School Bans Jesus Talk During Free Time: Colorado

Lawyers representing Chase Windebank will argue in court that Pine Creek High School of Academy School District No. 20 near Colorado Springs lacks constitutional authority to restrict the senior and other students from gathering during an open period at school to discuss their Christian faith.

UPDATE 6/10/15: School Skirts Lawsuit by Eliminating Free Time to Pray (see excerpts from articles below)

UPDATE 1/7/15: Teacher Bans Free Time Bible Reading in Missouri

UPDATE 11/30/14: Student Suspended for Jesus Talk Sues Washington School

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Florida Teacher Bans Bible in Free Time, Parents Sue

Jesus & Chaplains Banned from Florida Schools Football

Arizona Schools Ban Christian Football Coaches

'Bless You' After Sneeze Gets Tennessee Student Suspended

South Carolina School Bans Jesus from Prayers after Atheists Threaten

Oklahoma, Delaware & Maine Schools Assures Wisconsin Atheists: No Praying Here

Also read Most Americans Support Prayer in School: Poll

-- From "Colorado high school sued over ban on student prayer group" by Daniel Wallis, Reuters 11/10/14

"Public schools should encourage the free exchange of ideas," Alliance [ADF] Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco said in a statement on Monday, after the lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on Friday.

"Instead, this school implemented an ill-conceived ban that singles out religious speech for censorship during free time."

The Alliance got involved in the Pine Creek case after a senior, Chase Windebank, said he and other students were stopped from meeting in an unoccupied choir room twice a week to pray, sing Christian songs, and discuss topical issues from a religious perspective.

[The lawsuit] said the school told the students the meetings, which had been taking place for three years, could continue, but that any religious speech must stop.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "High School Bans Students From Holding Prayer Group in Free Time" by Kelsey Harkness, The Daily Signal 11/11/14

Citing “separation of church and state,” officials at Pine Creek High School told Chase Windebank, a senior, that he and his classmates no longer were allowed to use an unoccupied choir room for religious purposes.

The school grants students such as Windebank, who are in good academic standing, permission to leave during the second half of their homeroom seminar. While other classmates spent that time reading, studying, texting, snacking, socializing, or meeting in school clubs, Windebank held a prayer group.

After Assistant Principal James Lucas told Windebank on Sept. 29 that he could hold his prayer meetings only before or after school hours, he consulted lawyers at Alliance Defending Freedom [ADF], seeking protection of his right to freedom of religion and speech.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Colorado Senior Sues High School for Prohibiting Student-led Prayer, Hymn Singing" by Stephanie Samuel, Christian Post Reporter 11/12/14

[Chase Windebank's] group met following the warning but refrained from praying in an attempt to comply with the new free time policy. The group also tried meeting before school to pray, however attendance dropped from 90 students to 20 because of how difficult it is to arrive at school early.

The high school senior, with the help of ADF, is now asking the court to issue an injunction preventing the school from "denying his right to engage in Christian religious expression."

In a letter to ADF, Director for Legal Relations Patricia Richardson defended the school's decision to discourage the students from meeting during the school day stating "In accordance with the Equal Access Act, non-curriculum related groups such as Chase's prayer group, may meet at Pine Creek High School during non-instructional time." Richardson quoted the administrative policy to define "non-instructional time" as "time set aside for each school before actual classroom instruction begins or after actual classroom instructions ends."

Pine Creek's handbook states seminar is a time to "develop a sense of community; to build lines of communication; to provide community and school services; and to have focused academic time."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Colorado Springs student sues high school for banning prayer group" by Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times 11/11/14

In the lawsuit . . . [ADF] attorneys contend that students who meet certain academic criteria are allowed at “open time” to “engage in a virtually unlimited variety of activities of the students’ own choosing, including hanging out in the cafeteria and other open areas with friends, playing on their phones, meeting together for expressive activities (including both formally recognized clubs and unofficial groups), and going outside to hang out together.”

The lawsuit contends that the district’s policy gives “unbridled discretion to District officials to decide what forms of expression students are permitted to engage in during open time of Seminar period and to ban any other expression — including the religious singing, prayer, and discussion of religious topics — at the whim of the officials.”

As a result, the district has sanctioned a “content-based restriction in an otherwise open forum for student expression” and “viewpoint discrimination, which is unconstitutional in any type of forum,” says the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court, names the school district, Pine Creek principal Kolette Black and assistant principal James Lucas as defendants.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 6/10/15: From "Christian teen in Colorado drops school prayer lawsuit" by Justin Wm. Moyer, Washington Post

Now, Pine Creek has sidestepped the lawsuit. It has eliminated its seminar period entirely — for academic reasons, officials say, having nothing to do with Windebank and his lawsuit.

Windebank claims he struck a blow for the First Amendment, saying the school backed down and will now allow prayer at lunch.

“I’m actually quite excited that I was able to take this stand and be able to make a victory for free speech in public schools,” he said. “Not just for me because I filed this lawsuit. For those after me as well, being able to express what they believe.”

The school district claims it has agreed to nothing. Though Pine Creek’s counsel said they were confident about the case, they agreed to a dismissal when Windebank “voluntarily abandoned” his claim, they said.

“No other terms were agreed to, no money was paid, and no policies were changed,” Robert J. Zavaglia Jr., an attorney for the school district, wrote in an e-mail.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 6/10/15: From "Religious freedom lawsuit against Colorado Springs school dropped" by Debbie Kelley, Colorado Springs Gazette

The Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defending Freedom . . . withdrew the lawsuit because the goal, to protect religious speech and citizens' rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, was achieved, Matt Sharp, an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, said Tuesday.

"The school did a complete 180," he said. "Students now have a right to pray and gather together to discuss their faith during free time."

Now, Sharp said, the district has agreed to allow students to engage and prayer and religious discussion during lunchtime.

[School District] D-20 lawyer Rob Zavaglia said "no policies were changed" and "no terms were agreed to."

"We always maintained throughout the proceedings that student-led groups could meet before and after school, not during instructional time," said D-20 spokeswoman Nanette Anderson. "We never said students could not pray during lunch; that was never a piece of the contention."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 6/9/15: From "Colorado high school kills free period rather than let students use it for prayer group" by Greg Piper, Associate Editor, The College Fix

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented prayer leader Chase Windebank, said Tuesday the school got around its prohibition on prayer during “instructional time” by eliminating the “seminar” homeroom period during which Windebank and his peers met for prayer. Its lawsuit against the school district claimed students were allowed to do practically anything else during seminar, including texting and snacking.

Because praying students will no longer be required to meet before the school day at 7:45 a.m. and after it at 2:45 p.m., a window of time that proved difficult for Windebank’s group, the alliance dropped its suit.

“While we commend the school district for recognizing that students have the right to pray and discuss religious topics during lunch, it could have shown greater respect both for the First Amendment freedoms of students and the educational process by simply allowing them to engage in religious conversations during the other free period in the day rather than silence the speech of all students by eliminating that period altogether,” said senior legal counsel Jeremy Tedesco in a written statement.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of public prayer, and read the resulting resurgence in public prayer following the Supreme Court decision including the long list of states enacting laws to bring prayer back to schools.

Chicago Pre-teen Sex Ed Pornographic, Parents Say

When horrified parents objected to their elementary school children being taught anal sex and other sex techniques, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) officials claimed that a few teachers went rogue, but it was a district leader who presented the obscene curriculum at a parent workshop.  Also, local media uncovered a year-old CPS press release touting how this comprehensive sex ed "helps to reduce school-level incidents of sexual misconduct and harassment and positively impact rates of [sexually transmitted diseases] and unintended pregnancy among Chicago’s youth."

Photo captions for 10-year-old girls: "Got issues? Lube! Lube! Lube! Feel the heat! [Female condoms] adjust to your body temperature, so you and your partner can both feel the heat. . . . Once you pop, you don't have to stop!"

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

President Obama Pays Pre-teens to Learn Anal Sex in Hawaii

California School Pushes College-level Porn Sex Ed, Parents Outraged

New Hampshire School Teaches Porn, Complaining Dad Arrested

Virginity Advocacy Banned at Arkansas School

Education Experts Say Use Porn in Teaching Sex Ed

Also read University of Chicago Encourages Casual Sex and Teaches Students How to Get an Abortion

In addition, read how public schools integrate pornography and even sex training into the curriculum and also read the myriad examples of kids' sexcapades starting in kindergarten and even pre-school.



-- From "Reference To Female Condoms Appears In Grade School Curriculum" posted at WBBM-TV2 CBS Chicago 11/14/14

A binder passed out to parents of 5th-graders at Andrew Jackson [Language Academy] grade school included information about female condoms as part of the curriculum for the school’s new sex-education classes.

When the [CPS] school representative passed out the binder, Amy Miller got a close look at what her daughter might learn.

“To tell my 5th-grader, who’s still into ‘Little House on the Prairie,’ that it’s OK to have safe anal sex — I’m sorry. That’s just not appropriate,” Miller says.

CPS officials are apologizing, saying the material on female condoms “was mistakenly downloaded and included in the parent presentation, and we agree with parents it is not appropriate for Elementary school students.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Parents Shocked by Material in Presentation on School's New Sex Health Curriculum" posted at WMAQ-TV5 NBC Chicago 11/14/14

"It definitely gets to an inappropriate level, things I wouldn’t even discuss in my own personal life," said parent Rachel Gigliotti. "Sex with a condom, sex without a condom, sex with lube — things that no sixth grader should ever be exposed to.”

The slides detailed the “basics” of female condoms and “feel-good reasons to use them." It also details other forms of contraception, sex toys and sex acts.

Many parents said that although they support sex education, the material went too far for elementary school students.

“Sexual awareness, OK — but how to use a condom, and that it was going to be shown how, is a little bit extreme,” said parent Tamara Gear.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Fifth-Grade Sex Ed Plan Horrifies Chicago Parents Who Say It's Obscene" by Stephanie Lulay, DNAinfo Chicago 11/14/14

Parents were notified of Wednesday's presentation in a letter from school principal Mathew Ditto. The letter said a CPS representative would be at the meeting where "we will share the lessons and information that will be taught to your child." CPS has said some of the lessons are even intended for children in kindergarten. . . . Students in fifth grade and above would also learn about contraception and pregnancy prevention, and lessons would include a condom demonstration, the letter stated.

. . . a slideshow posted on the Waters Elementary School health website includes all five of the objectionable slides in a Powerpoint presentation. According to the school's website, the slideshows contain lessons and handouts presented to students in April 2014.

Under the new sex ed guidelines, 5th grade students are typically taught about contraception, [CPS spokesman Bill] McCaffrey confirmed. The discussion includes use of female condoms, he said.

. . . Another Jackson parent, who asked not to be named, said she considers herself a liberal parent, but the curriculum slides were too much.

"I'm appalled. ... It doesn't necessarily meet the kids where they are at," she said. "Talking about lube and the heat that would be generated by using a female condom is not appropriate for a fifth-grader."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Recently, Illinois passed new laws requiring sex training in all K-12 schools, and legislators considered recommendations from students for what to teach in sex ed.

D.C. Muslim Call to Prayer from National Cathedral

A first, in this Obamanation . . .

Today, the weekly Friday Muslim prayers are sounding from the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. after desires by Cathedral officials to appear moderate by yielding to Islamic leaders.

“Let this be a lesson to the world.”
-- Rizwan Jaka, Muslim CAIR spokesman of Sterling, Virginia

“This is the place where we bury our presidents, where we bury our national heroes.”
-- Rev. Gina Campbell, National Cathedral

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

D.C. Muslims Force Christmas Off School Calendar

Massachusetts Students Forced To Learn Muslim Conversion

President Obama's National Cathedral is the Seat of Apostasy

President Obama Praises Islam for Making America What It Is

President Obama on Jihad: Islam is a Great Religion

-- From "In a first, Washington National Cathedral to host Friday Muslim prayer service" by Michelle Boorstein, Washington Post 11/10/14

The cathedral, part of the Episcopal Church . . . organizers said Monday that they are seeking to make a statement by having Muslim leaders come and hold their midday service in such a visible Christian house of worship.

The service, which will begin around 12:20 and is for invited guests only, developed out of a relationship between the cathedral’s director of liturgy, the Rev. Gina Campbell, and the South African ambassador to the United States, Ebrahim Rasool, who is Muslim. The two worked together on a memorial service for Nelson Mandela, Jaka said.

“This is a dramatic moment in the world and in Muslim-Christian relations,” Rasool said in a prepared statement. “This needs to be a world in which all are free to believe and practice and in which we avoid bigotry, Islamaphobia, racism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Christianity and to embrace our humanity and to embrace faith.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Washington National Cathedral to Hold Friday Muslim Prayers" by Jerome Socolovsky, Voice of America 11/14/14

Prayer carpets have been laid out under the soaring arches of the Washington National Cathedral for an unprecedented Muslim worship service in one of America's best-known churches.

The carpets have been arrayed diagonally in the transept, to the side of the sanctuary, so that worshipers can face in the direction of Mecca without seeing crosses or Christian icons. Muslims are not supposed to pray in view of sacred symbols alien to their faith.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Washington National Cathedral Plans To Host Muslim Prayer Service" by Carol Kuruvilla, The Huffington Post 11/12/14

Muslims and people of other religious traditions have participated in Christian or Interfaith services at the Cathedral in the past. However, the November 14 event marks the first time American Muslims have been invited to lead their own traditional Jummah prayer inside the same sacred space that has hosted presidential funerals and other national religious services.

. . . While Rasool was standing in the Cathedral’s nave, he told Campbell that the building’s ornate carvings, arches, and long central aisle reminded him of ancient mosques.

“What struck me was how he could look at our building and see his mosque. That was a powerful moment,” Campbell told HuffPost. “To realize we could be standing in the same spot in the same building and see our own prayer traditions.”

The Jummah prayer is being held with the support of Muslim leaders from the the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), Masjid Muhammad (the Nation's Mosque), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). The service is for invited guests, but will be livestreamed at the Cathedral's website.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Washington's National Cathedral to host Muslim prayer service" by Matt Bradwell, UPI 11/14/14

Despite humanitarian intentions, news of the service was not met with universal praise, as some conservative corners of the national security community pointed out that Friday marks 100 years since the last sitting Caliph of the Ottoman Empire publicly called for war against non-Muslims.

"November 14th, 2014, will be the 100th anniversary of the last sitting Caliph of the Ottoman Empire's call for jihad against non-believers," wrote the independent Center for Security Policy in a letter to Bishop of Washington Mariann Edgar Budde.

"While for most westerners the November 14th Jihad declaration is little more than a footnote in the annuls of World War I, for Islamic supremacists like those associated with Muslim Brotherhood, it is a date pregnant with meaning. To permit such a public display, and permit such groups to occupy the National Cathedral of the United States on this date represents an affront to the memories of those who were killed as a result of this genocide, and an affront to those Christians across the Middle East who are currently under threat by those who seek to emulate it."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Muslim Brotherhood Hijacks National Cathedral" posted at Investor's Business Daily 11/12/14

Who are these [Muslim prayer] "organizers"? Members of known Muslim Brotherhood front groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The Justice Department has identified both as belonging to the Hamas wing of the radical Brotherhood. It's also implicated them in a Hamas conspiracy to raise millions for Palestinian suicide bombers. These co-sponsors of the National Cathedral jumuah ("for invited guests only") remain unindicted co-conspirators in a major terror case.

CAIR is so toxic the FBI won't do outreach with the group. But cathedral clergy rolled out prayer rugs for it.

Another co-sponsor is the ADAMS (All Dulles Area Muslim Society) mosque of Northern Virginia, which the Brotherhood controls through deed-holder ISNA.

To read the entire editorial column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Pres. Obama's Secretary of State, John Kerry, Quotes Allah: We Must Fight Climate Change

And read Congress: America No Longer a Christian Nation

Virginia School Slow-walks Pro-life Club Approval

Lawyers have informed Principal Larry Marks of Courtland High School in Spotsylvania County that the inordinate delay in approval of senior student Madison Sutherland's “Students for Life” club would result in legal action against the school.

“By denying Maddie’s pro-life group on the grounds that it is not tied to the school’s curriculum, while allowing other non-curricular groups such as an equestrian club and lacrosse club, Courtland High School is violating their students’ First Amendment rights.”
-- Jocelyn Floyd, Associate Counsel, Thomas More Society

UPDATE 4/26/15: Iowa School Censors Pro-life Students' Rights, Lawyer Says

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Connecticut School Censors 'Controversial' Pro-life Club

California School Loses Lawsuit Against Pro-life Student

Washington School Says Gay is OK, but Pro-life is Offensive

Christian, Pro-life Free Speech Censored at Ohio College

Buffalo, New York University Charges Pro-life Club Extra $

University of Chicago Teaches Students How to Get Abortion

Also read California Feminist Sex/Porn Professor Attacks Pro-lifers



-- From "Va. High School Denies Creation Of Right-To-Life Club" by Ben Smith, Daily Caller 11/12/14

Fed up with the stalling and the “fixes” that Sutherland has been waiting to receive, the Thomas More Society sent a letter to Marks demanding that he respond to the complaint by a Nov. 21 deadline or they will be taken to court.

Kristen Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America expressed concern over what she sees as a deliberate attack on the pro-life movement. “It is unfortunate that many pro-life high school students have faced resistance from hostile school administrators,” Hawkins said.

As for Sutherland, she will continue pushing her campus group to be recognized. “Abortion is the greatest violation of human rights in our time and I believe the pro-life message deserves a voice at my school,” she declared.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Did principal deny student’s constitutional rights with anti-abortion group decision?" by Jeff Branscome, The Free Lance-Star (Fredericksburg, VA) 11/11/14

The anti-abortion club application “is in the review process” and “will be considered in the same manner as other applications for student organizations,” the [school official's] statement said.

Marks turned down an initial application for the club in a letter Oct. 6, writing that the group did not appear to “bear a clear relationship to the regular school curriculum” as required by the division’s policies. The principal also noted that the student had not provided all of the required information in the application, namely the group’s bylaws and a description of its relationship to the curriculum.

Sutherland resubmitted the application Oct. 24 but has not received a formal response, according to a press release from the anti-abortion organization Students for Life of America. . . .

George Mason University law professor Joyce Malcolm said the principal has “no business” denying an anti-abortion club while recognizing other issue groups such as an environmental club. “I think it’s unfortunate that our schools have become … single-minded,” she said. “Certain views are OK, and other views we don’t even want to hear.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Planned Parenthood 'Special Forces' Raid Schoolyards

And read Parents Want Obama-paid Abortionist out of Their School

D.C. Muslims Force Christmas Off School Calendar

The board of the Montgomery County (Maryland) Public Schools in suburban Washington, D.C. is more than happy to accommodate Islamic holidays but school officials say such a change would violate state law, so the board instead voted to strip all Christian and Jewish holiday names from the schedule, but this didn't satisfy the Muslim activists who demand parity.

UPDATE 9/23/15: Angry Muslims Demand School Holiday in New Jersey

For background, read New York Schools Observe Muslim Holidays, but Christmas? and also read Muslim Holiday Celebrated at Massachusetts Schools as well as Massachusetts Students Forced To Learn Muslim Conversion

However, Citizens Force Islam Indoctrination Out of Ohio Middle School

In addition, read the myriad examples of public schools favoring Islam.



-- From "Religious holidays to no longer be on county's school calendar" posted at WBAL-TV11 (Baltimore, MD) 11/12/14

Yom Kippur, Christmas and other religious holidays will no longer be on the calendar at Montgomery County schools.

Students will still have those religious holidays off, but those holiday names, including Easter and Rosh Hashanah, won't be showing up on their calendars.

The county's Board of Education voted 7 to 1 on Tuesday to remove any mentions of religious holidays on calendars for the next school year.

The change stems from schools being closed for Jewish holidays but not for Muslim observances. Muslim leaders in the community asked that equal recognition be given to the Muslim holy day of Eid al-Adha.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Holidays’ names stricken from next year’s Montgomery schools calendar" by Donna St. George, Washington Post 11/11/14

Board members said Tuesday that the new calendar will reflect days the state requires the system to be closed and that it will close on other days that have shown a high level of student and staff absenteeism. Though those days happen to coincide with major Christian and Jewish holidays, board members made clear that the days off are not meant to observe those religious holidays, which they say is not legally permitted.

It is unclear how many Muslim students attend Montgomery schools, but in 2013, Muslim community leaders urged Muslim families and their supporters to keep students home for Eid ­al-Adha, hoping that the number of absentees would be persuasive as they made their case for a school closing. Montgomery school officials reported that absences for that day — 5.6 percent of students and 5 percent of teachers — were only somewhat higher than a comparable day the previous week.

Students who miss classes on religious holidays are given excused absences. But Muslim families have argued that students should not have to choose between their faith and their schoolwork and that missing even a day leaves many students behind. They say the day off is a matter of equity, with Christian and Jewish students getting days off for their holidays.

Several board members pledged to produce a clearer standard for the kind of operational impacts that might lead to further consideration of closing schools on a Muslim holiday in the future. The calendar change Tuesday affects only the next school year.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Montgomery Co. ed board strips religious holiday references from new calendar" posted at WTOP-FM103.5 (Washington, D.C.) 11/12/14

Saqib Ali, a former Maryland state delegate and co-chair of Equality for Eid, was not happy with the board of education's action Tuesday.

"Equality is really what we're looking for," Ali said. "Simply saying we're not going to call this Christmas, and we're not going to call this Yom Kippur, and still closing the schools, that's not equality."

School board members said they were sympathetic to the desire to have Eid recognized and close schools but that legal precedent in Maryland bars them from closing for religious purposes.

That explanation doesn't sit well with Zainab Chaudry, with the Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR].

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "'Equality 4 Eid Coalition' Rally" posted at Montgomery Community Media

Montgomery County Councilmember George Leventhal joined the Equality 4 Eid Coalition and other community leaders on Sept. 23 to urge Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) staff and students—Muslim and non-Muslim—to stay home from school on Tuesday, Oct. 15 to help celebrate the holiday Eid al-Adha in solidarity with their Muslim friends.

There are two major holidays on the Muslim calendar. Eid al-Fitr is a celebration to mark the end of the month of Ramadan. Over the next three years, Eid al-Fitr will fall in summer, when schools are closed. Eid al-Adha, which marks the Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, will falls on autumn dates over the next three years.

The coalition said that it has found at least six school districts in the U.S. that close for the Muslim holiday. They are Burlington, Vt., Cambridge, Mass., Dearborn, Mi.; Paterson, N.J.; Skokie, Ill.; and Trenton, N.J.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.



And also read about the rebellion against Christmas by secularists, including by President Obama.

Change Sex Overnight in New York With New Law

Beginning forty-three years ago in New York, if you wanted to change from being a man to a woman, or vice versa, you had to have sexual mutilation surgery, but with the new law supported by New York's new mayor, you can simply change the gender on your birth certificate for a small fee and some paperwork.

"It doesn't make sense that you can change your gender and name on every single form of identification, but not on your birth certificate. People need congruency."
-- Marco Wylie, 29-year-old transgender

Coming next in the battle for congruency:  Why limit the choices to just two (male and female)?

For background, read Sexually Confused Must Prove Their Gender in New York City

Click headlines below to read other previous articles:

Blank Birth Certificates: Parents Allow Babies to Choose Gender Later

Passport Choices: President Obama's Gay Agenda Freedom to Choose Gender

Surgical 'Miracle:' First Genderless Person

And also read how public schools indoctrinate children in transsexualism, and read about parents misdirecting toddlers.

From "NYC Weighs Transgender Changes to Birth Record" by Deepti Hajela, Associated Press 11/10/14

[Transgender New Yorkers] and their advocates, at a hearing of the City Council's Health Committee, spoke in favor of the bill that would eliminate the [proof-of-surgery] requirement and, instead, authorize a health professional to provide an affidavit saying the record change is a more accurate reflection of the person's gender.

Eliminating the surgery requirement would put New York City, which issues its own birth certificates, in line with the state. California, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., also have removed surgery requirements.

Speakers at the hearing said that requiring proof of surgery is a burden on transgender people since not all decide to have surgery and not all can afford the expensive procedure. They said the requirement leaves many with a birth certificate that doesn't match their lives and sets them up for discrimination in instances when a birth certificate is required as proof of identification, such as some government programs.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "U.S. transgender people welcome easier path to amend birth papers" by Jonathan Allen, Reuters 11/10/14

. . . thousands of transgender people across America have been forced into embarrassing encounters with bureaucrats, officials, landlords and others because of discrepancies with their documentation, according to transgender-rights advocacy groups.

In a 2008 survey of more than 7,000 transgender people, only 20 percent of trans women said they had had surgery to remove their penis and testes, and only 2 percent of trans men said they had had male genitals surgically created.

Some say they cannot afford the complex surgery. Many others . . . do not need or want it, finding hormone therapy sufficient. Besides the usual risks of major surgery, it leaves the person infertile, and some find the results less than satisfactory.

In 2010, the federal government began allowing transgender people to amend their passports regardless of anatomy. Last year, the American Psychiatric Association said it no longer considered being transgender a disorder.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "De Blasio administration supports transgender bill" by Dan Goldberg, Capital New York 11/10/14

Testifying before the City Council's health committee on Monday, Gretchen Van Wye, an assistant city health commissioner, said the agency is “developing a robust outreach and implementation strategy,” for a law it expects to pass without significant opposition.

Councilman Corey Johnson's bill, co-sponsored by several other council members, would require supporting documentation that the request for a birth certificate change more accurately reflect the applicant's sex. That could come from either a physician, a doctoral level psychologist, a licensed clinical social worker, licensed master social worker, physician's assistant, nurse practitioner, marriage family therapist, mental health counselor or a midwife.

No one who spoke during Monday's Council hearing opposed the measure, a marked change from 2006 when the Board of Health proposed a similar measure. Back then, the proposal was withdrawn after concerns were raised by vital records experts. Doctors worried how to determine which patients could be roomed together and law enforcement officials were concerned about where to house prisoners.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Law Would Remove Surgery Requirement to Change Gender on Birth Certificate" by Jeff Mays, DNAinfo 11/11/14

Transgender individuals are already able to change their gender on documents such as a drivers license. But that can create problems when the gender on the birth certificate does not match other identification.

Everything from getting a passport to applying for a job and medical benefits is placed in jeopardy when gender designations on transgender people's documents do not match, advocates for the legislation said.

"Not having the gender marker restricts me from pursuing a decent career," said Tiffany Mathieu, a transgender woman.

"I get scrutinized and deliberately placed into situations that are uncomfortable and confounding when I apply for jobs."

Mathieu said she has been denied Medicaid and other forms of assistance because the "gender marker on my birth certificate didn't match my ID."

Michael Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, said many of the clients his group represents are in deep poverty, with 84 percent reporting an annual income of less than $20,000 and two-thirds receiving Medicaid or other forms of public assistance.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Transgenderism is a 'Delusion' According to Victim

Families are Greatest Enemy of Democrats at Polls

A study of election day exit polls reveal why it's no wonder that liberal policies take dead aim on the family: Destroy the institution of marriage, minimize the birth rate, and for those who survive birth, inculcate liberalism via government indoctrination centers—schools from pre-K to post graduate.

"Indeed, marital status proved to be more important than gender and age in predicting voting."
-- W. Bradford Wilcox, University of Virginia

For background, read that most Christians vote conservatively and few Democrat voters even attend church.

Also read Recommendations that Obama-Schooling Should Begin at Age 18 Months

And read Where Liberalism Flourishes, Population Diminishes

-- From "Family Gap: Democrats Lose Big Among Married Voters With Kids" by Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com 11/5/14

Republican House candidates bested Democratic House candidates 58 percent to 40 percent among voters who are married and have children, according to the national exit poll published by CNN.

Similarly, Republican House candidates bested Democratic House candidates 58 percent to 41 percent among all married voters, according to the exit poll.

The exit poll indicated that Democratic candidates had a stronger appeal to voters who are not married--particularly unmarried women.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Analysis: Republicans Won by Doing Better Among Non-Whites, Less Religious, Unmarried, Young" by Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter 11/7/14

The Republican base of married voters did not change much. In 2012, married voters were 60 percent of the electorate and 56 percent of them voted Republican. In 2014, married voters were 63 percent of the electorate and 58 percent of them voted Republican. Among unmarried voters, on the other hand, Republicans gained seven percentage points, from 35 to 42 percent.

Combining marriage with gender, Republicans gained eight percentage points among unmarried men (40 to 48 percent), and seven percentage points among unmarried women (31 to 38 percent).

. . . [voters] who attend religious services weekly or more turned out at about the same rate and voted Republican at about the same rate as they did in 2012. And, those who never attend religious services turned out at about the same rate and voted Democrat at about the same rate as they did in 2012.

This big difference for Republicans this year is how they did among the slightly religious. Those who said they attend religious services monthly or a few times a year (40 percent of the electorate in both years) favored Democrats in 2012 (55 percent) and favored Republicans in 2014 (52 percent).

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Marriage was a big, unheralded factor in the midterm sweep" by W. Bradford Wilcox, Deseret News 11/10/14

The CNN exit polls indicate that the Republican victory was powered in large part by a very strong showing among the groups that make up its older demographic coalition: whites, older Americans, men and the married. . . .

Moreover, as sociologist Nicholas Wolfinger has found, married Americans are much more likely to vote than their unmarried peers. Indeed, in this election, even though marrieds and unmarrieds now make up equal shares of the adult population, marrieds made up 63 percent of the 2014 electorate, while just 37 percent of the electorate was unmarried. This means that married voters constituted a disproportionate share of the electorate and a disproportionate share of the Republican vote in 2014. To wit: About 70 percent of the Republican vote in this year’s House elections came from married voters.

Why, then, are married Americans markedly more likely to vote Republican? Part of the reason, undoubtedly, is that married Americans tend to be more religious and traditionally minded in their views on social issues, which aligns them with the Republican Party’s more socially conservative stance.

. . . given the fact that the share of married Americans has fallen steadily since the 1960s, the Republican Party’s triumph in 2014 may be short-lived. For the nation’s ongoing retreat from marriage suggests that in the coming decades a shrinking share of Americans will have the relatively conservative cultural orientation or economic security associated with being married . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Christians Defeat Abortionists in 2014 Tennessee Vote

And read 2014 'Abortion Barbie' Candidate NOT Attractive to Women

Homosexuals Recruit Christians to Convert Churches

A major Washington D.C.-based homosexual advocacy organization has launched an $8.5 million propaganda campaign aimed at the U.S. Bible-belt using self-professed Christians, who preach that Jesus Christ favors anal sex, to infiltrate churches with heresy.

"It's the first time we've led with this message, and it's historic for the South."
-- Brad Clark, director of Project One America for the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

America Going to Hell; Christians Lose Convictions

Pastors Who Won't Confront the Gay Agenda Deserve Hell, Says Graham

California Parents Say: Drop Morals for Catholic School Teachers

Also read about so-called churches diving into the abyss of homosexual advocacy.

Why the rush to embrace sin? Pastors Face Fines, Jail for Refusing 'Gay Wedding'

-- From "TV campaign for gay equality starting in Mississippi" by Jay Reeves, Associated Press 11/8/14

Mary Jane Kennedy considers herself a conservative Christian Republican, and she's led Bible studies in her native Mississippi for decades. She's also the mother of two gay sons and one of the faces in a new advertising campaign aimed at softening religious opposition in the Deep South to equal rights for people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

Justin Kelly of Jackson says the [TV commercials] could help build acceptance in his home state. The 25-year-old Iraq war veteran is openly gay and will be featured in his Army Reserve uniform in another TV spot during the campaign, called "All God's Children."

[Is everyone a child of God?]

TV commercials will begin airing Monday in Jackson . . . commercials may follow in Alabama and Arkansas depending on the reception and results of the Mississippi campaign. . . .

The commercials will begin airing two days before a federal court hearing in Jackson on a Mississippi law that bans same-sex marriage. Opponents of the ban are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the ban from being enforced while a lawsuit seeking to overturn it is pending. In November 2004, Mississippi voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.



Click headlines below to read of an American future with wayward churches controlled by totalitarian government:

American Decline: Obama's Gay Agenda vs. Christians

President Obama's National Cathedral is the Seat of Apostasy

President Obama's Homosexual Easter at the White House

ObamaNation = 'Fake Church' Says Catholic Cardinal

Pope Blasts Liberal 'christians' as Pagans

Not surprisingly, the media did NOT report that Pope Francis referred to non-believers who claim to follow a christ of their own creation as "pagan christians" who are "enemies of the Cross of Christ" and who are destined for damnation.  No, the mainstream (liberal) media only report the goings-on of their "pet Pope" when they can twist his words into Gay Agenda or feminist propaganda.

For background, read Pope Francis Warns of Satan; Media, Take Heed!

-- From "Pope Francis: 'Pagan' Christians 'in Name Only' are 'Enemies of the Cross'" posted at The Roanoke Times 11/7/14

Not all those who claim to be Christians really are, said Pope Francis Friday morning. Some are Christians "in name only," he said. "They bear the name of Christians but live a life of pagans." In his homily at Mass, the Pope that there have always been two types of Christian, those who truly followed Christ and those who only pretended to.



From "Pope Francis blasts 'pagan' Christians as 'enemies of the cross'" by Ann Schneible, Catholic News Agency 11/7/14

In his daily homily for Mass at the Santa Marta residence, Pope Francis urged the faithful against living as lukewarm pagans who are merely Christian in name, for these are “enemies of the Cross.”

Reflecting on the day's reading from Paul to the Philippians, the Holy Father spoke of two types of Christians: those who advance in their faith, and those who behave as “enemies of the Cross of Christ.”

Pope Francis condemned this latter group as “Christian pagans,” describing them as “worldly, Christian in name,” but living a “pagan life.” They are “pagans with two strokes of Christian paint, in order to appear as Christians.”

The Holy Father then challenged the faithful to ask themselves if they too exhibit the same worldliness and paganism, and whether they are citizens of Heaven or the earth.

Unlike the citizens of Heaven who await the coming of the Savior, Pope Francis said the citizens of earth are destined for damnation.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "'Pagan Christians' go to church, but don't put God first, pope says" by Cindy Wooden, Catholic News Service 11/7/14

Today, the pope said, "there are many of these. And we, too, must be careful not to slip" into being Christians in name only. Being half-hearted Christians, "accustomed to mediocrity" is a danger for all, he said.

In the day's first reading, Philippians 3:17-4:1, St. Paul speaks of true Christians having their "citizenship" in heaven, the pope said, while "pagan Christians" are full citizens of the world.

The way for someone to check their spiritual nationality, he said, is to ask some questions: "Do I like to brag? Do I like money? Do I like pride?"

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pope at Santa Marta: Enemies of the Cross of Christ" posted at Vatican Radio 11/8/14

"Both groups – he said - were in the [Philippian] Church together, they went to Mass on Sunday, they praised the Lord, they called themselves Christians". So what was the difference? The second group "act like enemies of the Cross of Christ! Christians enemies of the Cross of Christ”.

The Pope said these were "worldly Christians, Christians in name, with two or three Christian things, but nothing more. Pagan Christian". "A Christian name, but a pagan life." Or to put it another way: "Pagans with two strokes of Christian paint, so as to appear like Christians, but pagans nonetheless".

"Even today there are many! We must be careful not to slip toward the path of being pagan Christians, Christians in appearance. The temptation to get used to mediocrity, the mediocrity of Christians, these Christians, it is their undoing because their hearts cool, they become lukewarm. And the Lord had strong words for these lukewarm [Christians]: 'because you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth'. These are very strong words! They are enemies of the Cross of Christ. They take the name, but do not follow the requirements of Christian life".

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

For background on mainstream media coverage of Pope Francis, note these typical fallacious media headlines:

Pope Open to Homosexual Civil Unions

Pope Francis OKs Gay & Women Priests

But what the pope has actually said and has done, include the following:

Pope Said the Gay Agenda is the Work of the Devil

Pope Disappoints Liberals by Opposing 'Gay Adoption'

Pope's New Spanish Cardinal Says 'Gay Gene' is a Defect

Pope Francis Cracks Down on American Liberal Nuns, Priests

Also read Pope Francis Decries Abortion; Vatican Says Media Distort Him

And notice how the media reacted to a U.S. Supreme Court justice saying that Satan exists.

'Gay Marriage' Loses in Fed. Court, on to Supremes

Yesterday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled 2 to 1 that Supreme Court precedent and the U.S. Constitution provide that states may define marriage as between one and one woman.  This ruling likely means that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this marriage issue by July 2015.

For background, read the increasing number of court rulings AGAINST the redefinition of marriage.

Also read 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court

-- From "Appeals court upholds bans on same-sex marriage for first time" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post 11/6/14

The decision overturned lower-court rulings in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky and makes the 6th Circuit the first appeals court to uphold state bans since the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 2013.

[U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey S.] Sutton, writing for himself and Judge Deborah L. Cook, rejected the [erroneous] analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Windsor that has led other appeals courts to strike the bans on same-sex marriage. He repeatedly returned to the principle of democratic action, saying advocates of same-sex marriage would be better off by persuading their fellow citizens than by asking federal judges to force the issue.

Sutton, a favorite of the conservative legal establishment and frequently mentioned as a potential Supreme Court nominee under a Republican president, was nominated by President George W. Bush. Cook was also nominated by Bush.

While it is possible the full 6th Circuit could take up the issue — a delay that would mean the Supreme Court would not receive the cases in time to hear them this term — lawyers on both sides of the case pledged to move quickly.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Michigan Gov. Snyder says defending gay marriage ban a duty, 'not a matter of personal preference'" by Jonathan Oosting, MLive.com (Booth Newspapers, Grand Rapids, MI) 11/6/14

Michigan’s gay marriage ban remains in place after a federal court ruling on Thursday, and Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette both made clear they will continue to defend it.

“When I became governor, I took an oath to support and defend our state constitution, without exceptions,” Snyder said in a statement, referencing the 2004 voter-approved amendment that defined marriage as between one woman and one man.

“My obligation to carry out that oath is not a matter of personal preference. As I have said throughout this process, I will respect the court’s decision as it examines the legality of same-sex marriage.”

Snyder has consistently declined to take a stance on the underlying issue — whether the same-sex marriage ban is good public policy — which has led to criticism from gay rights supporters.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Sixth Circuit Rules in Favor of State Marriage Laws" by Ed Whelan, National Review Online 11/6/14

Here’s a summary [of the ruling]:

1. The Supreme Court’s summary ruling in Baker v. Nelson (1972) binds federal courts of appeals to hold that state laws that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman are constitutional. The Court’s ruling last year in Windsor v. United States doesn’t overrule Baker, nor does it clash with it. Neither of the two preconditions for ignoring Supreme Court precedent applies. Nor do the Court’s recent denials of certiorari in other marriage cases have any bearing.

2. Under the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, state marriage laws are clearly constitutional.

3. State marriage laws easily survive rational-basis review. It is rational to define marriage as a male-female union because (a) governmental recognition of marriage operates to regulate the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse, and (b) it’s reasonable for the people of a state to assess how the benefits and burdens of redefining marriage are playing out in other states before they decide whether to take that step. “Any other approach would create line-drawing problems of its own.”

To read the entire summary above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court breaks ranks, upholds marriage bans" by Tom Strode, Washington bureau chief for Baptist Press 11/7/14

The same-sex couples who lost could ask for “en banc” review of the ruling, which would include all the members of the Sixth Circuit Court, or they could appeal to the Supreme Court. If they take the latter course and the justices grant review, the high court could issue a decision on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage before its current term ends next summer. Both sides of the legal battle have urged the Supreme Court to rule soon on the matter.

Russell D. Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), said in a written statement, “This circuit split means that the Supreme Court's ignoring of this issue will not be able to continue. The people of the states have the right to recognize marriage the way virtually every human culture has, as the union of a man and a woman. The Supreme Court should affirm this right, for all fifty states.”

Byron Babione, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, said in written release, “As the [Sixth] Circuit rightly concluded, the Constitution does not demand that one irreversible view of marriage be judicially imposed on everyone. The people of every state should remain free to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their laws.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - File Name: 14a0275p.06 by Judges Jeffrey S. Sutton and Deborah L. Cook 11/6/14

This is a case about change — and how best to handle it under the United States Constitution. From the vantage point of 2014, it would now seem, the question is not whether American law will allow gay couples to marry; it is when and how that will happen. That would not have seemed likely as recently as a dozen years ago. For better, for worse, or for more of the same, marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.

But things change, sometimes quickly. . . .

What remains is a debate about whether to allow the democratic processes begun in the States to continue in the four States of the Sixth Circuit or to end them now by requiring all States in the Circuit to extend the definition of marriage to encompass gay couples. . . .

Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us — just two of us in truth — to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four States of the Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. What we have authority to decide instead is a legal question: Does the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit a State from defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman?

. . . By creating a status (marriage) and by subsidizing it (e.g., with tax-filing privileges and deductions), the States created an incentive for two people who procreate together to stay together for purposes of rearing offspring. That does not convict the States of irrationality, only of awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way as couples of opposite sexes and that couples of the same sex do not run the risk of unintended offspring. That explanation, still relevant today, suffices to allow the States to retain authority over an issue they have regulated from the beginning.

To take another rational explanation for the decision of many States not to expand the definition of marriage, a State might wish to wait and see before changing a norm that our society (like all others) has accepted for centuries. That is not preserving tradition for its own sake. No one here claims that the States' original definition of marriage was unconstitutional when enacted. The plaintiffs' claim is that the States have acted irrationally in standing by the traditional definition in the face of changing social mores. Yet one of the key insights of federalism is that it permits laboratories of experimentation  —accent on the plural — allowing one State to innovate one way, another State another, and a third State to assess the trial and error over time. As a matter of state law, the possibility of gay marriage became real in 2003 with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Courtfs decision in Goodridge. Eleven years later, the clock has not run on assessing the benefits and burdens of expanding the definition of marriage. Eleven years indeed is not even the right timeline. The fair question is whether in 2004, one year after Goodridge, Michigan voters could stand by the traditional definition of marriage. How can we say that the voters acted irrationally for sticking with the seen benefits of thousands of years of adherence to the traditional definition of marriage in the face of one year of experience with a new definition of marriage? A State still assessing how this has worked, whether in 2004 or 2014, is not showing irrationality, just a sense of stability and an interest in seeing how the new definition has worked elsewhere. Even today, the only thing anyone knows for sure about the long-term impact of redefining marriage is that they do not know. A Burkean sense of caution does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, least of all when measured by a timeline less than a dozen years long and when assessed by a system of government designed to foster step-by-step, not sudden winner-take-all, innovations to policy problems.

. . . Any other approach would create line-drawing problems of its own. Consider how plaintiffs' love-and-commitment definition of marriage would fare under their own rational basis test. Their definition does too much because it fails to account for the reality that no State in the country requires couples, whether gay or straight, to be in love. Their definition does too little because it fails to account for plural marriages, where there is no reason to think that three or four adults, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, lack the capacity to share love, affection, and commitment, or for that matter lack the capacity to be capable (and more plentiful) parents to boot. If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States' male-female definition of marriage. The predicament does not end there. No State is free of marriage policies that go too far in some directions and not far enough in others, making all of them vulnerable — if the claimants' theory of rational basis review prevails.

. . . In considering the claimants' arguments that they have a fundamental right to marry each other, we must keep in mind that something can be fundamentally important without being a fundamental right under the Constitution. Otherwise, state regulations of many deeply important subjects — from education to healthcare to living conditions to decisions about when to die — would be subject to unforgiving review. They are not. . . . Instead, the question is whether our nation has treated the right as fundamental and therefore worthy of protection under substantive due process. More precisely, the test is whether the right is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," such that "neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed." . . . That requirement often is met by placing the right in the Constitution, most obviously in (most of) the guarantees in the Bill of Rights. . . . But the right to marry in general, and the right to gay marriage in particular, nowhere appear in the Constitution. That route for recognizing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage does not exist.

That leaves the other option — that, even though a proposed right to same-sex marriage does not appear in the Constitution, it turns on bedrock assumptions about liberty. This too does not work. . . .

The theory of the living constitution rests on the premise that every generation has the right to govern itself. If that premise prevents judges from insisting on principles that society has moved past, so too should it prevent judges from anticipating principles that society has yet to embrace. It follows that States must enjoy some latitude in matters of timing, for reasonable people can disagree about just when public norms have evolved enough to require a democratic response. Today's case captures the point. Not long ago American society took for granted the rough correlation between marriage and creation of new life, a vision under which limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples seemed natural. Not long from now, if current trends continue, American society may define marriage in terms of affirming mutual love, a vision under which the failure to add loving gay couples seems unfair. Today's society has begun to move past the first picture of marriage, but it has not yet developed a consensus on the second.

If, before a new consensus has emerged on a social issue, federal judges may decide when the time is ripe to recognize a new constitutional right, surely the people should receive some deference in deciding when the time is ripe to move from one picture of marriage to another. So far, not a single United States Supreme Court Justice in American history has written an opinion maintaining that the traditional definition of marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment. No one would accuse the Supreme Court of acting irrationally in failing to recognize a right to same-sex marriage in 2013. Likewise, we should hesitate to accuse the States of acting irrationally in failing to recognize the right in 2004 or 2006 or for that matter today. Federal judges engaged in the inherent pacing that comes with living constitutionalism should appreciate the inherent pacing that comes with democratic majorities deciding within reasonable bounds when and whether to embrace an evolving, as opposed to settled, societal norm. The one form of pacing is akin to the other, making it anomalous for the Court to hold that the States act unconstitutionally when making reasonable pacing decisions of their own.

. . . For all of the power that comes with the authority to interpret the United States Constitution, the federal courts have no long-lasting capacity to change what people think and believe about new social questions. If the plaintiffs are convinced that litigation is the best way to resolve today's debate and to change heads and hearts in the process, who are we to say? Perhaps that is not the only point, however. Yes, we cannot deny thinking the plaintiffs deserve better — earned victories through initiatives and legislation and the greater acceptance that comes with them. But maybe the American people too deserve better — not just in the sense of having a say through representatives in the legislature rather than through representatives in the courts, but also in the sense of having to come face to face with the issue. . . .

Last, but not least, federal courts never expand constitutional guarantees in a vacuum. What one group wants on one issue from the courts today, another group will want on another issue tomorrow. The more the Court innovates under the Constitution, the more plausible it is for the Court to do still more — and the more plausible it is for other advocates on behalf of other issues to ask the Court to innovate still more. And while the expansion of liberal and conservative constitutional rights will solve, or at least sidestep, the amendment-difficulty problem that confronts many individuals and interest groups, it will exacerbate the judge-confirmation problem. Faith in democracy with respect to issues that the Constitution has not committed to the courts reinforces a different, more sustainable norm.

. . . This case ultimately presents two ways to think about change. One is whether the Supreme Court will constitutionalize a new definition of marriage to meet new policy views about the issue. The other is whether the Court will begin to undertake a different form of change — change in the way we as a country optimize the handling of efforts to address requests for new civil liberties.

If the Court takes the first approach, it may resolve the issue for good and give the plaintiffs and many others relief. But we will never know what might have been. If the Court takes the second approach, is it not possible that the traditional arbiters of change — the people — will meet today's challenge admirably and settle the issue in a productive way? In just eleven years, nineteen States and a conspicuous District, accounting for nearly forty-five percent of the population, have exercised their sovereign powers to expand a definition of marriage that until recently was universally followed going back to the earliest days of human history. That is a difficult timeline to criticize as unworthy of further debate and voting. When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.

For these reasons, we reverse.

To read the entire court ruling above, CLICK HERE.

Also read New York Incestuous Marriage OK: Unanimous Appeals Court Ruling

'Abortion Barbie' Candidate NOT Attractive to Women

Although Texas state Senator Wendy Davis became the beloved doll face of the abortion-supporting media for her filibuster against a new pro-life state law last year, this week her failed Democrat candidacy for governor proved ineffective among Texas female voters.

"I don't understand at this point where we lost [the women's vote]."
-- Patsy Woods Martin, executive director of Annie's List (heavy financial contributor to Davis)

“There was this belief after 2012 that if you waved this turnout wand you would wake up some progressive majority. It didn’t exist.”
-- Glenn Smith, Democrat consultant, Austin, TX

For background, read how the Satanists backed Davis' pro-abortion filibuster.

Also read Abortionists' $Millions Tried to Buy Texas Governorship but voters learned that Liberals Want Blacks & Hispanics Killed in Texas

-- From "Wendy Davis lost badly. Here’s how it happened" by Jay Root, The Texas Tribune (Washington Post) 11/6/14

[The Wendy Davis campaign strategy:] Thanks to the filibuster, Davis was already well-known, so she wouldn’t have to spend so much money pumping up her name ID. With [incumbent Governor Rick] Perry declining to seek re-election, Davis was competing in the first open governor’s race since [Ann] Richards was elected. Her opponent, while exceptionally well-funded, was largely untested in high-profile political battles.

. . . for more than a year, Democrats were crowing that with a well-funded turnout operation, Davis was the kind of candidate who could at least move the needle for the bedraggled party, which hadn’t won a statewide election since 1994. In one sense they were correct: She moved the needle, all right — backward.

The spread between [governor-elect] Attorney General Greg Abbott and Davis exceeded 20 points, greater than the split between Republican Gov. Rick Perry and Democrat Bill White in the historic tea party wave four years ago. In fact, it was the worst showing by a Democratic gubernatorial candidate since Garry Mauro’s 68 percent-to-31 percent drubbing at the hands of George W. Bush in 1998.

If the campaign telegraphed early caution on the abortion issue, Davis threw it to the wind two months out from Election Day, when she released a memoir about her own late abortion in 1997. She went on a weeklong book tour that inevitably focused on abortion rights, followed up by another week spent on the same subject — namely, bashing Abbott for opposing abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Texas' Davis failed to move needle with women" by Paul J. Weber, Associated Press 11/6/14

Exit polls show Davis fared no better with women than her male Democratic predecessor in 2010, despite being one of the most recognizable female candidates in the U.S. and a campaign that aggressively courted women with gender issues and attention-grabbing ads.

Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott won 54 percent of female voters — roughly the same edge Gov. Rick Perry had with women four years ago. And Abbott's advantage wasn't just among Republican women: He carried roughly double the support that Davis pulled with women who described themselves as politically independent.

Abbott clobbered Davis by a 20-point margin that is the widest in a Texas governor's race since George W. Bush coasted to re-election in 1998. The Fort Worth state senator was a perennial underdog, but few expected her to finish worse than a string of lesser-known longshots whom Texas Democrats have put at the top of the ticket in their two hapless decades since Ann Richards.

[Davis] hammered Abbott, the state attorney general, on equal pay in his office and denounced him for not supporting a Texas version of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. She spent two weeks touring rape crisis centers. Her first statewide TV ad featured a shadowy dramatization of a vacuum cleaner salesman who raped a Texas mother whom Abbott later sided against in a lawsuit when he was a Texas Supreme Court justice.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Wendy Davis, Face of the Phony 'War on Women' Mantra, Loses With Women" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 11/5/14

Wendy Davis was the canary in the coal mine. Poll after poll showed she had virtually no chance of winning the Texas gubernatorial race even though the Planned Parenthood abortion business went out of its way to pump up her campaign.

Davis’ opponent, governor-elect Greg Abbott, won women by (at the time of this writing) 9 points, according to CNN exit polls. Davis only won unmarried women by 14 points, while Abbott won married women by 25 points.

As Marjorie Dannenfelser of SBA List told LifeNews, “Last night’s overwhelming victory for pro-life candidates showed the abortion-centered ‘war on women’ strategy has completely failed.”

“SBA List added a third pro-life woman to the Senate with Joni Ernst’s victory in Iowa. We strengthened pro-life women’s leadership in the House, electing women like Mia Love (UT-04) and Elise Stefanik (NY-21). Mia, the first black Republican congresswoman and Elise, the youngest woman ever elected to the House are both pro-life. Where is this so-called ‘war on women’?” she asked.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below for previous Texas abortion news:

Texas Yanks Abortionist's License for 268 Killed

Most Texas Abortion Clinics Now Closed

Texas Abortion Rate Plunges, Liberals Fume