After a lone parent of Lahser High School in Bloomfield Hills, MI complained to the American Civil Liberties Union of small-group prayer on school grounds after football games, the ACLU threatened the school. Although the superintendent confirmed that the prayer was student-led (a First Amendment right, confirmed by the Supreme Court -- a fact obviously unknown to the local news media), the school opted to forbid such student gatherings.
For background on the atheist assault, read Church Leaders in Maine Agree with Atheists on Prayer
However, read about the Texas Law Telling Schools to Ignore Atheist Threats
-- From "Debate over prayer in schools moves to Bloomfield Hills football field" by Paula Tutman, Reporter, WDIV-TV4 (Detroit, MI)
The family that brought the complaint to the ACLU has asked to remain anonymous. Afterwards the ACLU launched an investigation and wrote a letter to the administration and the tradition of praying after a game was done.
"The First Amendment protects religious liberty for all citizens in the United States, including people who aren't part of the majority religion," said Dan Korobkin from the ACLU.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Bloomfield Hills Lahser High School bans prayer after football games after family’s complaint" by Andrew Kidd, Oakland Press (Michigan) 6/28/13
Bloomfield Schools Superintendent Robert Glass said the matter was resolved without issue in March.
“We interviewed the coach [Dan Loria] after receiving the complaint and investigated the matter,” Glass said. “The coach did not lead prayer as alleged, but was present when students led prayer at the game.”
Glass added that despite the coach not being involved, the prayers would still no longer be permitted.
“Student-led prayer is not to be part of post-game proceedings,” he said.
Loria said he at first didn’t realize the implications behind allowing those who didn’t want to take part to walk away from it, but is determined to make sure that future student-led prayer activities do not take place on school property.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Because of the intimidation tactics of atheist lawyer organizations, state governments across America are educating its citizens on constitutional religious liberty by passing laws in Texas, and Louisiana, and North Carolina, and South Carolina, and Missouri, and Mississippi, and Florida, and Tennessee.
To understand why such laws ensuring religious liberty are necessary, read Humanists Threaten Missouri School over Prayer and also read Atheists Threaten to Sue Every School in Mississippi and read about myriad attacks on Christians via public schools (see article list at bottom).
The root issue is American Religious Liberty vs. Anti-Christian Totalitarianism
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Supremes' New Morality Means Justice for Polygamy
Honest liberals agree that the Supreme Court ruling on "gay marriage" must eventually lead to further court rulings favoring plural marriage (polyamory) at the least. The dissenting court opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, whose much-derided "slippery slope" argument in the Supreme Court Texas sodomy ruling of 2003 predicted this week's ruling, gives insight to the future -- not just the demise of family, but demise of democracy and thus religious liberty.
UPDATE 3/24/15: 'Husband' Impregnates Both 'Married' Lesbian Wives (Polyamory)
UPDATE 12/24/13: Activist Judges Say Scalia Right on 'Gay Marriage'
UPDATE 12/15/13: Polygamy OKd by Federal Judge in Utah (proving Scalia right)
UPDATE 7/30/14: 4th Circuit Judge Says Polygamy Will Follow Ruling for 'Gay Marriage'
In addition, read San Francisco's 9th Circuit Court short-circuits legal process after Supreme Court's ruling
UPDATE 7/31/13: Obama's 'Marriage' Lawlessness Spreads Across America
-- From "Polygamists find promise in Supreme Court decisions" by Molly Vorwerck, USA TODAY 6/28/13
In his majority opinion for U.S. v. Windsor, Justice Kennedy argued that the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA], which defines marriage as strictly between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional because it pegs homosexuals as second class citizens. . . .
Anne Wilde, a Mormon fundamentalist and founder of the polygamist rights organization, Principle Rights Coalition, is hopeful that these decisions represent movement towards the decriminalization of polygamy.
Despite their contrasting opinions on other issues, advocates both for and against polygamy view these two [Supreme Court] rulings as instrumental in opening the floodgates for plural marriages.
. . . Mark Goldfeder, a law professor at Emory University, thinks that the two rulings had significant impact on the future of polygamy in the United States. Goldfeder, who specializes in the intersection of law and religion, says that the courts will need to find other justifications to keep anti-polygamy statutes in place.
"It's one hundred percent likely that these polygamist cases will come, but they will no longer turn on whether a relationship is immoral," Goldfeder says. "The court will look at whether these relationships cause third party harm."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Utah polygamists celebrate, but will rulings help them?" by Jim Dalrymple II, The Salt Lake Tribune 6/27/13
Just hours after the court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, Joe Darger said he and his family were pleased. Darger, who with his three wives detailed their life in the book "Love Times Three: Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage," said the ruling should help remedy polygamists’ treatment as "second-class citizens."
Darger added that he believes the decision also will influence the high-profile Brown case, which is pending in Utah before federal Judge Clark Waddoups. In that case, the polygamous Brown family — which is well known from the TV show "Sister Wives" — is suing to strike down the statute that makes bigamy a third-degree felony.
Jonathan Turley, the Washington, D.C.-based lawyer representing the Browns . . . pointed out Justice Anthony Kennedy emphasized the "limited right of the federal government in treating couples differently once they have been recognized as married by a state."
Perhaps the most significant development in regards to polygamy, Turley explained, was the court’s shift away from morality as a justification of law.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Justice Scalia criticizes 'moralist' judges" by Clarke Morrison, Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times 6/21/13
"In the United States and indeed throughout the world, belief in the expert has been replaced by the judge moralist," said Scalia, who is the longest-serving member now on the high court. "We have become addicted to abstract moralizing."
. . . Scalia said a change in judicial philosophy occurred in the second half of the 20th century.
"And I am sorry to say that my court was responsible for it," he said. "It was my court that invented the notion of a 'living' Constitution. Beginning with the cruel and unusual punishment clause of our Eighth Amendment, we developed the doctrine that the meaning of the Constitution could change over time."
"About nine terms ago, we held laws against private consensual sodomy, laws that existed in perfect conformity with the Constitution for over 200 years, to be impermissible."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Excerpts from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's 26-page dissenting opinion in the federal Defense of Marriage Act ruling of 6/26/13
This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.
[The majority opinion] is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role.
There are many remarkable things about the majority’s merits holding. The first is how rootless and shifting its justifications are. For example, the opinion starts with seven full pages about the traditional power of States to define domestic relations—initially fooling many readers, I am sure, into thinking that this is a federalism opinion. But we are eventually told that “it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution,” and that “[t]he State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism” because “the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import.” But no one questions the power of the States to define marriage (with the concomitant conferral of dignity and status), so what is the point of devoting seven pages to describing how long and well established that power is? Even after the opinion has formally disclaimed reliance upon principles of federalism, mentions of “the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage” continue. What to make of this? The opinion never explains. My guess is that the majority, while reluctant to suggest that defining the meaning of “marriage” in federal statutes is unsupported by any of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, nonetheless needs some rhetorical basis to support its pretense that today’s prohibition of laws excluding same-sex marriage is confined to the Federal Government (leaving the second, state-law shoe to be dropped later, maybe next Term). But I am only guessing.
Equally perplexing are the opinion’s references to “the Constitution’s guarantee of equality.” Near the end of the opinion, we are told that although the “equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes [the] Fifth Amendment [due process] right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved”—what can that mean?—“the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does.” The only possible interpretation of this statement is that the Equal Protection Clause, even the Equal Protection Clause as incorporated in the Due Process Clause, is not the basis for today’s holding. . . .
Moreover, if this is meant to be an equal-protection opinion, it is a confusing one. The opinion does not resolve and indeed does not even mention what had been the central question in this litigation: whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman are reviewed for more than mere rationality. . . .
The majority opinion need not get into the strict-vs.rational-basis scrutiny question, and need not justify its holding under either, because it says that DOMA is unconstitutional as “a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution,” that it violates “basic due process” principles, and that it inflicts an “injury and indignity” of a kind that denies “an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment,” The majority never utters the dread words “substantive due process,” perhaps sensing the disrepute into which that doctrine has fallen, but that is what those statements mean. Yet the opinion does not argue that same-sex marriage is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” . . . a claim that would of course be quite absurd. So would the further suggestion (also necessary, under our substantive-due-process precedents) that a world in which DOMA exists is one bereft of “‘ordered liberty.’”
Some might conclude that this loaf could have used a while longer in the oven. But that would be wrong; it is already overcooked. The most expert care in preparation cannot redeem a bad recipe. The sum of all the Court’s nonspecific hand-waving is that this law is invalid (maybe on equal-protection grounds, maybe on substantive-due process grounds, and perhaps with some amorphous federalism component playing a role) because it is motivated by a “‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. It is this proposition with which I will therefore engage.
As I have observed before, the Constitution does not forbid the government to enforce traditional moral and sexual norms. . . . I will not swell the U. S. Reports with restatements of that point. It is enough to say that the Constitution neither requires nor forbids our society to approve of same-sex marriage, much as it neither requires nor forbids us to approve of no-fault divorce, polygamy, or the consumption of alcohol. However, even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex), there are many perfectly valid—indeed, downright boring—justifying rationales for this legislation. Their existence ought to be the end of this case. For they give the lie to the Court’s conclusion that only those with hateful hearts could have voted “aye” on this Act. And more importantly, they serve to make the contents of the legislators’ hearts quite irrelevant: “It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” Or at least it was a familiar principle. By holding to the contrary, the majority has declared open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited.
The majority concludes that the only motive for this Act was the “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Bear in mind that the object of this condemnation is not the legislature of some once-Confederate Southern state (familiar objects of the Court’s scorn . . .), but our respected coordinate branches, the Congress and Presidency of the United States. Laying such a charge against them should require the most extraordinary evidence, and I would have thought that every attempt would be made to indulge a more anodyne explanation for the statute. The majority does the opposite—affirmatively concealing from the reader the arguments that exist in justification. It makes only a passing mention of the “arguments put forward” by the Act’s defenders, and does not even trouble to paraphrase or describe them. I imagine that this is because it is harder to maintain the illusion of the Act’s supporters as unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob when one first describes their views as they see them.
To choose just one of these defenders’ arguments, DOMA avoids difficult choice-of-law issues that will now arise absent a uniform federal definition of marriage. . . . Imagine a pair of women who marry in Albany and then move to Alabama, which does not “recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex.” When the couple files their next federal tax return, may it be a joint one? Which State’s law controls, for federal-law purposes: their State of celebration (which recognizes the marriage) or their State of domicile (which does not)? (Does the answer depend on whether they were just visiting in Albany?) Are these questions to be answered as a matter of federal common law, or perhaps by borrowing a State’s choice-of-law rules? If so, which State’s? And what about States where the status of an out-of-state same-sex marriage is an unsettled question under local law? . . . DOMA avoided all of this uncertainty by specifying which marriages would be recognized for federal purposes. That is a classic purpose for a definitional provision.
Further, DOMA preserves the intended effects of prior legislation against then-unforeseen changes in circumstance. When Congress provided (for example) that a special estate-tax exemption would exist for spouses, this exemption reached only opposite-sex spouses—those being the only sort that were recognized in any State at the time of DOMA’s passage. When it became clear that changes in state law might one day alter that balance, DOMA’s definitional section was enacted to ensure that state-level experimentation did not automatically alter the basic operation of federal law, unless and until Congress made the further judgment to do so on its own. That is not animus—just stabilizing prudence. Congress has hardly demonstrated itself unwilling to make such further, revising judgments upon due deliberation.
The Court mentions none of this. Instead, it accuses the Congress that enacted this law and the President who signed it of something much worse than, for example, having acted in excess of enumerated federal powers—or even having drawn distinctions that prove to be irrational. Those legal errors may be made in good faith, errors though they are. But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” to “impose inequality,” to “impose . . . a stigma,” to deny people “equal dignity,” to brand gay people as “unworthy,” and to “humiliat[e]” their children.
I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.” I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[s]” before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” —with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
. . . In my opinion . . . the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. . . .
In sum, that Court which finds it so horrific that Congress irrationally and hatefully robbed same-sex couples of the “personhood and dignity” which state legislatures conferred upon them, will of a certitude be similarly appalled by state legislatures’ irrational and hateful failure to acknowledge that “personhood and dignity” in the first place. As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.
By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy “help” only to a member of this institution.
As to that debate: Few public controversies touch an institution so central to the lives of so many, and few inspire such attendant passion by good people on all sides. Few public controversies will ever demonstrate so vividly the beauty of what our Framers gave us, a gift the Court pawns today to buy its stolen moment in the spotlight: a system of government that permits us to rule ourselves. Since DOMA’s passage, citizens on all sides of the question have seen victories and they have seen defeats. There have been plebiscites, legislation, persuasion, and loud voices—in other words, democracy. . . .
In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.
But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.
To read the entire Supreme Court justice's writing above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Four People Joined as Spouses in California
For background of foreign trends coming to America, read 'Civil Union' Joins a Man & Two Women in Brazil and also read Polygamy a Civil Right: Canadian Court Case
As for religious liberty, read Supreme Court Rules Bible as 'Hate Speech' in Canada
In addition read Justice Scalia Says No Right to Same-sex 'Marriage' in Constitution
AGENDA: Grinding America Down (full movie on YouTube):
AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Full Movie) FREE to watch for a limited time (click here)! from Copybook Heading Productions LLC on Vimeo.
“I am questioning the propriety, the sanity of having a value-laden decision ... made for the entire society by unelected judges.”For background, read Liberals Say Legalize Polygamy NOW and also read 'Gay Marriage' Enables Polygamy Court Challenge as well as Mainstream Media Promote Polyamory
— Justice Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court
UPDATE 3/24/15: 'Husband' Impregnates Both 'Married' Lesbian Wives (Polyamory)
UPDATE 12/24/13: Activist Judges Say Scalia Right on 'Gay Marriage'
UPDATE 12/15/13: Polygamy OKd by Federal Judge in Utah (proving Scalia right)
UPDATE 7/30/14: 4th Circuit Judge Says Polygamy Will Follow Ruling for 'Gay Marriage'
In addition, read San Francisco's 9th Circuit Court short-circuits legal process after Supreme Court's ruling
UPDATE 7/31/13: Obama's 'Marriage' Lawlessness Spreads Across America
-- From "Polygamists find promise in Supreme Court decisions" by Molly Vorwerck, USA TODAY 6/28/13
In his majority opinion for U.S. v. Windsor, Justice Kennedy argued that the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA], which defines marriage as strictly between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional because it pegs homosexuals as second class citizens. . . .
Anne Wilde, a Mormon fundamentalist and founder of the polygamist rights organization, Principle Rights Coalition, is hopeful that these decisions represent movement towards the decriminalization of polygamy.
Despite their contrasting opinions on other issues, advocates both for and against polygamy view these two [Supreme Court] rulings as instrumental in opening the floodgates for plural marriages.
. . . Mark Goldfeder, a law professor at Emory University, thinks that the two rulings had significant impact on the future of polygamy in the United States. Goldfeder, who specializes in the intersection of law and religion, says that the courts will need to find other justifications to keep anti-polygamy statutes in place.
"It's one hundred percent likely that these polygamist cases will come, but they will no longer turn on whether a relationship is immoral," Goldfeder says. "The court will look at whether these relationships cause third party harm."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Utah polygamists celebrate, but will rulings help them?" by Jim Dalrymple II, The Salt Lake Tribune 6/27/13
Just hours after the court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, Joe Darger said he and his family were pleased. Darger, who with his three wives detailed their life in the book "Love Times Three: Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage," said the ruling should help remedy polygamists’ treatment as "second-class citizens."
Darger added that he believes the decision also will influence the high-profile Brown case, which is pending in Utah before federal Judge Clark Waddoups. In that case, the polygamous Brown family — which is well known from the TV show "Sister Wives" — is suing to strike down the statute that makes bigamy a third-degree felony.
Jonathan Turley, the Washington, D.C.-based lawyer representing the Browns . . . pointed out Justice Anthony Kennedy emphasized the "limited right of the federal government in treating couples differently once they have been recognized as married by a state."
Perhaps the most significant development in regards to polygamy, Turley explained, was the court’s shift away from morality as a justification of law.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Justice Scalia criticizes 'moralist' judges" by Clarke Morrison, Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times 6/21/13
"In the United States and indeed throughout the world, belief in the expert has been replaced by the judge moralist," said Scalia, who is the longest-serving member now on the high court. "We have become addicted to abstract moralizing."
. . . Scalia said a change in judicial philosophy occurred in the second half of the 20th century.
"And I am sorry to say that my court was responsible for it," he said. "It was my court that invented the notion of a 'living' Constitution. Beginning with the cruel and unusual punishment clause of our Eighth Amendment, we developed the doctrine that the meaning of the Constitution could change over time."
"About nine terms ago, we held laws against private consensual sodomy, laws that existed in perfect conformity with the Constitution for over 200 years, to be impermissible."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Excerpts from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's 26-page dissenting opinion in the federal Defense of Marriage Act ruling of 6/26/13
This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.
[The majority opinion] is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role.
There are many remarkable things about the majority’s merits holding. The first is how rootless and shifting its justifications are. For example, the opinion starts with seven full pages about the traditional power of States to define domestic relations—initially fooling many readers, I am sure, into thinking that this is a federalism opinion. But we are eventually told that “it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution,” and that “[t]he State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism” because “the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import.” But no one questions the power of the States to define marriage (with the concomitant conferral of dignity and status), so what is the point of devoting seven pages to describing how long and well established that power is? Even after the opinion has formally disclaimed reliance upon principles of federalism, mentions of “the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage” continue. What to make of this? The opinion never explains. My guess is that the majority, while reluctant to suggest that defining the meaning of “marriage” in federal statutes is unsupported by any of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, nonetheless needs some rhetorical basis to support its pretense that today’s prohibition of laws excluding same-sex marriage is confined to the Federal Government (leaving the second, state-law shoe to be dropped later, maybe next Term). But I am only guessing.
Equally perplexing are the opinion’s references to “the Constitution’s guarantee of equality.” Near the end of the opinion, we are told that although the “equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes [the] Fifth Amendment [due process] right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved”—what can that mean?—“the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does.” The only possible interpretation of this statement is that the Equal Protection Clause, even the Equal Protection Clause as incorporated in the Due Process Clause, is not the basis for today’s holding. . . .
Moreover, if this is meant to be an equal-protection opinion, it is a confusing one. The opinion does not resolve and indeed does not even mention what had been the central question in this litigation: whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman are reviewed for more than mere rationality. . . .
The majority opinion need not get into the strict-vs.rational-basis scrutiny question, and need not justify its holding under either, because it says that DOMA is unconstitutional as “a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution,” that it violates “basic due process” principles, and that it inflicts an “injury and indignity” of a kind that denies “an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment,” The majority never utters the dread words “substantive due process,” perhaps sensing the disrepute into which that doctrine has fallen, but that is what those statements mean. Yet the opinion does not argue that same-sex marriage is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” . . . a claim that would of course be quite absurd. So would the further suggestion (also necessary, under our substantive-due-process precedents) that a world in which DOMA exists is one bereft of “‘ordered liberty.’”
Some might conclude that this loaf could have used a while longer in the oven. But that would be wrong; it is already overcooked. The most expert care in preparation cannot redeem a bad recipe. The sum of all the Court’s nonspecific hand-waving is that this law is invalid (maybe on equal-protection grounds, maybe on substantive-due process grounds, and perhaps with some amorphous federalism component playing a role) because it is motivated by a “‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. It is this proposition with which I will therefore engage.
As I have observed before, the Constitution does not forbid the government to enforce traditional moral and sexual norms. . . . I will not swell the U. S. Reports with restatements of that point. It is enough to say that the Constitution neither requires nor forbids our society to approve of same-sex marriage, much as it neither requires nor forbids us to approve of no-fault divorce, polygamy, or the consumption of alcohol. However, even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex), there are many perfectly valid—indeed, downright boring—justifying rationales for this legislation. Their existence ought to be the end of this case. For they give the lie to the Court’s conclusion that only those with hateful hearts could have voted “aye” on this Act. And more importantly, they serve to make the contents of the legislators’ hearts quite irrelevant: “It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” Or at least it was a familiar principle. By holding to the contrary, the majority has declared open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited.
The majority concludes that the only motive for this Act was the “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Bear in mind that the object of this condemnation is not the legislature of some once-Confederate Southern state (familiar objects of the Court’s scorn . . .), but our respected coordinate branches, the Congress and Presidency of the United States. Laying such a charge against them should require the most extraordinary evidence, and I would have thought that every attempt would be made to indulge a more anodyne explanation for the statute. The majority does the opposite—affirmatively concealing from the reader the arguments that exist in justification. It makes only a passing mention of the “arguments put forward” by the Act’s defenders, and does not even trouble to paraphrase or describe them. I imagine that this is because it is harder to maintain the illusion of the Act’s supporters as unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob when one first describes their views as they see them.
To choose just one of these defenders’ arguments, DOMA avoids difficult choice-of-law issues that will now arise absent a uniform federal definition of marriage. . . . Imagine a pair of women who marry in Albany and then move to Alabama, which does not “recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex.” When the couple files their next federal tax return, may it be a joint one? Which State’s law controls, for federal-law purposes: their State of celebration (which recognizes the marriage) or their State of domicile (which does not)? (Does the answer depend on whether they were just visiting in Albany?) Are these questions to be answered as a matter of federal common law, or perhaps by borrowing a State’s choice-of-law rules? If so, which State’s? And what about States where the status of an out-of-state same-sex marriage is an unsettled question under local law? . . . DOMA avoided all of this uncertainty by specifying which marriages would be recognized for federal purposes. That is a classic purpose for a definitional provision.
Further, DOMA preserves the intended effects of prior legislation against then-unforeseen changes in circumstance. When Congress provided (for example) that a special estate-tax exemption would exist for spouses, this exemption reached only opposite-sex spouses—those being the only sort that were recognized in any State at the time of DOMA’s passage. When it became clear that changes in state law might one day alter that balance, DOMA’s definitional section was enacted to ensure that state-level experimentation did not automatically alter the basic operation of federal law, unless and until Congress made the further judgment to do so on its own. That is not animus—just stabilizing prudence. Congress has hardly demonstrated itself unwilling to make such further, revising judgments upon due deliberation.
The Court mentions none of this. Instead, it accuses the Congress that enacted this law and the President who signed it of something much worse than, for example, having acted in excess of enumerated federal powers—or even having drawn distinctions that prove to be irrational. Those legal errors may be made in good faith, errors though they are. But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” to “impose inequality,” to “impose . . . a stigma,” to deny people “equal dignity,” to brand gay people as “unworthy,” and to “humiliat[e]” their children.
I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.” I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[s]” before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” —with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
. . . In my opinion . . . the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. . . .
In sum, that Court which finds it so horrific that Congress irrationally and hatefully robbed same-sex couples of the “personhood and dignity” which state legislatures conferred upon them, will of a certitude be similarly appalled by state legislatures’ irrational and hateful failure to acknowledge that “personhood and dignity” in the first place. As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.
By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy “help” only to a member of this institution.
As to that debate: Few public controversies touch an institution so central to the lives of so many, and few inspire such attendant passion by good people on all sides. Few public controversies will ever demonstrate so vividly the beauty of what our Framers gave us, a gift the Court pawns today to buy its stolen moment in the spotlight: a system of government that permits us to rule ourselves. Since DOMA’s passage, citizens on all sides of the question have seen victories and they have seen defeats. There have been plebiscites, legislation, persuasion, and loud voices—in other words, democracy. . . .
In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.
But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.
To read the entire Supreme Court justice's writing above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Four People Joined as Spouses in California
For background of foreign trends coming to America, read 'Civil Union' Joins a Man & Two Women in Brazil and also read Polygamy a Civil Right: Canadian Court Case
As for religious liberty, read Supreme Court Rules Bible as 'Hate Speech' in Canada
In addition read Justice Scalia Says No Right to Same-sex 'Marriage' in Constitution
AGENDA: Grinding America Down (full movie on YouTube):
AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Full Movie) FREE to watch for a limited time (click here)! from Copybook Heading Productions LLC on Vimeo.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Obama Pushes HIV Testing but Won't Admit the Cause
President Obama touted his "National HIV Testing Day" saying every American should find out if they have the virus that causes the dreaded AIDS disease because under ObamaCare, everyone is forced to pay for the testing anyway. Federal government statistics show that less than one-half percent of Americans are infected, and after decades of study it's been proved that virtually all sexually transmitted HIV infections are caused by anal sex.
For background, read Anal Sex is Main Cause of HIV Pandemic, Study Shows and yet President Obama Commits $15 Million to Show that Gay Men Aren't Cause of HIV/AIDS
Also read about the New Sex Disease that is Worse than HIV/AIDS
UPDATE 10/2/14: HIV/AIDS is Mostly a Gay Disease, Says U.S. Government
-- From "Obama urges widespread testing for HIV" by Elise Viebeck, The Hill 6/27/13
President Obama urged Americans to get tested for HIV on Thursday as part of a national effort to detect the virus early.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 1 million people in the United States are currently living with HIV, which leads to AIDS.
As of this year, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends testing for everyone between the ages of 15 and 65, and regularly testing for at-risk groups, including gay men and people who inject drugs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Statement by the President on National HIV Testing Day" posted at Whitehouse.gov 6/27/13
Getting an HIV test is easier and faster than ever. . . . under the Affordable Care Act [ObamaCare], new health care plans will be required to cover HIV testing without any additional out-of-pocket costs.
That’s why, on a trip to Africa in 2006, Michelle and I were tested for HIV – because there should be no shame or stigma associated with knowing your status. And if we each do our part by getting tested – and encourage our friends and family to do the same – then we will move closer to an AIDS-free generation.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Mr. President, why not encourage monogamous marriage between a man and woman to achieve "an AIDS-free generation."
From "Sebelius: HIV Testing Necessary to 'Make Good Decisions About Your Health'" by Susan Jones, CNSNews.com 6/27/13
[President Obama's Health and Human Service Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, said] "HIV testing is so important because it gives you the information you need to make good decisions about your health. If you test negative, you can take steps to stay that way (which may include periodic testing if you engage in high-risk behaviors)."
Notably, Sebelius said nothing about avoiding "high-risk behaviors" in the first place.
[However,] Sebelius said for people already infected, the [ObamaCare] law will "help to ensure they get the care and treatment they need."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For further background, read Previous Federal Government Reports: Majority of New HIV Cases from Homosexual Behavior and also read HIV Infections Rampant Among Homosexuals According to Old CDC Studies
In addition, read Fictional 'Safe Sex' - Government Losing War on STDs
"We are particularly concerned by a significant increase in new infections among young gay and bisexual men. Between 2008-2010, this group of young men (ages 13-24) had a 22 percent increase in new infections—and young black men in that group now account for more new HIV infections than any other subgroup by race/ethnicity, age, and sex."Worried about HIV/AIDS from sex? If you've never had an infected penis in your rectum, rest easy.
-- Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama's Health and Human Service Secretary
For background, read Anal Sex is Main Cause of HIV Pandemic, Study Shows and yet President Obama Commits $15 Million to Show that Gay Men Aren't Cause of HIV/AIDS
Also read about the New Sex Disease that is Worse than HIV/AIDS
UPDATE 10/2/14: HIV/AIDS is Mostly a Gay Disease, Says U.S. Government
-- From "Obama urges widespread testing for HIV" by Elise Viebeck, The Hill 6/27/13
President Obama urged Americans to get tested for HIV on Thursday as part of a national effort to detect the virus early.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 1 million people in the United States are currently living with HIV, which leads to AIDS.
As of this year, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends testing for everyone between the ages of 15 and 65, and regularly testing for at-risk groups, including gay men and people who inject drugs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Statement by the President on National HIV Testing Day" posted at Whitehouse.gov 6/27/13
Getting an HIV test is easier and faster than ever. . . . under the Affordable Care Act [ObamaCare], new health care plans will be required to cover HIV testing without any additional out-of-pocket costs.
That’s why, on a trip to Africa in 2006, Michelle and I were tested for HIV – because there should be no shame or stigma associated with knowing your status. And if we each do our part by getting tested – and encourage our friends and family to do the same – then we will move closer to an AIDS-free generation.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Mr. President, why not encourage monogamous marriage between a man and woman to achieve "an AIDS-free generation."
From "Sebelius: HIV Testing Necessary to 'Make Good Decisions About Your Health'" by Susan Jones, CNSNews.com 6/27/13
[President Obama's Health and Human Service Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, said] "HIV testing is so important because it gives you the information you need to make good decisions about your health. If you test negative, you can take steps to stay that way (which may include periodic testing if you engage in high-risk behaviors)."
Notably, Sebelius said nothing about avoiding "high-risk behaviors" in the first place.
[However,] Sebelius said for people already infected, the [ObamaCare] law will "help to ensure they get the care and treatment they need."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For further background, read Previous Federal Government Reports: Majority of New HIV Cases from Homosexual Behavior and also read HIV Infections Rampant Among Homosexuals According to Old CDC Studies
In addition, read Fictional 'Safe Sex' - Government Losing War on STDs
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Calif. 'Gay Marriage' NOT Legal, Despite Supremes
Although the media hype that yesterday's Supreme Court ruling means same-sex "marriage" is back in California, it's NOT. Yes, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was negated, leaving in place the (lower) district court ruling by the openly homosexual Judge Vaughn R. Walker favoring same-sex "marriage," but still the traditional marriage Proposition 8 remains in effect.
It sounds like complicated legalese, but it's easily explained; read on . . .
For background, read California Same-sex 'Marriage' Ruling by Biased Judge and also read Homosexual Judge Walker Says Children Don't Need Parents as well as Supreme Court Favors California Defenders of Marriage
UPDATE 6/29/13: 9th Circuit gives immediate green light, short-circuiting legal process
-- From "Court to wait to make move on same-sex marriage in California" by Lisa Leff, Associated Press 6/27/13
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said backers of Proposition 8 — the state ban on gay marriages — have [at least 25 days] to ask the Supreme court to rehear the case.
The San Francisco-based court said it may continue to bar gay marriages even beyond that time if proponents of Prop 8 ask for a rehearing.
The Supreme Court’s ruling earlier in the day cleared the way for same-sex marriages to resume, but sidestepped the larger question of whether banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.
The justices voted 5-4 to let stand a trial court’s August 2010 ruling that overturned the state’s voter-approved gay marriage ban, holding that the coalition of religious conservative groups that qualified Prop 8 for the ballot did not have authority to defend it after state officials refused to do so.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "What's next for California after Prop. 8 case dismissed" by Stephanie Condon, CBS News 6/26/13
. . . one of the proponents of Prop. 8 suggested the same-sex marriage ban remained in place. "We remain committed to the continued enforcement of Prop. 8 until there is a statewide order saying otherwise," Andy Pugno of the Prop. 8 Legal Defense Fund said outside the court Wednesday.
In dismissing the case, the Supreme Court nullified the appeals court decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, leaving in place just the district court decision. Even though the district court found Prop. 8 unconstitutional, district courts are typically not able to issue statewide injunctions against a law. That means if left up to conservative interpretation, the district ruling would only apply to the two gay couples who brought the case to court. The rest of California's same-sex couples would be out of luck.
Proponents of Prop. 8 argue that state officials should be obligated to defend and enforce a law directly approved by voters. After all, Prop. 8 passed with 52 percent support in California in 2008 - on the same day Californians helped elect President Obama.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 6/29/13: From "Appeals court OKS same-sex marriages to resume in Calif., prompting Friday flurry of weddings" by The Associated Press
. . . a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a brief order Friday afternoon dissolving a stay it had imposed on gay marriages while the lawsuit challenging the ban advanced through the courts.
The [Supreme Court] said, however, that it would not finalize its ruling “at least” until after the 25 days the ban’s backers have under the court’s rules to seek a rehearing. The 9th Circuit was widely expected to wait until the Supreme Court’s judgment was official before clearing the way for same-sex marriages to start again.
“The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means. If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for a coalition of religious conservative groups that sponsored the 2008 ballot measure.
“It remains to be seen whether the fight can go on, but either way, it is a disgraceful day for California,” he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 6/29/13: From "Flood of gay marriages expected this weekend in California" By Maura Dolan and Rong-Gong Lin II, Los Angeles Times
In a surprise action, a federal appeals court cleared the way, bypassing a normal waiting period and lifting a hold on a trial judge's order that declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional.
"It is part and parcel of the utter lawlessness in which this whole case has been prosecuted, said Chapman Law professor John Eastman, a supporter of Proposition 8. "Normally, courts let the parties kind of pursue their legal remedies before they issue a mandate."
"Tonight it is chaos and lawlessness, and anyone who is concerned about the rule of law ought to be deeply troubled by what happened here," the constitutional law professor said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Study: Media Bias FOR "Gay Marriage" is Christians' Fault as well as TV's Disproportionate Attention to the Gay Agenda
It sounds like complicated legalese, but it's easily explained; read on . . .
For background, read California Same-sex 'Marriage' Ruling by Biased Judge and also read Homosexual Judge Walker Says Children Don't Need Parents as well as Supreme Court Favors California Defenders of Marriage
UPDATE 6/29/13: 9th Circuit gives immediate green light, short-circuiting legal process
-- From "Court to wait to make move on same-sex marriage in California" by Lisa Leff, Associated Press 6/27/13
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said backers of Proposition 8 — the state ban on gay marriages — have [at least 25 days] to ask the Supreme court to rehear the case.
The San Francisco-based court said it may continue to bar gay marriages even beyond that time if proponents of Prop 8 ask for a rehearing.
The Supreme Court’s ruling earlier in the day cleared the way for same-sex marriages to resume, but sidestepped the larger question of whether banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.
The justices voted 5-4 to let stand a trial court’s August 2010 ruling that overturned the state’s voter-approved gay marriage ban, holding that the coalition of religious conservative groups that qualified Prop 8 for the ballot did not have authority to defend it after state officials refused to do so.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "What's next for California after Prop. 8 case dismissed" by Stephanie Condon, CBS News 6/26/13
. . . one of the proponents of Prop. 8 suggested the same-sex marriage ban remained in place. "We remain committed to the continued enforcement of Prop. 8 until there is a statewide order saying otherwise," Andy Pugno of the Prop. 8 Legal Defense Fund said outside the court Wednesday.
In dismissing the case, the Supreme Court nullified the appeals court decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, leaving in place just the district court decision. Even though the district court found Prop. 8 unconstitutional, district courts are typically not able to issue statewide injunctions against a law. That means if left up to conservative interpretation, the district ruling would only apply to the two gay couples who brought the case to court. The rest of California's same-sex couples would be out of luck.
Proponents of Prop. 8 argue that state officials should be obligated to defend and enforce a law directly approved by voters. After all, Prop. 8 passed with 52 percent support in California in 2008 - on the same day Californians helped elect President Obama.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 6/29/13: From "Appeals court OKS same-sex marriages to resume in Calif., prompting Friday flurry of weddings" by The Associated Press
. . . a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a brief order Friday afternoon dissolving a stay it had imposed on gay marriages while the lawsuit challenging the ban advanced through the courts.
The [Supreme Court] said, however, that it would not finalize its ruling “at least” until after the 25 days the ban’s backers have under the court’s rules to seek a rehearing. The 9th Circuit was widely expected to wait until the Supreme Court’s judgment was official before clearing the way for same-sex marriages to start again.
“The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means. If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for a coalition of religious conservative groups that sponsored the 2008 ballot measure.
“It remains to be seen whether the fight can go on, but either way, it is a disgraceful day for California,” he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 6/29/13: From "Flood of gay marriages expected this weekend in California" By Maura Dolan and Rong-Gong Lin II, Los Angeles Times
In a surprise action, a federal appeals court cleared the way, bypassing a normal waiting period and lifting a hold on a trial judge's order that declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional.
"It is part and parcel of the utter lawlessness in which this whole case has been prosecuted, said Chapman Law professor John Eastman, a supporter of Proposition 8. "Normally, courts let the parties kind of pursue their legal remedies before they issue a mandate."
"Tonight it is chaos and lawlessness, and anyone who is concerned about the rule of law ought to be deeply troubled by what happened here," the constitutional law professor said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Study: Media Bias FOR "Gay Marriage" is Christians' Fault as well as TV's Disproportionate Attention to the Gay Agenda
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Christian Influence in Calif. City Riles Atheists
Lawyers of atheist organizations have descended upon the city of Rancho Cordova, California saying that this Sunday's "Celebration of Faith" day is unconstitutional because there are Christians in the city government who support such a celebration, even though the city government itself is independent of the event.
In addition, read Texas Law Tells Schools to Ignore Atheist Threats
However in Maine, Church Leaders Agree with Atheists on Prayer
-- From "Rancho Cordova mixing church and state, critics charge" by Tillie Fong and Jeffrey Dastin, Sacramento Bee 6/25/13
Last week, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State sent letters to Rancho Cordova's mayor, Linda Budge, demanding the city cancel the 7 p.m. event at Village Green Park Ampitheater.
Troy Holt, spokesman for the city of Rancho Cordova, said the intent of the city was to be as inclusive as possible.
Besides, he said that it's not the city that organized the events for the 10th anniversary celebration. The city has a $180,000 contract with the Cordova Community Council, a nonprofit group, to do that.
Shelly Blanchard, executive director of Cordova Community Council . . . noted that it was the churches that approached the CCC with the idea for the event, and that it was not her group's place to cancel it.
Judy Saint, president of the Greater Sacramento chapter of Freedom from Religion Foundation, had an issue with the fact that only Christian churches are involved with the event.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Rancho Cordova, CA 'Prayer Day' Violates Separation of Church and State, Say Atheist Groups" by Vincent Funaro, Christian Post Reporter 6/25/13
. . . The event will feature instrumental and vocal music along with community prayers. It is the culmination of a "Day of Prayer" that will be observed by 10 local churches.
The city is celebrating its day of incorporation that took place on July 1, 2003. The celebration will also feature four days of activities which include concerts, a free gourmet hot dog barbeque, an art exhibit, a parade and a fireworks display.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Prayers in Government Meetings OK, Says San Francisco Court
The root issue is American Religious Liberty vs. Anti-Christian Totalitarianism
"The most egregious thing here is that the city has its own day of prayer that it's sponsoring."For background, read Pennsylvania City Calls Atheists' Threats Stupid & Crazy and read the list of similar atheist activity.
-- Ian Smith, staff attorney for Americans United for Separation of Church and State
In addition, read Texas Law Tells Schools to Ignore Atheist Threats
However in Maine, Church Leaders Agree with Atheists on Prayer
-- From "Rancho Cordova mixing church and state, critics charge" by Tillie Fong and Jeffrey Dastin, Sacramento Bee 6/25/13
Last week, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State sent letters to Rancho Cordova's mayor, Linda Budge, demanding the city cancel the 7 p.m. event at Village Green Park Ampitheater.
Troy Holt, spokesman for the city of Rancho Cordova, said the intent of the city was to be as inclusive as possible.
Besides, he said that it's not the city that organized the events for the 10th anniversary celebration. The city has a $180,000 contract with the Cordova Community Council, a nonprofit group, to do that.
Shelly Blanchard, executive director of Cordova Community Council . . . noted that it was the churches that approached the CCC with the idea for the event, and that it was not her group's place to cancel it.
Judy Saint, president of the Greater Sacramento chapter of Freedom from Religion Foundation, had an issue with the fact that only Christian churches are involved with the event.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Rancho Cordova, CA 'Prayer Day' Violates Separation of Church and State, Say Atheist Groups" by Vincent Funaro, Christian Post Reporter 6/25/13
. . . The event will feature instrumental and vocal music along with community prayers. It is the culmination of a "Day of Prayer" that will be observed by 10 local churches.
The city is celebrating its day of incorporation that took place on July 1, 2003. The celebration will also feature four days of activities which include concerts, a free gourmet hot dog barbeque, an art exhibit, a parade and a fireworks display.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Prayers in Government Meetings OK, Says San Francisco Court
The root issue is American Religious Liberty vs. Anti-Christian Totalitarianism
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Pediatricians Encourage Prepubescent 'Gay Kids'
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) becomes the latest major organization of health care professionals to push the Gay Agenda with it's newest campaign telling its member physicians that “Sexual-minority youth should not be considered abnormal.”
For background, read Psychiatrists Say Many Kids Need Sexual Mutilation (transgenderism)
In addition, read Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists and also read Pedophilia is Sexual Orientation, Like 'Being Gay'
What does America's President Obama Say? Kids Don't Need Mom, 2 Dads OK
-- From "Pediatricians have a new mission: Fight ‘homophobia’" by Cheryl Wetzstein, The Washington Times 6/24/13
Doctors can signal their openness to LGBTQ youths by putting out brochures with pictures of “both same- and opposite-gender couples” or posting a “rainbow” decal on an office door or bulletin board. The report also suggests that medical questionnaires be changed to be gender-neutral, and that staff be trained to not ask a boy about his girlfriend, but to ask him to “tell me about your partner” instead.
AAP, which was founded in 1930 and has 60,000 members, offers unprecedented guidelines on transgender and “questioning” youths, gender-identity formation and gender dysphoria in its new “Office-Based Care for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning Youth.” AAP policy statements in 2004, 1993 and 1983 either ignored or only touched on topics such as these.
Leaders of smaller pediatricians groups said they agree that all patients should be treated with compassion, respect and quality care, but they do not believe that non-heterosexual orientations should be normalized.
“That’s where we would disagree. Major, major disagreement,” said Dr. Den Trumbull, president of the American College of Pediatricians, which was formed in 2002 as an alternative to AAP over its policy on gay adoption.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read Psychiatrists Say Many Kids Need Sexual Mutilation (transgenderism)
In addition, read Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists and also read Pedophilia is Sexual Orientation, Like 'Being Gay'
What does America's President Obama Say? Kids Don't Need Mom, 2 Dads OK
-- From "Pediatricians have a new mission: Fight ‘homophobia’" by Cheryl Wetzstein, The Washington Times 6/24/13
Doctors can signal their openness to LGBTQ youths by putting out brochures with pictures of “both same- and opposite-gender couples” or posting a “rainbow” decal on an office door or bulletin board. The report also suggests that medical questionnaires be changed to be gender-neutral, and that staff be trained to not ask a boy about his girlfriend, but to ask him to “tell me about your partner” instead.
AAP, which was founded in 1930 and has 60,000 members, offers unprecedented guidelines on transgender and “questioning” youths, gender-identity formation and gender dysphoria in its new “Office-Based Care for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning Youth.” AAP policy statements in 2004, 1993 and 1983 either ignored or only touched on topics such as these.
Leaders of smaller pediatricians groups said they agree that all patients should be treated with compassion, respect and quality care, but they do not believe that non-heterosexual orientations should be normalized.
“That’s where we would disagree. Major, major disagreement,” said Dr. Den Trumbull, president of the American College of Pediatricians, which was formed in 2002 as an alternative to AAP over its policy on gay adoption.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Supremes: Do Pro-lifers Have Free Speech in Mass.?
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of a 2007 Massachusetts law that bans Christians from praying or talking to people while standing on public property if there's an abortion clinic door or driveway within 35 feet. In 2009, a federal appeals court in Boston ruled the law to be necessary in order to protect the safety of the public from such Christians.
For background, read Massachusetts Bans Pro-life Sidewalk Counseling
Also read Pro-life Win: Court Rejects Abortionists' Buffer Zone Ordinance
Government must protect the public from Christians? Yes, because Obama's Army Says Christians are the Worst Terrorists
In separate cases, harassment of Pro-lifers costs money in Wyoming and Rockford, IL.
-- From "Supreme Court will hear appeal of law creating abortion buffer zone" by The Associated Press 6/24/13
The justices on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from abortion opponents, who wanted the law thrown out. The law allows individuals to enter the buffer zone only to enter or leave the clinic or reach a destination other than the clinic.
Abortion opponents who regularly stand outside clinics in Boston, Worcester and Springfield claimed the law unfairly keeps them from engaging patients in conversations at a closer distance.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Gets U.S. High Court Review" by Greg Stohr, Bloomberg 6/24/13
Massachusetts enacted the law in 2007, strengthening an existing measure that had required a 6-foot buffer zone at abortion clinics. The new law makes it a crime to “knowingly enter or remain” in an area within 35 feet of a clinic entrance, exit or driveway. The measure exempts clinic employees and people entering or leaving the facility.
The justices will hear arguments and rule in their 2013-14 term, which starts in October.
The case is McCullen v. Coakley, 12-1168.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Court to hear abortion-related case for review" by Trisha Bee, CNN 6/24/13
The state’s “selective exclusion law” makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic “employees or agents … acting within the scope of their employment” to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within 35 feet of “a reproductive health care facility.”
Anti-abortion activists say the law has kept them from talking with patients approaching the clinic entrances. But a federal appeals court in January said “the right of the state to take reasonable steps to ensure the safe passage of persons wishing to enter health care facilities cannot seriously be questioned.”
The court had rejected a similar challenge to the law four years ago. Municipalities in Montana, Colorado, Florida, California and elsewhere have enacted similar “fixed” and “floating” buffer zone laws.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Court Will Determine if Pro-Lifers Have Free Speech at Abortion Clinics" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 6/24/13
In February, US District Judge Joseph L. Tauro rejected claims that the law, affecting abortion centers in Boston, Worcester, and Springfield, infringed on First Amendment rights. In his ruling, he said the law “as applied is a valid regulation of the time, place, and manner of Plaintiffs’ speech.”
Attorney General Martha Coakley, an abortion advocate who defended the law, was happy with the ruling. She said at the time: “We are pleased that the court has upheld the Commonwealth’s buffer zone law, which enhances public safety and access to reproductive health care facilities, while preserving freedom of expression. The court agreed that the buffer zone leaves open ample opportunities for communication and civil engagement on the public ways outside the facilities.”
Anne Fox of Massachusetts Citizens for Life previously told LifeNews, “Unfortunately, it has become common in this country for laws to apply differently when they have to do with abortion. The idea that people cannot express their views within a 35 foot radius – i.e. a circle with a 70 foot diameter – of an abortion facility is un-American. It is also ludicrous. Given the huge size of the zone, people have been approached by the police for engaging in activities on their own properties, which happen to be next door to abortion facilities. This happened recently in Worcester,” she said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Obama Administration Targets Pro-lifers for Prosecution as well as White House Targets Pro-lifers with Lawsuits, BUT more recently Judges Counter Obama's Attacks on Pro-lifers
In addition, read IRS Tells Pro-lifers: Either Shut Up or Be Taxed
For background, read Massachusetts Bans Pro-life Sidewalk Counseling
Also read Pro-life Win: Court Rejects Abortionists' Buffer Zone Ordinance
Government must protect the public from Christians? Yes, because Obama's Army Says Christians are the Worst Terrorists
In separate cases, harassment of Pro-lifers costs money in Wyoming and Rockford, IL.
-- From "Supreme Court will hear appeal of law creating abortion buffer zone" by The Associated Press 6/24/13
The justices on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from abortion opponents, who wanted the law thrown out. The law allows individuals to enter the buffer zone only to enter or leave the clinic or reach a destination other than the clinic.
Abortion opponents who regularly stand outside clinics in Boston, Worcester and Springfield claimed the law unfairly keeps them from engaging patients in conversations at a closer distance.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Gets U.S. High Court Review" by Greg Stohr, Bloomberg 6/24/13
Massachusetts enacted the law in 2007, strengthening an existing measure that had required a 6-foot buffer zone at abortion clinics. The new law makes it a crime to “knowingly enter or remain” in an area within 35 feet of a clinic entrance, exit or driveway. The measure exempts clinic employees and people entering or leaving the facility.
The justices will hear arguments and rule in their 2013-14 term, which starts in October.
The case is McCullen v. Coakley, 12-1168.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Court to hear abortion-related case for review" by Trisha Bee, CNN 6/24/13
The state’s “selective exclusion law” makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic “employees or agents … acting within the scope of their employment” to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within 35 feet of “a reproductive health care facility.”
Anti-abortion activists say the law has kept them from talking with patients approaching the clinic entrances. But a federal appeals court in January said “the right of the state to take reasonable steps to ensure the safe passage of persons wishing to enter health care facilities cannot seriously be questioned.”
The court had rejected a similar challenge to the law four years ago. Municipalities in Montana, Colorado, Florida, California and elsewhere have enacted similar “fixed” and “floating” buffer zone laws.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Court Will Determine if Pro-Lifers Have Free Speech at Abortion Clinics" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 6/24/13
In February, US District Judge Joseph L. Tauro rejected claims that the law, affecting abortion centers in Boston, Worcester, and Springfield, infringed on First Amendment rights. In his ruling, he said the law “as applied is a valid regulation of the time, place, and manner of Plaintiffs’ speech.”
Attorney General Martha Coakley, an abortion advocate who defended the law, was happy with the ruling. She said at the time: “We are pleased that the court has upheld the Commonwealth’s buffer zone law, which enhances public safety and access to reproductive health care facilities, while preserving freedom of expression. The court agreed that the buffer zone leaves open ample opportunities for communication and civil engagement on the public ways outside the facilities.”
Anne Fox of Massachusetts Citizens for Life previously told LifeNews, “Unfortunately, it has become common in this country for laws to apply differently when they have to do with abortion. The idea that people cannot express their views within a 35 foot radius – i.e. a circle with a 70 foot diameter – of an abortion facility is un-American. It is also ludicrous. Given the huge size of the zone, people have been approached by the police for engaging in activities on their own properties, which happen to be next door to abortion facilities. This happened recently in Worcester,” she said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Obama Administration Targets Pro-lifers for Prosecution as well as White House Targets Pro-lifers with Lawsuits, BUT more recently Judges Counter Obama's Attacks on Pro-lifers
In addition, read IRS Tells Pro-lifers: Either Shut Up or Be Taxed
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Calif. Hospital Ends Abortion, Media Outraged
After Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian of Newport Beach, CA affiliated with the (Catholic) St. Joseph Health and stopped performing elective abortions, outrage by the media and other abortion advocates caused the California attorney general's office to investigate and ensure that there are enough abortionists to kill children of low-income women.
For background, read Minorities Targeted by Planned Parenthood for Abortion: Study and also read Black Genocide in New York City (nearly 2 of 3 killed in womb)
-- From "Fewer abortions with hospital consolidations" by The Associated Press 6/21/13
Women's health advocates say affiliations between non-Catholic and Catholic hospitals have squelched abortions in a number of locations, and full-blown mergers have also affected health services such as sterilization and contraception.
Hospitals steeped in different faith traditions have had to contend with public concern over mergers and affiliations in states including Connecticut, Kentucky and Washington. The debate has most often surfaced in mergers involving Catholic hospitals due to the church's directives on issues ranging from abortion and birth control to end-of-life decisions.
In suburban Philadelphia, two hospitals, Abington and Holy Redeemer, called off a proposed partnership after community members were upset the plan would have ended abortions at Abington.
Catholic facilities account for more than one fifth of the country's hospital admissions, according to the Catholic Health Association.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Hoag Hospital's abortion ban linked to new Catholic partner" by Jill Cowan and Anna Gorman, Los Angeles Times 6/20/13
Hoag Hospital officials told The Times this week that they wanted the deal to go through and knew elective abortions were a "sensitive issue" for St. Joseph Health System, which has a "statement of common values" that prohibits the procedures.
The California attorney general's office, which approved the alliance in February, is now investigating whether Hoag Hospital is doing enough to ensure that there are accessible alternatives for elective abortions, especially for low-income women. The office is also looking into whether Hoag officials were accurate in reporting that the hospital did fewer than 100 elective abortions each year.
Jon Dunn, chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties, said his organization plans to work with Hoag to ensure that patients get the care they need. But Dunn said he believed Hoag's decision was part of a "troubling trend" of the Catholic Church using religion to restrict medical care.
"Catholic systems are growing ... that can really affect many aspects of care," said Debra Stulberg, assistant professor at the University of Chicago who studies Catholic healthcare. "Women are having fewer and fewer places they can go for care. They are having to travel further and further."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read and view a vintage interview with Planned Parenthood founder, eugenicist Margaret Sanger
For background, read Minorities Targeted by Planned Parenthood for Abortion: Study and also read Black Genocide in New York City (nearly 2 of 3 killed in womb)
-- From "Fewer abortions with hospital consolidations" by The Associated Press 6/21/13
Women's health advocates say affiliations between non-Catholic and Catholic hospitals have squelched abortions in a number of locations, and full-blown mergers have also affected health services such as sterilization and contraception.
Hospitals steeped in different faith traditions have had to contend with public concern over mergers and affiliations in states including Connecticut, Kentucky and Washington. The debate has most often surfaced in mergers involving Catholic hospitals due to the church's directives on issues ranging from abortion and birth control to end-of-life decisions.
In suburban Philadelphia, two hospitals, Abington and Holy Redeemer, called off a proposed partnership after community members were upset the plan would have ended abortions at Abington.
Catholic facilities account for more than one fifth of the country's hospital admissions, according to the Catholic Health Association.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Hoag Hospital's abortion ban linked to new Catholic partner" by Jill Cowan and Anna Gorman, Los Angeles Times 6/20/13
Hoag Hospital officials told The Times this week that they wanted the deal to go through and knew elective abortions were a "sensitive issue" for St. Joseph Health System, which has a "statement of common values" that prohibits the procedures.
The California attorney general's office, which approved the alliance in February, is now investigating whether Hoag Hospital is doing enough to ensure that there are accessible alternatives for elective abortions, especially for low-income women. The office is also looking into whether Hoag officials were accurate in reporting that the hospital did fewer than 100 elective abortions each year.
Jon Dunn, chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties, said his organization plans to work with Hoag to ensure that patients get the care they need. But Dunn said he believed Hoag's decision was part of a "troubling trend" of the Catholic Church using religion to restrict medical care.
"Catholic systems are growing ... that can really affect many aspects of care," said Debra Stulberg, assistant professor at the University of Chicago who studies Catholic healthcare. "Women are having fewer and fewer places they can go for care. They are having to travel further and further."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read and view a vintage interview with Planned Parenthood founder, eugenicist Margaret Sanger
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Rep. Nancy Pelosi is a Fraud, Catholic Leaders Say
Nancy Pelosi, the House Democrat from San Francisco, frequently refers to her "Catholic faith" when advocating issues such as the Gay Agenda and abortion. This month, in a press conference wherein she denounced the House Republicans' passage of a bill limiting abortion after 20 weeks gestation, she said that advocacy for late-term abortion is "sacred ground" for her "as a practicing and respectful Catholic."
Catholic leaders have publicly responded to Rep. Pelosi, saying that the House's top Democrat is making a "mockery of the Catholic faith."
For background, read about Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's Pro-choice Stance and about her Catholic Opinion on Nuns and Abortion
Also read Biden and Pelosi Take Communion in Rome, Pope Opposed
In 2010 the Vatican proclaimed: Liberal Catholic Candidates Must Repent Publicly
-- From "Anti-abortion priests demand Pelosi renounce Catholicism" by Elise Viebeck, The Hill 6/20/13
"For decades you have gotten away with betraying and misrepresenting the Catholic faith as well as the responsibilities of public office. We have had enough of it. Either exercise your duties as a public servant and a Catholic, or have the honesty to formally renounce them," [Pavone] wrote.
Like many Catholic Democrats, Pelosi supports abortion rights. She is frequently challenged by anti-abortion rights groups and conservative reporters for this view.
The latest tangle came during a press conference on a GOP bill to ban late-term abortions across the country. That measure, from Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), passed the House on Tuesday.
Catholic leaders have denied or threatened to deny communion to several Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, including Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pelosi Slaps Down Reporters Asking Questions on Abortion" by John Parkinson, ABC News 6/13/13
Pelosi began her news conference today by criticizing a Republican-sponsored bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks without exceptions for rape and incest. The bill, H.R. 1797, the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” . . .
“They passed legislation that was disrespectful to the rights, health and safety of American women,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said. “All the people who voted for the bill were men. Disrespectful.”
When she opened the newser up to questions, John McCormack, a reporter with the Weekly Standard, challenged Pelosi to explain the moral difference between murdering a live-born infant, exemplified by the horrors of a recently convicted Philadelphia [abortionist] doctor, Kermit Gosnell, and fetuses aborted in the womb during the final four months of pregnancy.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Nancy Pelosi Calls Late-Term Abortions 'Sacred Ground,' Triggering Mass Response From Advocates And Opponents Alike" by Samantha Olson, Medical Daily 6/14/13
. . . McCormack created tension when he asked, "What is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?," referring to the abortions and infanticides performed by Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia [abortionist] doctor found guilty last month of first-degree murder for cutting the spinal cords of three babies born alive in an abortion clinic, which led to their eventual death.
Pelosi, a mother of five, eventually dismissed the reporter because of his obvious agenda to stir unwarranted provocative conversation, but not before saying, "As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this," referring to Gosnell. "This shouldn't have anything to do with politics and that's where you're taking it and I'm not going there."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pelosi Lashes Out at Reporter's Question on Morality of Late-Term Abortions" by Billy House, National Journal 6/14/13
. . . Pelosi right away accused McCormack of enjoying or even "savoring" asking the question of her, prompting laughter from some other reporters. She then offered, "What was done in Philadelphia was reprehensible and everybody condemned it. For them to decide to disrespect a judgment a woman makes about her reproductive health is reprehensible."
But McCormack persisted, even as Pelosi was saying "next question," and asked, "What's the moral difference, then, between 26 weeks elective abortion and killing that same infant born alive?"
Pelosi turned to him again, saying, "This is not the issue."
. . . when a New York Times reporter at the same news conference said he wanted to return to the topic of abortion, Pelosi shut him down, saying, "I'm not going to."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Priests Urge Nancy Pelosi to Condemn Abortion or Leave the Catholic Church" by Vincent Funaro, Christian Post Reporter 6/20/13
. . . Pavone responded to her statements expressing his dissatisfaction with her as a Catholic and public servant.
"Abortion is not sacred ground; it is sacrilegious ground. To imagine God giving the slightest approval to an act that dismembers a child he created is offensive to both faith and reason," he wrote. "And to say that a question about the difference between legal and medical procedure and murder should not 'have anything to do with politics' reveals a profound failure to understand your own polical responsibilities, which start with the duty to secure the God-given right to life of every citizen."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Bishops Warn Voting for Democrats is 'Grave Sin'
And from the Vatican: NEVER Vote for a Pro-choice Candidate
Catholic leaders have publicly responded to Rep. Pelosi, saying that the House's top Democrat is making a "mockery of the Catholic faith."
"Public servants are supposed to be able to tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public. Apparently, you can't. . . . Whatever Catholic faith you claim to respect and practice, it is not the faith that the Catholic Church teaches."UPDATE 1/27/15: Archbishop Says Pelosi's 20-week Abortion Position is Unscientific & NOT Catholic
-- Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, wrote to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader
For background, read about Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's Pro-choice Stance and about her Catholic Opinion on Nuns and Abortion
Also read Biden and Pelosi Take Communion in Rome, Pope Opposed
In 2010 the Vatican proclaimed: Liberal Catholic Candidates Must Repent Publicly
-- From "Anti-abortion priests demand Pelosi renounce Catholicism" by Elise Viebeck, The Hill 6/20/13
"For decades you have gotten away with betraying and misrepresenting the Catholic faith as well as the responsibilities of public office. We have had enough of it. Either exercise your duties as a public servant and a Catholic, or have the honesty to formally renounce them," [Pavone] wrote.
Like many Catholic Democrats, Pelosi supports abortion rights. She is frequently challenged by anti-abortion rights groups and conservative reporters for this view.
The latest tangle came during a press conference on a GOP bill to ban late-term abortions across the country. That measure, from Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), passed the House on Tuesday.
Catholic leaders have denied or threatened to deny communion to several Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, including Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pelosi Slaps Down Reporters Asking Questions on Abortion" by John Parkinson, ABC News 6/13/13
Pelosi began her news conference today by criticizing a Republican-sponsored bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks without exceptions for rape and incest. The bill, H.R. 1797, the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” . . .
“They passed legislation that was disrespectful to the rights, health and safety of American women,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said. “All the people who voted for the bill were men. Disrespectful.”
When she opened the newser up to questions, John McCormack, a reporter with the Weekly Standard, challenged Pelosi to explain the moral difference between murdering a live-born infant, exemplified by the horrors of a recently convicted Philadelphia [abortionist] doctor, Kermit Gosnell, and fetuses aborted in the womb during the final four months of pregnancy.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Nancy Pelosi Calls Late-Term Abortions 'Sacred Ground,' Triggering Mass Response From Advocates And Opponents Alike" by Samantha Olson, Medical Daily 6/14/13
. . . McCormack created tension when he asked, "What is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?," referring to the abortions and infanticides performed by Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia [abortionist] doctor found guilty last month of first-degree murder for cutting the spinal cords of three babies born alive in an abortion clinic, which led to their eventual death.
Pelosi, a mother of five, eventually dismissed the reporter because of his obvious agenda to stir unwarranted provocative conversation, but not before saying, "As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this," referring to Gosnell. "This shouldn't have anything to do with politics and that's where you're taking it and I'm not going there."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pelosi Lashes Out at Reporter's Question on Morality of Late-Term Abortions" by Billy House, National Journal 6/14/13
. . . Pelosi right away accused McCormack of enjoying or even "savoring" asking the question of her, prompting laughter from some other reporters. She then offered, "What was done in Philadelphia was reprehensible and everybody condemned it. For them to decide to disrespect a judgment a woman makes about her reproductive health is reprehensible."
But McCormack persisted, even as Pelosi was saying "next question," and asked, "What's the moral difference, then, between 26 weeks elective abortion and killing that same infant born alive?"
Pelosi turned to him again, saying, "This is not the issue."
. . . when a New York Times reporter at the same news conference said he wanted to return to the topic of abortion, Pelosi shut him down, saying, "I'm not going to."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Priests Urge Nancy Pelosi to Condemn Abortion or Leave the Catholic Church" by Vincent Funaro, Christian Post Reporter 6/20/13
. . . Pavone responded to her statements expressing his dissatisfaction with her as a Catholic and public servant.
"Abortion is not sacred ground; it is sacrilegious ground. To imagine God giving the slightest approval to an act that dismembers a child he created is offensive to both faith and reason," he wrote. "And to say that a question about the difference between legal and medical procedure and murder should not 'have anything to do with politics' reveals a profound failure to understand your own polical responsibilities, which start with the duty to secure the God-given right to life of every citizen."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Bishops Warn Voting for Democrats is 'Grave Sin'
And from the Vatican: NEVER Vote for a Pro-choice Candidate
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Ex-Gay Ministry Joins Gay Agenda: Christians Wrong
American media are ecstatic: A long-time Christian ministry of former homosexuals, Exodus International, which has preached for decades that faith in Jesus Christ will overcome sinful behavior, is going out of business as the organization's leader, Alan Chambers, in a lengthy apology, announced that churches are wrong to "love the sinner, but hate the sin."
. . . no surprise, as Pew Research Documents Media Bias for 'Gay Marriage'
For background on what's next, read Pedophilia is Sexual Orientation, Like 'Being Gay' and also read Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists as well as Pedophiles Win in 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
-- From "Christian Group Apologizes to Gay Community" by The Associated Press 6/20/13
Alan Chambers said on Exodus International's website Thursday that the group wants to apologize "to the gay community for years of undue suffering and judgment at the hands of the organization and the church as a whole."
Chambers also says he is sorry the group promoted sexual orientation change efforts and apologized for not challenging Christians who called gays names like "sodomite."
Exodus International was founded 37 years ago. It claimed 260 member ministries around the U.S. and internationally.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Group That Promoted ‘Curing’ Gays Ceases Operations" by Gerry Mullany, New York Times 6/20/13
The decision by the board of Exodus International to stop operating comes as the group’s president, Alan Chambers, has been increasingly vocal in proclaiming that there was no cure for homosexuality and that therapy did not work in changing a person’s sexual orientation.
The group’s underlying approach toward homosexuality had been that people are not born with such sexual inclinations, but rather choose them, leaving the potential for their being cured. Such thinking has been a rationale among some conservatives and evangelicals for their staunch opposition to same-sex marriage.
But in recent years the group had come under increased criticism as professional associations denounced its focus on reparative therapy to “cure” homosexuality, saying it was not only ineffective but potentially harmful. At the same time, polls have shown an increasing number of Americans more accepting of homosexuality and approving of gay marriage.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ex-gay ministry Exodus International shutting down" by Heidi Hall, The Tennessean 6/20/13
“Exodus is an institution in the conservative Christian world, but we’ve ceased to be a living, breathing organism," Alan Chambers, president of the ex-gay organization, posted on its website. “For quite some time we’ve been imprisoned in a worldview that’s neither honoring toward our felow human beings, nor biblical.”
Exodus International’s apology to gay people for causing them years of suffering constitutes a total about-face from the nonprofit’s original mission, its executive vice president [Randy Thomas] confirmed Wednesday.
“Providing help for people to turn from gay to straight is something we’ve distanced ourselves from,” Thomas said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Exodus International President to Offer Apology in OWN Special Report" by Jeff Schapiro, Christian Post Reporter 6/19/13
Chambers lived as a gay teenager and young adult, the Exodus website says, before choosing to pursue Christ over his same-sex attraction (SSA). He is now married and has two children, but he told The Christian Post last year that he still struggles with SSA at times. He also said he doesn't think the idea of curing such attractions through therapy is a biblical message, which is why Exodus has "shied away from it."
"Christians in the body of Christ, we have overemphasized complete resolution and complete change for this issue but not for others ... and I don't think we're telling anybody else with any other type of struggle that they have to ... never be tempted in that area again in order to be a good Christian," he told CP at the time.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
In addition, read Most Homosexuals Who Want to Convert Report Change and also read Homosexuality NOT Fixed, Change Possible: Study as well as Study Shows Lesbianism is NOT Genetic
From "Exodus on a Collision Course with Jesus" by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. 5/20/13
. . . Rev. Whitten writes, and Mr. Chambers and Mr. Thomas concur, “There is no biblical basis for believers to confess sins to God for forgiveness. To each other for healing, yes; but not to God for forgiveness. How much time will that free up!” (Pure Grace, p. 20). Mr. Thomas, the no. 3 person at Exodus, adds that believers who continue to pray to God “Forgive us our sins” engage in “a self-righteous ritual” and “deny the righteousness of Christ that is already present.”
Who are you going to believe? The Exodus leadership or Jesus?
This statement is just one of what I term “The Seven Pillars of Rev. Whitten’s Wisdom.” Rev. Whitten is the chair of the Exodus Board and Alan Chambers’ and Randy Thomas’s pastor, whom Alan and Randy follow down the doctrinal line. Indeed, Alan Chambers, the President of Exodus, has stated: “To say that I recommend [Clark Whitten’s book Pure Grace] is the understatement of the century.” With Whitten’s book, “God has unveiled something that has been veiled for hundreds and hundreds of years.”
. . . Who ever thought we would reach the day when it would be necessary for faithful followers of Jesus to exodus out of Exodus?
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
From "Courageous Christian Leaders Stand with Restored Hope Network" posted at Christian Newswire 5/7/13
Restored Hope Network is holding its second annual national conference: "Restoring Hope: The Truth that Transforms" June 21- 22 in Oklahoma City.
Founded in July 2012, Restored Hope is a membership governed network dedicated to restoring hope to those broken by sexual and relational sin, especially those impacted by homosexuality. We proclaim that Jesus Christ has life-changing power for all who submit to Christ as Lord; we also seek to equip His church to impart that transformation.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
“I am sorry that when I celebrated a person [engaged in homosexual behavior] coming to Christ and surrendering their sexuality to Him, I callously celebrated the end of [such sinful] relationships that broke your heart.”America, you've come a long way, baby :-(
-- Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International
. . . no surprise, as Pew Research Documents Media Bias for 'Gay Marriage'
For background on what's next, read Pedophilia is Sexual Orientation, Like 'Being Gay' and also read Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists as well as Pedophiles Win in 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
-- From "Christian Group Apologizes to Gay Community" by The Associated Press 6/20/13
Alan Chambers said on Exodus International's website Thursday that the group wants to apologize "to the gay community for years of undue suffering and judgment at the hands of the organization and the church as a whole."
Chambers also says he is sorry the group promoted sexual orientation change efforts and apologized for not challenging Christians who called gays names like "sodomite."
Exodus International was founded 37 years ago. It claimed 260 member ministries around the U.S. and internationally.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Group That Promoted ‘Curing’ Gays Ceases Operations" by Gerry Mullany, New York Times 6/20/13
The decision by the board of Exodus International to stop operating comes as the group’s president, Alan Chambers, has been increasingly vocal in proclaiming that there was no cure for homosexuality and that therapy did not work in changing a person’s sexual orientation.
The group’s underlying approach toward homosexuality had been that people are not born with such sexual inclinations, but rather choose them, leaving the potential for their being cured. Such thinking has been a rationale among some conservatives and evangelicals for their staunch opposition to same-sex marriage.
But in recent years the group had come under increased criticism as professional associations denounced its focus on reparative therapy to “cure” homosexuality, saying it was not only ineffective but potentially harmful. At the same time, polls have shown an increasing number of Americans more accepting of homosexuality and approving of gay marriage.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ex-gay ministry Exodus International shutting down" by Heidi Hall, The Tennessean 6/20/13
“Exodus is an institution in the conservative Christian world, but we’ve ceased to be a living, breathing organism," Alan Chambers, president of the ex-gay organization, posted on its website. “For quite some time we’ve been imprisoned in a worldview that’s neither honoring toward our felow human beings, nor biblical.”
Exodus International’s apology to gay people for causing them years of suffering constitutes a total about-face from the nonprofit’s original mission, its executive vice president [Randy Thomas] confirmed Wednesday.
“Providing help for people to turn from gay to straight is something we’ve distanced ourselves from,” Thomas said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Exodus International President to Offer Apology in OWN Special Report" by Jeff Schapiro, Christian Post Reporter 6/19/13
Chambers lived as a gay teenager and young adult, the Exodus website says, before choosing to pursue Christ over his same-sex attraction (SSA). He is now married and has two children, but he told The Christian Post last year that he still struggles with SSA at times. He also said he doesn't think the idea of curing such attractions through therapy is a biblical message, which is why Exodus has "shied away from it."
"Christians in the body of Christ, we have overemphasized complete resolution and complete change for this issue but not for others ... and I don't think we're telling anybody else with any other type of struggle that they have to ... never be tempted in that area again in order to be a good Christian," he told CP at the time.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
In addition, read Most Homosexuals Who Want to Convert Report Change and also read Homosexuality NOT Fixed, Change Possible: Study as well as Study Shows Lesbianism is NOT Genetic
From "Exodus on a Collision Course with Jesus" by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. 5/20/13
. . . Rev. Whitten writes, and Mr. Chambers and Mr. Thomas concur, “There is no biblical basis for believers to confess sins to God for forgiveness. To each other for healing, yes; but not to God for forgiveness. How much time will that free up!” (Pure Grace, p. 20). Mr. Thomas, the no. 3 person at Exodus, adds that believers who continue to pray to God “Forgive us our sins” engage in “a self-righteous ritual” and “deny the righteousness of Christ that is already present.”
Who are you going to believe? The Exodus leadership or Jesus?
This statement is just one of what I term “The Seven Pillars of Rev. Whitten’s Wisdom.” Rev. Whitten is the chair of the Exodus Board and Alan Chambers’ and Randy Thomas’s pastor, whom Alan and Randy follow down the doctrinal line. Indeed, Alan Chambers, the President of Exodus, has stated: “To say that I recommend [Clark Whitten’s book Pure Grace] is the understatement of the century.” With Whitten’s book, “God has unveiled something that has been veiled for hundreds and hundreds of years.”
. . . Who ever thought we would reach the day when it would be necessary for faithful followers of Jesus to exodus out of Exodus?
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
From "Courageous Christian Leaders Stand with Restored Hope Network" posted at Christian Newswire 5/7/13
Restored Hope Network is holding its second annual national conference: "Restoring Hope: The Truth that Transforms" June 21- 22 in Oklahoma City.
Founded in July 2012, Restored Hope is a membership governed network dedicated to restoring hope to those broken by sexual and relational sin, especially those impacted by homosexuality. We proclaim that Jesus Christ has life-changing power for all who submit to Christ as Lord; we also seek to equip His church to impart that transformation.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Gays, Media Attack Christian College with Values
When Grace University in Omaha, Nebraska learned that Danielle Powell, admitted on a volleyball scholarship, had violated the school's moral code by having on-going lesbian relationships, she was expelled mid-semester. When the school notified Powell that she is required by law to repay federal grants for the uncompleted term, she gathered a posse of homosexual activists and a compliant media to lambast the university for its "sexual orientation discrimination," thus pressuring for new Gay Agenda federal regulations restricting freedom of religion at private colleges.
In addition, read University of North Carolina On Trial for Anti-Christian Bias and also read Florida College Drops Exclusively Christian Club as well as Fired Woman Sues Christian School over Pregnancy
UPDATE 7/12/14: Massachusetts Christian College Booted—Opposes Gay Agenda
-- From "Christian College Expels Woman for Lesbian Relationship, Charges Tuition" by Margery A. Beck, Associated Press June 17, 2013, 12:20 Am 5454
[Powell was] expelled — then sent a bill for $6,000 to reimburse what the school said were federal loans and grants that needed to be repaid because she didn’t finish the semester.
Powell is now fighting the Omaha school, arguing that her tuition was covered by scholarships and that federal loans wouldn’t need to be repaid in that amount. She also notes she was kicked out even after undergoing months of counseling, spiritual training and mentoring insisted upon by the school following her initial suspension.
The university insists that the $6,000 bill covers federal grants and loans that, by law, must be repaid to the federal government because Powell didn’t finish her final semester. School officials declined to discuss specifics of Powell’s case, citing federal student privacy laws, but through a public relations agency said it would provide Powell official transcripts and transfer her credits.
Grace University’s code of conduct for its students is strict: No kissing, no prolonged hugs and certainly no premarital sex. The school even monitors students’ television habits, forbidding HBO, MTV, Comedy Central and several other channels “because of the values they promote.” The rules are laid out in a student handbook and signed by students every year.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Christian College Expels Lesbian Student, Asks for Tuition" by Colleen Curry, ABC News 6/13/13
. . . Powell and her now-wife, Michelle Rogers, have started a Change.org petition asking for signatures and letters to be written to the university forgiving Powell's tuition debt and protesting alleged discrimination.
"Danielle dreamed of completing her degree at Grace University in Omaha, Nebraska and becoming the first person in her family to graduate from college," Rogers wrote on the petition. "In the spring 2011, that dream came to an end when university officials found out Danielle was in a same-sex relationship and expelled her from school just one semester short of graduation.
Michael James, executive vice president at Grace, confirmed that the student handbook bans students from engaging in same-sex relationships, threatening that "any student involved in sexually immoral behavior, including premarital sex, adultery, and homosexual acts, is at minimum placed on University probation and may be subject to a Judiciary Hearing."
"Grace University is run on biblical principles, therefore we do not employ collection agencies or take legal action, nor do we report to credit agencies. Our policy is to notify the student of the debt, and we believe it is up to the student to uphold their Christian obligations," James said in a statement.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Offers of legal, financial help for lesbian expelled from Grace University" by Joe Dejka, Omaha World-Herald staff writer 6/13/13
Michael James, executive vice president of Grace, said he would like to discuss the case in detail, but federal privacy law prevents him from discussing a particular student's records.
“Trust me, this is extremely frustrating for me,” he said. “I would love to tell this story.”'
When prospective students apply online for admission, they are asked to indicate whether they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.
“By submitting this application, you acknowledge that you have read the above statements and are willing to live by the standards set forth by the university leadership during your time as a Grace student,” it states.
James said the university is a member of the Association of Biblical Higher Education, the accrediting association for Bible colleges.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Obama Admin Muzzles College Students' Moral Speech
“I definitely didn't know what I signed up for. The institution itself is still very conservative and predominantly white, a lot of home-schooled pastors' kids.”For background read Liberal Media Pounce on Evangelical Liberty University and also read (Liberal) Pew Research Documents Media Bias for 'Gay Marriage'
-- Danielle Powell
In addition, read University of North Carolina On Trial for Anti-Christian Bias and also read Florida College Drops Exclusively Christian Club as well as Fired Woman Sues Christian School over Pregnancy
UPDATE 7/12/14: Massachusetts Christian College Booted—Opposes Gay Agenda
-- From "Christian College Expels Woman for Lesbian Relationship, Charges Tuition" by Margery A. Beck, Associated Press June 17, 2013, 12:20 Am 5454
[Powell was] expelled — then sent a bill for $6,000 to reimburse what the school said were federal loans and grants that needed to be repaid because she didn’t finish the semester.
Powell is now fighting the Omaha school, arguing that her tuition was covered by scholarships and that federal loans wouldn’t need to be repaid in that amount. She also notes she was kicked out even after undergoing months of counseling, spiritual training and mentoring insisted upon by the school following her initial suspension.
The university insists that the $6,000 bill covers federal grants and loans that, by law, must be repaid to the federal government because Powell didn’t finish her final semester. School officials declined to discuss specifics of Powell’s case, citing federal student privacy laws, but through a public relations agency said it would provide Powell official transcripts and transfer her credits.
Grace University’s code of conduct for its students is strict: No kissing, no prolonged hugs and certainly no premarital sex. The school even monitors students’ television habits, forbidding HBO, MTV, Comedy Central and several other channels “because of the values they promote.” The rules are laid out in a student handbook and signed by students every year.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Christian College Expels Lesbian Student, Asks for Tuition" by Colleen Curry, ABC News 6/13/13
. . . Powell and her now-wife, Michelle Rogers, have started a Change.org petition asking for signatures and letters to be written to the university forgiving Powell's tuition debt and protesting alleged discrimination.
"Danielle dreamed of completing her degree at Grace University in Omaha, Nebraska and becoming the first person in her family to graduate from college," Rogers wrote on the petition. "In the spring 2011, that dream came to an end when university officials found out Danielle was in a same-sex relationship and expelled her from school just one semester short of graduation.
Michael James, executive vice president at Grace, confirmed that the student handbook bans students from engaging in same-sex relationships, threatening that "any student involved in sexually immoral behavior, including premarital sex, adultery, and homosexual acts, is at minimum placed on University probation and may be subject to a Judiciary Hearing."
"Grace University is run on biblical principles, therefore we do not employ collection agencies or take legal action, nor do we report to credit agencies. Our policy is to notify the student of the debt, and we believe it is up to the student to uphold their Christian obligations," James said in a statement.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Offers of legal, financial help for lesbian expelled from Grace University" by Joe Dejka, Omaha World-Herald staff writer 6/13/13
Michael James, executive vice president of Grace, said he would like to discuss the case in detail, but federal privacy law prevents him from discussing a particular student's records.
“Trust me, this is extremely frustrating for me,” he said. “I would love to tell this story.”'
When prospective students apply online for admission, they are asked to indicate whether they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.
“By submitting this application, you acknowledge that you have read the above statements and are willing to live by the standards set forth by the university leadership during your time as a Grace student,” it states.
James said the university is a member of the Association of Biblical Higher Education, the accrediting association for Bible colleges.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Obama Admin Muzzles College Students' Moral Speech
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Study: Media Bias FOR Gays is Christians' Fault
The latest study by Pew Research shows that the mainstream news media is five times more likely to favor "gay marriage" over true marriage, but says this is NOT media bias, but rather it's because conservatives don't present a coherent message to report.
In one example, MSNBC coverage was 64% supporting "gay marriage" but only 6% opposing.
For background, read TV's Disproportionate Attention to the Gay Agenda and also read Gay TV, The New ABnormal, UNreality Shows as well as Transgender Cartoons Indoctrinate Preschoolers
UPDATE 12/29/13: ABC News Reports Gay Agenda is Big Success Story of 2013 (video)
-- From "Gay marriage received more supporting coverage in media, study says" by David Bauder, Associated Press Television Writer 6/17/13
The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism said Monday that . . . the imbalance was largely because many of the stories were about changing public attitudes, or politicians announcing their support of legalization.
Proponents also were more consistent in their message, defining it as an issue of civil rights. Pew said opponents didn't coalesce on a primary reason for not supporting same-sex marriage.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Study Finds Supportive Tilt to Gay Marriage Coverage" by Brian Stelter, New York Times 6/17/13
[The Pew report said,] “The level of support conveyed in the news media examined here goes beyond the level seen in public opinion surveys.” The imbalance was evident both in reporting and in commentary, and on all three of the major cable news channels, Fox News, MSNBC and CNN.
The study lends credence to conservative charges that the nation’s news media have championed the issue of same-sex marriage at the expense of objectivity. Others have argued that news organizations are right not to overly emphasize opposition to what many see as a core civil rights issue.
The researchers noted in their report that many of the developments that the news media were covering were intrinsically positive for the gay rights movement, including votes in favor of same-sex marriage on the state level.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "News Coverage Conveys Strong Momentum for Same-Sex Marriage" by Paul Hitlin, Amy Mitchell and Mark Jurkowitz, Pew Research Center 6/17/13
Almost half (47%) of the nearly 500 stories studied from March 18 (a week prior to the Supreme Court hearings), through May 12, primarily focused on support for the measure, while 9% largely focused on opposition and 44% had a roughly equal mix of both viewpoints or were neutral. In order for a story to be classified as supporting or opposing same sex marriage, statements expressing that position had to outnumber the opposite view by at least 2-to-1. Stories that did not meet that threshold were defined as neutral or mixed.
This news media focus on support held true whether the stories were reported news articles or opinion pieces, and was also the case across nearly all media sectors studied. All three of the major cable networks, for instance, had more stories with significantly more supportive statements than opposing, including Fox News.
In addition to the main set of news media, this study also examined same-sex marriage coverage in three other media segments: Twitter, the Huffington Post - which has a dedicated microsite to "Gay Voices" and produced so much coverage that it was examined separately from the rest of the news media - and a mix of LGBT news outlets.
Within the media debate on the subject, this report found that those arguing for same-sex marriage had a more consistent message than those arguing against.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pew Reports Media Bias on Marriage Debate" by Joan Frawley Desmond, Senior Editor, National Catholic Register 6/17/13
Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, the primary institution defending the nation’s marriage laws, told the Register that the Pew study provided valuable context for evaluating the true state of the debate on “marriage equality.”
“If there is overwhelming media bias and we are not able to get out our message broadly through broadcast television, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy,” said Brown in a June 17 interview.
“During Proposition 8, the largest social ballot issue in history,” Brown recalled, “there were very few invitations for us and our allies to be on broadcast television.
“Over the past four years, we have met with Washington bureau chiefs and laid out the problems we are facing. We have seen a little bit of improvement, but media coverage is still overwhelming biased.
“The Human Rights Campaign will be invited to speak and there will be no one from the other side,” he said, referring to the leading organization promoting same-sex ‘marriage.’
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
As an example of the pro-homosexual media bias, see the PBS reporting of a different Pew Poll a few days ago.
Also read Media Admit Propaganda Overstating Gay Population
UPDATE 6/21/13 - PBS NewsHour: Being "Christian AND Gay" (video):
In one example, MSNBC coverage was 64% supporting "gay marriage" but only 6% opposing.
For background, read TV's Disproportionate Attention to the Gay Agenda and also read Gay TV, The New ABnormal, UNreality Shows as well as Transgender Cartoons Indoctrinate Preschoolers
UPDATE 12/29/13: ABC News Reports Gay Agenda is Big Success Story of 2013 (video)
-- From "Gay marriage received more supporting coverage in media, study says" by David Bauder, Associated Press Television Writer 6/17/13
The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism said Monday that . . . the imbalance was largely because many of the stories were about changing public attitudes, or politicians announcing their support of legalization.
Proponents also were more consistent in their message, defining it as an issue of civil rights. Pew said opponents didn't coalesce on a primary reason for not supporting same-sex marriage.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Study Finds Supportive Tilt to Gay Marriage Coverage" by Brian Stelter, New York Times 6/17/13
[The Pew report said,] “The level of support conveyed in the news media examined here goes beyond the level seen in public opinion surveys.” The imbalance was evident both in reporting and in commentary, and on all three of the major cable news channels, Fox News, MSNBC and CNN.
The study lends credence to conservative charges that the nation’s news media have championed the issue of same-sex marriage at the expense of objectivity. Others have argued that news organizations are right not to overly emphasize opposition to what many see as a core civil rights issue.
The researchers noted in their report that many of the developments that the news media were covering were intrinsically positive for the gay rights movement, including votes in favor of same-sex marriage on the state level.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "News Coverage Conveys Strong Momentum for Same-Sex Marriage" by Paul Hitlin, Amy Mitchell and Mark Jurkowitz, Pew Research Center 6/17/13
Almost half (47%) of the nearly 500 stories studied from March 18 (a week prior to the Supreme Court hearings), through May 12, primarily focused on support for the measure, while 9% largely focused on opposition and 44% had a roughly equal mix of both viewpoints or were neutral. In order for a story to be classified as supporting or opposing same sex marriage, statements expressing that position had to outnumber the opposite view by at least 2-to-1. Stories that did not meet that threshold were defined as neutral or mixed.
This news media focus on support held true whether the stories were reported news articles or opinion pieces, and was also the case across nearly all media sectors studied. All three of the major cable networks, for instance, had more stories with significantly more supportive statements than opposing, including Fox News.
In addition to the main set of news media, this study also examined same-sex marriage coverage in three other media segments: Twitter, the Huffington Post - which has a dedicated microsite to "Gay Voices" and produced so much coverage that it was examined separately from the rest of the news media - and a mix of LGBT news outlets.
Within the media debate on the subject, this report found that those arguing for same-sex marriage had a more consistent message than those arguing against.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pew Reports Media Bias on Marriage Debate" by Joan Frawley Desmond, Senior Editor, National Catholic Register 6/17/13
Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, the primary institution defending the nation’s marriage laws, told the Register that the Pew study provided valuable context for evaluating the true state of the debate on “marriage equality.”
“If there is overwhelming media bias and we are not able to get out our message broadly through broadcast television, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy,” said Brown in a June 17 interview.
“During Proposition 8, the largest social ballot issue in history,” Brown recalled, “there were very few invitations for us and our allies to be on broadcast television.
“Over the past four years, we have met with Washington bureau chiefs and laid out the problems we are facing. We have seen a little bit of improvement, but media coverage is still overwhelming biased.
“The Human Rights Campaign will be invited to speak and there will be no one from the other side,” he said, referring to the leading organization promoting same-sex ‘marriage.’
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
As an example of the pro-homosexual media bias, see the PBS reporting of a different Pew Poll a few days ago.
Also read Media Admit Propaganda Overstating Gay Population
UPDATE 6/21/13 - PBS NewsHour: Being "Christian AND Gay" (video):
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
