruling against the North Carolina Forsyth County Board of Commissioners' invitation to any and all religious leaders to give invocations at its public meetings.

UPDATE 3/27/13: Prayers in Gov't Meetings OK, Says 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

UPDATE 2/2/12: Non-Jesus prayer policy enacted, but ACLU still complains

UPDATE 1/17/12: Atheists win as Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal

UPDATE 10/28/11: Represented by ADF, County Board appeals to Supreme Court

UPDATE 8/9/11: Commissioners vote 6 to 1 to appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

-- From "Federal appeals court says Forsyth commissioners wrong to open meetings with prayer to Jesus" by The Associated Press 7/29/11

In a 2-1 decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled in favor of two county residents who sued after the prayer before a December 2007 commissioners meeting thanked God for allowing the birth of his son to forgive us for our sins and closed by making the prayer in the name of Jesus.

"Legislative prayer must strive to be nondenominational so long as that is reasonably possible — it should send a signal of welcome rather than exclusion. It should not reject the tenets of other faiths in favor of just one," Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in his ruling.

Judge Paul Niemeyer disagreed, writing in his dissent that Forsyth County allowed believers of any religious faith to give the opening prayer, negating the effect of having a prayer champion only one set of beliefs.

"I respectfully submit that we must maintain a sacred respect of each religion, and when a group of citizens comes together, as does the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners, and manifests that sacred respect — allowing the prayers of each to be spoken in the religion's own voice — we must be glad to let it be," Niemeyer wrote.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Fourth Circuit rules against Forsyth County in prayer case" posted at Beaufort Observer 7/29/11

On December 17, 2007, [Unitarian Universalists] Janet Joyner and Constance Lynn Blackmon [members of the Winston-Salem Chapter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State] decided to attend a meeting of the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners. Like all public Board meetings, the gathering began with an invocation delivered by a local religious leader. And like almost every previous invocation, that prayer closed with the phrase, "For we do make this prayer in Your Son Jesus' name, Amen." The December 17 prayer also made a number of references to specific tenets of Christianity, from "the Cross of Calvary" to the "Virgin Birth" to the "Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Federal appeals court rejects sectarian prayer in Forsyth commissioners' meetings" by Lisa O'Donnell and Laura Graff, Winston-Salem Journal 7/29/11

Commissioner Gloria Whisenhunt said she would like to see the board appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Representing the County, Mike] Johnson said Friday's opinion conflicts with decisions by other appeals courts in similar cases, apparently creating a dispute only the nation's highest court can decide. Johnson is an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian organization active in church-state issues. The fund is paying the county's costs to litigate the case.

"The idea that a legislative body would have to censor the speakers who come in on a rotational basis to offer an invocation is unprecedented," Johnson said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Federal appeals court: Saying 'Jesus' during public prayer is unconstitutional" by Ken Klukowski, Washington Examiner 7/30/11

As in most counties in America, the Board of Commissioners of Forsyth County, North Carolina, begins its public meetings with an invocation. These prayers are given by local religious leaders on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Given that 95 percent of local religious houses identify as Christian, it’s not surprising that many of the invocations include specifically Christian language, often closing the prayer in the name of “Jesus Christ” or “Jesus.”

Judge Paul Victor Niemeyer, a judicial conservative regarded as one of the smartest judges on the federal bench, wrote in a strong dissent: “Thus … the majority has dared to step in and regulate the language of prayer—the sacred dialogue between humankind and God. Such a decision treats prayer agnostically; reduces it to a civil nicety; … Most frightfully, it will require secular [authorities] to evaluate and parse particular religious prayers…”

This is the latest in a string of disappointing lower court decisions on public prayer. It’s time for the Supreme Court to revisit this issue.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read, Jesus' Name Unconstitutional at School Board Meetings

Court Shields Women From Abortion Clinic Escorts

The very liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco unanimously ruled that the Oakland "medical safety zones" ordinance that limits pro-life counselors from approaching women entering an abortion clinic must be equally enforced against clinic advocates attempting to shield the women from the pro-lifers.

-- From "Court holds all abortion demonstrators equal under Oakland 'bubble ordinance'" by Sean Maher, Oakland Tribune 7/28/11

A city law aimed at protecting women from anti-abortion activists outside medical clinics was upheld Thursday by a federal court that ordered the law must also restrict the behavior of volunteer escorts who help guide women into those clinics.

Oakland's "bubble ordinance," passed in 2007, creates a 100-foot zone around entrances to the city's reproductive health clinics. Within that bubble, it is illegal to come within 8 feet of anyone trying to enter the clinic "for the purpose of counseling, harassing, or interfering with (him or her)." That restriction goes away if a demonstrator simply asks, "May I speak with you?" and the person says OK.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ordinance but agreed that enforcement must go both ways: Escorts must get permission to contact people entering the clinics before doing anything else.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "City Chastised for Taking Sides in Abortion Debate" by Tim Hull, Court House News Service 7/29/11

Though the city lets independent "escorts" help women enter clinics unmolested, it fined a man under the so-called "bubble ordinance" for trying to counsel the same women against having an abortion, the federal appeals court found. . . .

Walter Hoye, a minister and self-described "sidewalk counselor," opposes abortion and seeks to convince women to eschew the procedure. After being convicted of two separate violations of the ordinance, he filed a federal complaint alleging violations of his free-speech and due-process rights.

Hoye also alleged that the "escorts" often tell women not to listen to him or take his literature, and they attempt to block his message by putting up barriers and making noise, the ruling states.

While the ordinance, modeled after a Colorado law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade ago in Hill v. Colorado, is constitutional, Oakland failed to enforce it properly, the 9th Circuit found.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Appeals Court Upholds Pro-Life Pastor’s Free Speech Rights" by Steven Ertelt, 7/29/11

Hoye, a pastor who has highlighted the problem of high abortion rates in the African-American community, saw his rights to provide abortion alternatives information to women outside local abortion facilities denied . . .

Although Hoye scrupulously followed the law, he has suffered arrest, prosecution and imprisonment due to Oakland’s determination to shut out his message, while abortion facility staff have never been prosecuted. However, the appeals court concluded, “Oakland’s enforcement policy is a constitutionally invalid, content-based regulation of speech.”

LLDF Legal Director Katie Short told the decision is also a victory for pro-life advocates because it limits the effect of a ruling in a case in Colorado, the Hill decision, that also limited the free speech rights of pro-life advocates. While the opinion also stated “we do not find any relevant differences between the Ordinance’s purpose and text and those of the Colorado statute that the Supreme Court held to be constitutional in Hill,” the Court noted that the reasoning of the Hill decision “has been criticized by scholars of various stripes.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Can an Evangelical Woman be President? (Bachmann)

The below series of articles in the Washington Post presents the consternation of liberals and the mainstream media regarding feminism vs. conservatism vs. the "submissive evangelical woman," as they strive to paint Michele Bachmann as a hypocrite for claiming to exhibit all three.

For background, read Michele Bachmann Exposed as Christian by Liberals and also read Media Prepare Anti-Christian Campaign for 2012 as well as ABC News Scrutinizes Faith of GOP Candidates

UPDATE 8/12/11: ABC News interprets Bible on "submissive wives"

-- From "Michele Bachmann: Biblical submission and servant leadership" by Janice Shaw Crouse, Washington Post 7/29/11

Few biblical passages cause more confusion than Ephesians 5:21-33 that calls for wives to submit to husbands. It is bad enough that the secular world misconstrues those verses to envision Stepford wives; it is even worse when they try to fit Christian leaders into their distortions of the biblical principle of submission. Michele Bachmann, who has served notably as a United States congresswoman and is currently a presidential candidate, is now under scrutiny regarding how she could, as a Christian president, balance submission and leadership.

In the context of women in leadership, it is important to note that biblical submission is about harmony and well-being within the home and the relationship between a husband and a wife . . .

. . . Michele Bachmann and numerous other outstanding female leaders have found ways to “do it all” and they are thriving as they successfully juggle the competing demands of home and career. Many of them, like Congresswoman Bachmann, are evangelical Christians who are leading within the framework of biblical principles in an attitude of “servant leadership.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Evangelical women rise as new ‘feminists’" by Lisa Miller, Washington Post 7/28/11

Now, in a reversal, some conservative Christian women are tentatively claiming the feminist label for themselves. In the reframing, feminism has nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose an abortion or with government programs for the poor.

Instead, a “feminist” is a fiscally conservative, pro-life butt-kicker in public, a cooperative helpmate at home, and a Christian wife and mother, above all. Rep. Michele Bachmann is Exhibit A. With her relentless attacks on big government and a widely circulated 2006 video in which she credits her professional success to the submission of her will to Jesus and her husband, Bachmann represents “a new definition of feminism,” says Stephen Bannon, director of “Fire From the Heartland,” a 2010 movie about the female leaders of the Tea Party.

Last year, Sarah Palin connected herself with feminists in a speech — not the kind who loaf about “in the faculty lounge at some East Coast women’s college,” as she put it, but a gun-toting, self-reliant, pro-life Christian woman who credits her gender as the source of her power. Bachmann hasn’t gone so far, but in “Fire from the Heartland,” she talks about why women should engage in the political process. “Women feel it in our gut and in our heart — and that sense is coming over us that something is terribly wrong,” she says.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Michele Bachmann reflects a changing conservative Christianity" by Marie Griffith, Washington Post 7/29/11

“The Lord says: Be submissive, wives. You are to be submissive to your husbands,” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told a church audience in 2006. By all accounts, she means this and lives it. Which raises the question: Can a President Bachmann balance female submission with the power necessary to lead the United States of America?

To her many fans, the answer will seem obvious: of course she can. As a matter of fact, balancing subservience with authority is something that evangelical Christian women have been working on for a very long time. . . .

So long as they pay lip service to wifely submission--and so long as they balance feminine beauty with steel force--women like Michele Bachmann are now thoroughly accepted as public authorities in extremely conservative Christian circles. . . .

Success for Bachmann will depend in part on how shrewdly she balances the conflicted ideals of femininity and female toughness, compliance and resilience, vulnerability and strength, that have long permeated American culture. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 8/11/11: Sarah Palin & Michele Bachmann are 'the women only a man could love,' said 60s feminist Gloria Steinem

Also read Conservative Female Candidates Don't Count as Women as well as 'Pro-life Feminist' Candidates Storm Congress plus just one more Conservative Feminists Crash Liberals' Party

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Feds Fund Homosexualists' School Training

The federal government has given a nearly $1.5-million grant to the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, to train teachers on how to support homosexual students and be "advocates for change" in their schools.

For background, read Gay Clubs Required in Schools, Says White House and also read White House Says Gay Recruitment of Kids Successful as well as Gay Recruitment of Kids: Senators Join Obama

UPDATE 2/8/15: President Obama Floods Gay Agenda with Taxpayers' Money

-- From "Taxpayer Money Will Help Homosexual Activists Establish ‘Safe Spaces’ in Public Schools" by Patrick Ryan, 7/27/11

The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) will receive $285,000 annually for five years to partner with 20 targeted school districts across the country to help keep LBGT students safe and healthy.

The grant money is coming from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, through its Department of Adolescent and School Health (DASH).

The program centers on GLSEN’s “Safe Space Kit,” which includes stickers identifying offices or places within the school building where students will find “an adult’s unwavering support” for their safety. Each kit contains ten “Safe Space” stickers.

GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, says it is at the forefront of the Safe Schools Movement to ensure that all students are safe in schools. The group also promotes Gay-Straight Alliances, student clubs that work to improve school climate.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Hope and change 2011: Now homo and change" by Drew Zahn, World Net Daily 7/26/11

"Schools can punish bullies without endorsing 'gay' behavior," argues Mission America, an organization that researches and reports on social issues affecting Christians in America. "This is child corruption, funded by taxpayers."

"We can only hope few schools agree to this scheme for fast-tracking youth into homosexuality and gender confusion," Linda Harvey, president and founder of Mission America, told WND. "Our federal government, through this grant, essentially agrees with the mythology that some humans are 'born gay.' They are therefore willing to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars during a national fiscal crisis to defy parental rights, Christian moral tradition, and sound health practices.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Parents Fight Calif. Gay Agenda Indoctrination

California pro-family organizations have been approved by the State to begin a petition drive for a 2012 ballot referendum to overturn the latest assault on children -- the recently enacted "gay history" law that forces all public schools to present sexually deviant behavior as beneficial for society.

For background, read 'Teaching Gay History' Law for California

UPDATE 7/17/12: Referendum effort falls short with less than 1/2 million signatures

UPDATE 9/1/11: Black churches mount campaign to repeal gay history law

-- From "Opponents of Calif gay history law seek referendum" by Judy Lin, Associated Press 7/26/11

Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB48 earlier this month, making California the first state to mandate teaching of gays and lesbians in public school curriculum. The requirement takes effect in the 2013-14 school year.

Paulo Sibaja (see-BAH-ha), a spokesman for the group Stop SB48, says California schools should be focused instead on improving student performance and lowering the high school dropout rate.

Proponents will need to gather more than 500,000 signatures from registered voters by Oct. 12 to qualify for the next statewide ballot.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "EQCA to fight SB 48 referendum" by Cynthia Laird, Bay Area Reporter 7/28/11

Hoping to prevent a referendum repealing the state's new Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act from reaching the ballot, Equality California and about 40 other [pro-homosexual] organizations will join forces to mount a decline to sign campaign, officials said Wednesday, July 27.

Roland Palencia, executive director of Equality California, sent an email alert to about 400,000 people Tuesday.

The alert asks for contributions to reach a $50,000 immediate goal, volunteers to work with coalition partners, and to report signature gatherers.

"Governor Brown refused to listen to the calls of pro-family voters asking him to veto SB 48," stated Karen England, executive director of the Capitol Resource Institute and its affiliated Capitol Resource Family Impact.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Families toss wrench in 'gay' indoctrination plan" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 7/23/11

An official with one of the organizations working on the plan, Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute, told WND the filing puts the law on hold until it is determined whether Californians want to vote on the plan.

The law requires schools to teach "gay" and "lesbian" involvement in history, but only from a positive perspective. It bans any statement, fact or information that would reflect "adversely" on those who choose an alternative sexual lifestyle.

A WND/Wenzel Strategies poll just weeks ago revealed an overwhelming majority of Americans say elementary school is no place to promote the homosexual lifestyle. Even among liberals there is the strong belief that such lessons should be left outside the door of the classroom.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Atheists Sue to Remove Christ from 9/11 Memorial

Atheists have sued to prevent cross-shaped steel girders from the destroyed World Trade Center towers from being included in the official Sept. 11 memorial, saying the religious symbol is unconstitutional because its gives "preferential representation" to Christians who died in the 2001 terror attacks.

UPDATE 9/7/11: 9/11 Cross Proposed as National Monument

UPDATE 8/26/11: Clergy & Prayer Banned From 9/11 Tenth Anniversary Memorial

-- From "Atheist group sues over cross at Sept. 11 museum" by Colleen Long, Associated Press 7/27/11

The American Atheists filed the suit in Manhattan State Supreme Court on Wednesday. The group says the museum is a public institution and should not reflect a specific religion. It asks for a judge to either order the cross removed or order that other religions be represented equally.

Memorial President Joe Daniels says the museum's mission is to tell the history of Sept. 11 through artifacts like the cross.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Atheists sue to block 'WTC cross' from 9/11 memorial" by Michael Winter, USA TODAY 7/27/11

Workers found the broken, 17-foot-tall cross-shaped beams two days after the attacks, and they became known as the "World Trade Center cross." Saturday, the rusted cross was moved from its temporary home near St. Peter's Church and lowered into its permanent place inside the museum, which is under construction. A Catholic priest gave it a ceremonial blessing.

According to the lawsuit, among the 2,792 people killed in the twin towers, 31 were Muslim Americans, approximately 400 to 500 were Jewish Americans, approximately 500 were non-religious Americans, and an unknown number were Americans of other faiths.

In a statement to ABCNews, the memorial foundation identified the cross as a "symbol of spiritual comfort for the thousands of recovery workers who toiled at ground zero," as well as an "authentic physical reminder" that "tell[s] the story of 9/11 in a way nothing else can."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Atheist Group's Case Against 9/11 Cross 'Sad and Misguided'" by Nicola Menzie, Christian Post Contributor 7/27/11

“The attempt to remove the cross is another sad and misguided example of incessant efforts to remove all religious symbols from public life,” [Congressman J. Randy Forbes, representing Virginia’s Fourth District and also co-chair of the Congressional Prayer Caucus] said. “To remove this cross, a physical part of the history of that tragic day, would be an insult to the many who found solace in its symbolism.”

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) also insist that the cross’s placement in the museum is legally sound, and claim that the American Atheists’ lawsuit “is completely out of step with the Constitution.”

“One atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by the heroes of 9/11,” said ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione in a statement on the group’s website. “A cross like this one simply does not amount to a government establishment of religion under either the U.S. Constitution or the New York Constitution.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Bishops vs. ObamaCare on Right of Conscience

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops and religious conservatives are backing new legislation that would prevent Obamacare from requiring insurance coverage of abortion or contraception.

For background, read Raise Health Insurance Rates, White House Plans: Birth Control

-- From "Catholic Bishops Urge Congress to Advance Conscience-Protection Legislation" by Patrick Ryan, 7/25/11

H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, would prevent any new mandates under health-care reform from being used to disregard Americans’ freedom of conscience, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) said.

[Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston] said the legislation, sponsored by Reps. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.), is especially needed in light of a July 19 report, issued by the Institute of Medicine, which calls on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide free contraceptives for women through Obamacare.

Mandi Campbell, the legal director for the Liberty Center for Law and Policy, said . . . the federal government spends $16.50 on contraceptives or comprehensive sex education programs for every $1 it spends on abstinence education.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "In Wake of Proposed Contraceptive Mandate, Cardinal DiNardo Urges Congress to Support Respect for Rights of Conscience Act" by George Vogt, Catholic US News 7/25/11

“Those who sponsor, purchase and issue health plans should not be forced to violate their deeply held moral and religious convictions in order to take part in the health care system or provide for the needs of their families or their employees,” wrote Cardinal DiNardo. “To force such an unacceptable choice would be as much a threat to universal access to health care as it is to freedom of conscience.”

Cardinal DiNardo said that respect for conscience rights in health care has received bipartisan support for decades. He cited examples such as the Church amendment, which protects participants in federal health programs from being discriminated against for their objection to abortion, sterilization and other procedures, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which exempts religiously affiliated health plans from any contraceptive mandate.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Poll: Pro-life America Becomes More So

A new Gallup survey asked Americans their opinion about a slate of pro-life laws frequently considered by Congress and state legislatures across the country and the results show most Americans support most pro-life laws.

For background, read Pro-life Trends Continue in American Opinion and also read Pro-life Legislation Floods America

-- From "Most Americans favor abortion consent laws" by UPI 7/25/11

A Gallup poll says 70 percent of U.S. citizens favor requiring parental consent for a minor seeking an abortion.

The poll, released Monday, showed the same percentage support establishment of a 24-hour waiting period for a woman seeking an abortion. Gallup said nearly two-thirds of those polled favor making a procedure known as "partial birth abortion" illegal. The poll also said 57 percent of Americans oppose laws prohibiting health clinics that perform abortions from receiving federal funding.

Gallup said most Democrats and Republicans favor informed consent, parental consent, 24-hour waiting periods and a ban on "partial birth abortion."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Poll: Voters split on abortion changes" by Elias Groll, Politico 7/25/11

Fifty percent favor laws requiring viewing an ultrasound be viewed and 46 oppose them, while 51 percent are against allowing healthcare providers to opt out and 46 favor that, the poll found.

Opponents of abortion rights have in recent years shifted their efforts from the federal to the state level and have unveiled a wide range of measures limiting abortions.

Gallup also found that while opinions on abortion tend to be similar between men and women, the issue breaks down strongly along partisan lines. For instance, two thirds of Republicans back the ultrasound requirements, but only about half of Democrats.

The survey comes against the background of a record-setting pace of abortion legislation at the state level.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Poll: Majority of Americans oppose bans on abortion-clinic funding, favor late-term-abortion bans" by Sofia Resnick, The Washington Independent 7/25/11

87 percent favor (11 percent oppose) “a law requiring doctors to inform patients about certain possible risks of abortion before performing the procedure.”

Regionally, the poll found that South and Midwest respondents were more supportive of the restrictions than East and West respondents.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, following this year’s abundance of abortion-related legislation — 19 states enacted 80 laws implementing the aforementioned restrictions in the first half of 2011 – 24 states now have waiting-period requirements for abortion-seekers and 19 states require that women seek a form of counseling. So far this year, five states – Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas and Oklahoma – adopted laws that ban abortion after 20 weeks.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gallup Poll: Americans Support Pro-Life Laws Limiting Abortions" by Steven Ertelt, 7/25/11

The results show 87 percent of Americans support laws requiring abortion practitioners to inform women of the risks associated with an abortion before doing one, another 71 percent support parental consent before a teen under 18 can get an abortion, and 69 percent of Americans support a 24 hour waiting period before an abortion so women can find abortion alternatives.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read the full Gallup Poll story

'Gay Marriage' Enables Polygamy Court Challenge

The same legal arguments that gave America same-sex "marriage" were recently made in a federal court in Utah on behalf of the polygamous family from the reality show "Sister Wives" in an effort to legitimize plural "marriage."

For background, read Hollywood Mainstreams Polygamy in TV Series as well as Polygamist Dares Utah Authorities - He May Win

-- From "Attorney for ‘Sister Wives’ TV stars files federal challenge of Utah bigamy law" by The Associated Press 7/13/11

Attorney Jonathan Turley filed the lawsuit in Salt Lake City’s U.S. District Court . . . on behalf of Kody Brown and his four wives — Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn. Kody Brown is only legally married to Meri Brown.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare Utah’s bigamy statute, unconstitutional. Under the law, it is illegal for unmarried persons to cohabitate, or “purport” to be married. A person is also guilty of bigamy if they hold multiple legal marriage licenses.

Formerly, of Lehi, the Browns belong to the Apostolic United Bretheran, a fundamentalist church that practices polygamy as part of its faith.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gay-marriage foes cite polygamy suit" by Cheryl Wetzstein, The Washington Times 7/24/11

Mr. Brown [and wives] . . . want Utah’s anti-polygamy laws declared unconstitutional and unenforceable on their “plural family.”

The legal arguments their attorneys Jonathan Turley and Adam Alba are using are similar to those used in many gay-marriage lawsuits: The Browns are being illegally denied the rights to freedom of association, due process and equal protection, as well as the rights of adults to engage in “intimate conduct” without government intrusion.

Same-sex marriage advocates say that “a union between two men or two women is equal to that of one man and one woman,” Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, told the July 20 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “But these are the same arguments that could be used to promote marriage between fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, or even polygamous relationships,” Mr. King said.

The legal arguments for gay marriage “clearly threaten to pave the way for polygamous and other polyamorous unions,” testified Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. If the male-female aspect of marriage can be “dismissed,” Mr. Whelan added, “surely the distinction between a marriage of two persons and a marriage of three or more is all the more arbitrary and irrational.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "US family cites gay ruling to challenge bigamy law" posted at The Christian Institute (UK) 7/25/11

The Browns’ lawyer claims the case is about privacy – following the principles of cases, like the 2003 Supreme Court case when judges ruled that homosexual acts in private were protected by the US constitution.

Attorney Jonathan Turley, who represents the Browns, claims: “What they are asking for is the right to structure their own lives, their own family, according to their faith and their beliefs”.

[Neil Addison, a prominent British barrister] . . . said: “Today in British Columbia, a fundamentalist Mormon polygamist is defending himself on bigamy charges by arguing that the bigamy law is discriminatory.

“It is quite possible that he will win, in which case Canada will have legalised same-sex marriage and polygamy.

“David Cameron has said that he regards marriage as fundamental to society but he and the Government need to recognise once they open the Pandora’s box of trying to redefine marriage they will end up destroying it.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "‘Sister Wives’ polygamy lawsuit tackles privacy in Utah" by Lindsay Whitehurst, The Salt Lake Tribune 7/13/11

"We can’t embrace privacy as a principle and pick and choose who can enjoy it,"said Jonathan Turley in a press conference outside Salt Lake City’s federal courthouse. "Now, this family doesn’t look like a lot of families in Utah, but it’s not your family. It’s their family."

The complaint is primarily based on the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the Texas law banning sodomy, which was celebrated by gay rights advocates.

Even though the suit will be primarily based on privacy, polygamy is also a deeply held religious belief for the Browns and tens of thousands of other fundamentalist Mormon families, Turley said. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled out religious freedom as justification for lawful polygamy more than a hundred years ago.

When asked whether polygamy necessarily leads to crimes like underage marriage, as critics say, Turley said that polygamous families should be judged individually. Despite child abuse and other crimes that occur in traditional families, "we don’t say we should ban monogamous marriages," he said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Polygamy a Civil Right: Canadian Court Case

Sunday, July 24, 2011

'Planet of the Apes' Possible, Warn Scientists

For years, scientists have been secretively creating animal-human hybrids to seek cures for various diseases, which has prompted warnings of impending nightmare scenarios breaching every current bioethical standard.

-- From "Scientists warn of 'Planet of the Apes' scenario" posted at the London Telegraph 7/22/11

Exactly the same scenario is portrayed in the new movie Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, in which scientists searching for an Alzheimer's cure create a new breed of ape with human-like intelligence.

Currently research involving great apes, such as chimpanzees, is outlawed in the UK. But it continues in many other countries including the US, and British scientists are permitted to experiment on monkeys.

Professor Thomas Baldwin, a member of the Academy of Medical Sciences working group that produced the report, said the possibility of humanised apes should be taken seriously.

"The fear is that if you start putting very large numbers of human brain cells into the brains of primates suddenly you might transform the primate into something that has some of the capacities that we regard as distinctively human.. speech, or other ways of being able to manipulate or relate to us," he told a news briefing in London.

In the US, scientists have already implanted human embryonic stem cells - which can develop into any part of the human body - into mouse embryos.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "150 human animal hybrids grown in UK labs: Embryos have been produced secretively for the past three years" by Daniel Martin and Simon Caldwell, UK Daily Mail 7/23/11

Figures seen by the Daily Mail show that 155 ‘admixed’ embryos, containing both human and animal genetic material, have been created since the introduction of the 2008 Human Fertilisation Embryology Act.

This legalised the creation of a variety of hybrids, including an animal egg fertilised by a human sperm; ‘cybrids’, in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell; and ‘chimeras’, in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos.

Josephine Quintavalle, of pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: ‘I am aghast that this is going on and we didn’t know anything about it.’

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

MN Homosexualists Hate Pro-marriage Christians

As Minnesota voters await 2012 to decide the definition of marriage, supporters of same-sex "marriage" released a new fundraising video that can only be described as profane, vulgar, immoral, and disgusting as it mocks God in an effort to marginalize the Christian message of the sanctity of marriage.

For background, read Minn. Marriage Amendment Approaches Voters

Warning: Although the video below is absent full nudity, every other word spoken is profane.

-- From "FCKH8 pro gay marriage video offends Christians" by Michael Stone, Humanist Examiner 7/21/11

Tuesday the anti-gay group NOM (National Organization for Marriage) issued the following statement via their blog condemning the FCKH8 video:
We've had the unfortunate duty before of having to inform you about how "F*K H8" tries to propagandize young kids to become activists for gay marriage. We can't underscore how offensive this video is.
. . . For many supporters of equal rights for gay and lesbian people, Christianity is the major force behind anti-gay efforts in the USA, and as such richly deserves to be mocked and ridiculed as a force for ignorance, bigotry and hate.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pro-Gay Marriage Video Mocking Christians Leaves Christians Speechless" by Jeff Schapiro, Christian Post Contributor 7/18/11

The purpose of the website F** is to raise money for Minnesotans United for All Families, an organization whose goal is to defeat the proposed ban on same-sex marriage that the state's voters will decide on in 2012.

For each “Like” on Facebook and “Tweet” on Twitter that the site receives, they will donate 10 cents to the organization, up to $10,000. They are also raising money by selling clothes, stickers, pins, wristbands and more that say things like “Born This Way,” “Don't B H8N On The Homos” and “Some Kids R Gay. That's OK.”

The site takes critical aim at Christians in particular, with actors in the video portraying Christians as mindless followers of church laws. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Michele Bachmann Exposed as Christian by Liberals

Once again demonstrating their ignorance of Christianity, the liberal media believe they are breaking news when they quote presidential candidate Bachmann espousing her Christian faith.

For background, read Bachmann Believes Jesus Saves Us from Sin and also read Media Prepare Anti-Christian Campaign for 2012 as well as Following God's Will: Michele Bachmann for President

UPDATE 9/28/11 - Bachmann speaks on Christian citizenship at Liberty University (video):

-- From "Bachmann Predicted The World Would End In 2006: ‘We Are In The Last Days’" by Marie Diamond, Think Progress 7/18/11

As GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-MN) surges in the polls, more information is coming to light about her past that reveal the depths of her political and religious extremism.
BACHMANN [2006 prayer excerpt from YouTube audio above]: Lord, the day is at hand. We are in the last days. You are a Jehovah God. We know that the times are in your hands. And we give them to you…The day is at hand, Lord, when your return will come nigh. Nothing is more important than bringing sheep into the fold. Than bringing new life into the kingdom…You have weeded that garden. The harvest is at hand.
During the prayer session Bachmann asked God to expand the anti-gay ministry of Bradlee Dean [“You Can Run But You Can't Hide International”]. Dean has been described as “Bachmann’s Jeremiah Wright” since his radical statements pose a political problem for the candidate.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

For background, read Pastor Bradlee Dean Denounced for Prayer in Jesus' Name in MN Legislature

From "Is Bradlee Dean Michele Bachmann’s Rev. Wright?" by Andy Birkey, Minnesota Independent 7/7/11

. . . Dean’s invective towards Muslims, Democrats and especially the LGBT community has earned him notoriety in Minnesota politics, yet candidate Bachmann has yet to weigh in on her relationship with Dean.

While arguably not as close as Obama’s and Wright’s relationship, Bachmann and Dean’s ties date back several years. In 2005, Bachmann, then a state senator, gave Dean’s ministry a letter of endorsement after Dean sent her a copy of his comic book, “My War.”

“Your work is a testament to the struggle our youth are facing in making the right choices in the face of controversy and peer pressure,” she wrote. “I commend you on writing this book for parents and youth alike.”

And she reiterated her support for their work evangelizing in public schools. “We can’t overlook the outright rejection of God in the public school classroom, and the outright scorn of Christianity in our public square,” she said. “Moral relativism is exalted and faith in Christ is derided.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Leading the Anti-Bachmann Army" by David A. Graham, The Daily Beast, posted at 7/19/11

Michele Bachmann's star is on the rise. Her poll numbers are climbing. The donations are rolling in. And the press is scrambling for any scraps about her character, her past, what makes her tick. Digging deep into the Minnesota Republican's record, reporters have found some tantalizing material: her alleged ties to the hate-mongering pastor Bradlee Dean . . .

They're juicy stories and they've gotten plenty of attention nationwide. But they aren't news--a small cluster of bloggers in Minnesota broke all those stories years ago [on the Dump Bachmann blog].

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Feeding frenzy over 'gays' remark facing challenge" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 7/19/11

[Bradlee] Dean explained that his words were outrageously distorted by pro-gay reporters who listened, and other reporters who knowingly republished these distortions. At this point this snowball republication allegedly was false and misleading and included an on-air condemnation from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that an attorney says clearly misrepresents the meaning and intent. The result could be a legal action, according to Larry Klayman, the government watchdog attorney who founded Judicial Watch and now is working with Freedom Watch.

In referencing the comments from Dean, Maddow said, "Foreign enemies rising up against America because Christians aren't doing the job of killing the gays."

. . . But that was an edited version of Dean's original message, which was a benign warning to the homosexual community that the Bible calls the behavior a sin and there are consequences for sin, so they should "flee" from that. Dean explains he was only trying to guilt the Christian community to take the radical leftist homosexual agenda more seriously.

ABC jumped into the fray with the blog comment that Dean "has suggested homosexuals be executed."

Activist sites from as Rightwingwatch took it even further, saying that Dean statements include "that Muslim nations that execute gays are more moral than American Christians."

State Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party Rep. Karen Clark accused Dean of saying that "extremists who call for the execution of American gays are morally justified."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 7/28/11: MSNBC Rachel Maddow sued for defamation in effort to "get at Bachmann"

In the May 11, 2011 video below, go to time mark 7:20 for Michele Bachmann / Bradlee Dean portion:

Also read, Presidential Candidates: Abortion & Marriage Top Issues as well as Proved: Tea Party Movement is Christian

Friday, July 22, 2011

'Gay Marriage' Bill Pushed by Maryland Governor

Against the will of the people of the state of Maryland, Gov. Martin J. O’Malley announced today that he will sponsor legislation to legalize same-sex "marriage" in a manner consistent with his Roman Catholic upbringing.

For background, read Same-sex 'Marriage' Dies in Maryland Legislature (defeated by Christian grassroots), and also read Sexually Confused ("Gender Identity") Legislation Killed in Maryland

UPDATE 2/24/12: Maryland Eighth State for Same-sex 'Marriage'

-- From "O'Malley to sponsor same-sex marriage bill" by Annie Linskey, The Baltimore Sun 7/22/11

O'Malley said he hopes to learn from the New York effort and spoke admiringly about the religious protections offered by that law, though he did not offer any specific changes that he might make.

O'Malley tasked his top lobbyist, Joseph C. Bryce, with spearheading the effort to move the bill in 2012. Bryce, a well respected Annapolis aide, will coordinate the new Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition and develop a strategy to garner additional votes.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Md. governor says he will sponsor gay marriage bill in 2012" by Associated Press 7/22/11

Gay marriage legislation passed the Maryland Senate this year but stalled in the House of Delegates when it became clear it was a few votes short.

While O’Malley supported the bill and said he would sign it, he did not include the measure in his list of legislative priorities. Supporters are confident O’Malley’s stronger backing will make the difference next year.

But opponents are keeping a close eye on developments, and they’re pledging to bring stiff resistance to Annapolis again.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "O'Malley stands up for equality" editorial by The Baltimore Sun 7/22/11

Advocates for marriage equality in Maryland have taken several important steps toward reversing their narrow defeat in this year's General Assembly session, but none were nearly so important as the boost they got today from Gov. Martin O'Malley . . .

Governor O'Malley, in a news conference to announce his plans, specifically cited the provision of the New York law that allows religious groups to opt out of participating in or recognizing same-sex marriages as a model for Maryland to follow. In truth, the bill that failed in the Maryland House this year had an exemption that was nearly identical to the provision in the New York law, but making even minor efforts to strengthen the religious protections could be enough to sway a handful of votes.

Until this year, Mr. O'Malley's public position had been in opposition to same-sex marriage but in favor of civil unions.

To read the entire editorial above, CLICK HERE.

From "Marylanders React To Governor's Marriage Stance" posted at WBAL-TV11 Baltimore 7/22/11

Maryland Family Alliance:

"Statewide Maryland clergy and churches representing more than 50,000 concerned citizens, have expressed disappointment with Gov. Martin O'Malley's announced plans to place same-sex marriage legislation as a legislative priority for the 2012 session. As a result, the coalition of clergy and churches from multiple counties vow to maintain the state’s current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."

"Gay marriage failed in Maryland earlier this year because the House of Delegates listened to their constituents. While Governor O'Malley seems more intent on an agenda other than the people of Maryland, the members of the General Assembly answered to the constituents in their districts. Maryland is not New York. Not only is support for marriage much deeper here, but we have the power of referendum. The General Assembly need not change their position. However, should they decide to, the people will speak via the Referendum and gay marriage will not be legalized in Maryland."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gov. O’Malley will sponsor same-sex marriage legislation" by George P. Matysek Jr., The Catholic Review 7/22/11

Mary Ellen Russell, executive director of the Maryland Catholic Conference, said . . . “The decision still is in the hands of the General Assembly . . . and, to date, they have chosen not to redefine marriage and we hope they will continue to listen to their consciences and constituents and remain with the decision they made last session.”

Russell said stripping marriage of its “unique connection to parenthood” disregards the reasons why government has always elevated marriage over other relationships “as the fundamental building block of society.”

“I went to Catholic schools,” [Gov. O'Malley] said, “and I understood that there’s a difference between laws that are dispensed in a marriage ceremony in a courthouse and a sacrament as defined by organized religion. I think that’s what we seek to protect – both of those freedoms.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read how the Gay Lobby Purchased Same-sex 'Marriage' in New York, and how the Battle Pitted Christians vs. 'christians'

Texas Evolution Textbook Debate Continues

The Texas State Board of Education has given its final approval [sort of] to supplemental high school science materials after a brief flare-up over some lessons teaching the principles of evolution.

For background, read Intelligentsia Fear Critique of Darwin in Texas Schools

-- From "Texas Ed Board compromises on evolution materials" by Jim Vertuno, Associated Press 7/22/11

The board's social conservatives compromised with supporters of evolution and agreed to have state Education Commissioner Robert Scott continue working with the publisher to find an acceptable middle ground.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "SBOE Gives OK to Science Supplements" by Morgan Smithan, Texas Tribune 7/22/11

. . . the board is considering a list of recommended vendors for the supplemental materials that will update textbooks to the science standards it adopted in 2009, which include the requirement that students learn “all sides” of scientific theories like evolution and natural selection.

After a battle appeared to be brewing between the board's left and right factions on contested language on evolution in one publisher's biology lessons, members found a compromise: let the education commissioner decide.

Initially, David Bradley, a member of the board's social conservative bloc, expressed displeasure at handing over the the board's authority to the commissioner [Robert Scott].

Scott, who attended the meeting, told members he'd accept the responsibility. "My goal would be to try and find some common ground," he said. "I cant promise either side that they will be happy."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Liberals Fear Texas Social Studies Textbook

Texas Textbooks Spark National Debate

Texas Puts American History Back Into School

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Ohio Admits Wrong Against Christian Teacher

The Ohio Department of Education is rescinding a "letter of admonishment" from the record of a Christian teacher who was fired for integrating his beliefs in the classroom, according to a report.

For background, read Teacher, with Bible in Desk, Fired

UPDATE 11/20/13:  Ohio Supreme Court rules 4 to 3 school right to fire teacher for insubordination, but OK to keep Bible visible on desk

-- From "ODE removes letter from Freshwater file" by Pamela Schehl, Mount Vernon News 7/20/11

The letter was placed in [John] Freshwater’s file in March. It stated Freshwater used poor judgment in allowing students to touch a live Tesla coil and therefore engaging in “conduct unbecoming to the teaching profession.”

In April 2008, the Mount Vernon school board launched an independent investigation into complaints about Freshwater’s actions in his eighth-grade science classroom. The charges alleged Freshwater used an electrostatic device [Tesla coil] to burn crosses on students’ arms, used his classroom to advance religion and taught his own beliefs from the Bible instead of the approved science curriculum.

Following the investigation, the board, in June 2008, passed a resolution of intent to terminate Freshwater’s contract and subsequently suspended the contract pending an appeal.

Freshwater has appealed his firing and the matter is in the Knox County Common Pleas Court.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "State pulls negative letter from Freshwater's file" By Dean Narciso, Columbus Dispatch 7/20/11

The Virginia-based Rutherford Institute told the department this month that John Freshwater was denied his due-process rights when the state rebuked him for using an electrical device to burn students' arms.

The institute said Freshwater was not given the opportunity to defend himself before the admonishment was issued.

"Religious freedom is considered the first freedom," said Rita Dunaway, staff attorney for the institute. "A big factor in the reason we got involved in this case ... is that it looks like a lot of what happened to Mr. Freshwater dealt with him expressing his beliefs."

The department also renewed Freshwater's five-year high-school teaching license on April 8, meaning he is eligible to teach again in Ohio.

"I want to go back to teaching and to put my Bible back in the corner of my desk," [Freshwater said.]

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Ohio educators take back scolding of Christian teacher" by Taylor Hudson, World Net Daily 7/21/11

. . . Dave Daubenmire, who served as a spokesman for the teacher, said the "cross branding" was nothing of the sort. He characterized it as a science experiment Freshwater had been conducting for 21 years in which he made X marks, not crosses, on the students' skin in the demonstration.

Daubenmire pointed out experts have affirmed the experiment causes no injury to students.

Freshwater ultimately was fired by the Mount Vernon board in January on allegations he injected religion into the classroom by giving students "reason to doubt the accuracy and or veracity of scientists, science textbooks and/or science in general."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Christian Conscience Protections from NY 'Gay Marriage'

When New York's new definition of marriage takes effect on July 24, many county clerks will be confronted with the conflict between a surrendering to a new job requirement and adherence to their own religious beliefs. They may have some legal options . . .

For background, read Gay Lobby Purchases Same-sex 'Marriage' in New York and also read 'Gay Marriage' via Moguls & Corruption

UPDATE 11/9/11: Rose Marie Belforti, Ledyard Town Clerk, Wins Re-Election After Opposing Gay Marriage

UPDATE 9/30/11: Clerks hold to convictions, government yields somewhat - read more on this HERE.

-- From "When Conscience and the New Marriage Law Collide" by Clyde Haberman, New York Times 7/18/11

[Laura L. Fotusky] announced her resignation as the town clerk of nearby Barker. Her religious beliefs, Ms. Fotusky said, made it impossible for her in good conscience to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Her last day in a job that she has held for four years is Thursday, three days before New York’s same-sex marriage law goes into effect.

“In Acts 5:29,” she wrote to the Barker town board last week, “it states, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ ” And it is clear to her, she said, that the Bible defines marriage as solely the union of a man and a woman.

. . . Rosemary Centi, the town clerk in Guilderland, N.Y., outside Albany, said she would stop presiding over wedding ceremonies (a function that Ms. Fotusky does not perform in Barker).

Ms. Centi said she would continue as clerk, and would issue marriage licenses to everyone who was eligible, but she could no longer be Guilderland’s marriage officer. As a Roman Catholic, she said, she felt that she could not perform the actual rituals for same-sex couples.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "NY County Clerks Have Allies" by Dave Lucas, WAMC Northeast Public Radio (Albany, NY) 7/19/11

The Alliance Defense Fund . . . has issued a memo that favors County Clerks here in New York State who find themselves at odds with the new marriage quality law.

The ADF claims its memo was circulated in response what the organization identifies as "threats from top officials of the Empire State to charge clerks who decline to issue such licenses with a criminal offense--forcing clerks to decide between their career and their faith."

Democratic Nassau County DA Kathleen Rice sent a letter warning local municipal clerks there that --quote-- "a public official's intentional refusal to issue marriage licenses to qualified same-sex couples may constitute official misconduct, a Class A misdemeanor."

State Senator Ruben Diaz, a Bronx Democrat who staunchly opposes same-sex marriage, argues that no one should have to resign from their job if issuing marriage licenses to gay couples violates his or her conscience.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Aid offered to clerks who refuse" by Jimmy Vielkind, Capitol bureau, Albany Times Union 7/19/11

"Contrary to what some elected officials have indicated, those with sincerely held religious beliefs do not have to leave their faith at government's door," said the Rev. Jason McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms.

McGuire points out that the Alliance Defense Fund, a national group supporting proactive expressions of faith, has issued a memo explaining clerks' rights. Employers must make "reasonable accommodation" for an employee's "sincerely held religious beliefs" under law, it says.

In this instance, the memo says, "because New York law explicitly allows a municipality to delegate a clerk's duties concerning marriage licenses to a deputy clerk or any other municipal employee, a city or town should have no reason to deny a clerk's request for an accommodation."

Gov. Andrew Cuomo was asked last week about Fotusky's decision, and presented a cut-and-dried assessment of the situation: "The law is the law. You enforce the law as is; you don't get to pick and choose those laws. ... If you can't enforce the law, you shouldn't be in that position."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read NY Same-sex 'Marriage' Pits Christians vs. 'christians'