Monday, September 28, 2009

Updates from the Frontlines

Check out United Families International for updates in the fight to protect marriage in Washington, Maine, and Michigan.

There are also recent updates from New Jersey and California.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Judge Orders Mother to Send Child to Public School

From New American:

"A New Hampshire family-court judge has decreed in a July 13, 2009 ruling that a 10-year-old home-schooled child must now go to a government school in order to teach her to be less “rigid” and foster “tolerance” in her religious beliefs.

Was it because the child was falling behind or socially backward?

"The judge made this order despite finding that the child “is generally likable and well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level.”

So what right did the court have to step in and tell the parent how to educate their child? Was this simply because he didn't agree with the child's religious upbringing? Should the parent or the government have the final say in how to raise the child?

Read the full story here.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be Repealed?

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM):

"Today, Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) will introduce a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act — the only federal law protecting the marriage statutes of 44 states."

"Marriage isn’t about inside-the-Beltway opportunism, or scoring political points. It’s about honesty and integrity. Protecting children and religious liberty."

Visit NOM to see how you can help in the fight to protect DOMA.

United Families International (UFI) lays out what is at stake if DOMA is repealed.

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has census statistics and poll numbers that disprove any politician's claim that by voting to repeal DOMA, he is simply following the wishes of the majority.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Never Forget

Pro-Life Leaders Warn Obama Still Not Honest About Health Care Abortion Funding

by Kathleen Gilbert,

President Obama told a joint session of Congress last night that "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions" in his proposed health care overhaul. Pro-life leaders across America, however, immediately slammed the claim, pointing to the testimony of independent analysts who have asserted that the current legislation will in fact open government funds to abortion.

Obama stated in his address to Congress Wednesday night: "One more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."

Last month, Obama had similarly dismissed the abortion debate by telling faith leaders in a conference call that it was a "fabrication" that the health care legislation involved "government funding of abortions."

In response, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) legislative director Douglas Johnson noted that the wording of Obama's statement allowed him to dispense with the abortion opposition without admitting the actual expansion of abortion in the bill. "Obama apparently seeks to hide behind a technical distinction between tax funds and government-collected premiums," said Johnson. "These are merely two types of public funds, collected and spent by government agencies."

He continued: "The Obama-backed legislation makes it explicitly clear that no citizen would be allowed to enroll in the government plan unless he or she is willing to give the federal agency an extra amount calculated to cover the cost of all elective abortions - this would not be optional. The abortionists would bill the federal government and would be paid by the federal government.

"These are public funds, and this is government funding of abortion."

Read the full story here.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Speak Out in Opposition to Harvey Milk Day

by Charlie Butts,

The California Assembly has passed a bill establishing an annual day to honor openly homosexual San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, who was assassinated November 27, 1978. president Randy Thomasson is calling on conservative Christians to contact the governor's office.

"The bill -- which will honor a sexual predator, a polygamous relationship advocate, and a public liar -- and extend a homosexual, bisexual, transsexual agenda as a role model to children to aspire to is going to the governor afteryou a short stop on the [California] Senate floor," Thomasson explains.

Read the full text here.

Please contact the Governor's office and ask him to veto this bill!

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160

Friday, September 4, 2009

Voter Referenda on Same-Sex "Marriage" on Nov. Ballot in Washington and Maine

by Peter J. Smith,

Voters in the states of Washington and Maine will get the opportunity this November to decide the fate of same-sex "marriage" in their respective states, now that two measures have been certified to appear on the November ballot.

Maine election officials announced Wednesday that pro-family advocates had gathered more than enough signatures - nearly twice the number required - to effect a referendum on the same-sex "marriage" law passed by the Maine legislature. The referendum means Maine voters have the chance to exercise a "People's Veto" of the law, which if successful would then reduce the number of states legalizing same-sex "marriage" to five.


Meanwhile on the West Coast, the Secretary of State for Washington has approved R-71, a voter referendum that would overturn a law (SB 5688) passed by the legislature in April that gives homosexual couples all the rights and benefits of marriage, but stops short of giving same-sex unions the title of "marriage."

Pro-family advocates sponsoring R-71 under the banner of Protect Marriage Washington, however, say the law attacks the "historical understanding and definition of marriage" as the lifelong union of a man and a woman, and invites litigation that would lead to state courts legalizing same-sex "marriage."

Protect Marriage Washington submitted nearly 138,000 signatures by the July 25 deadline in order to get R-71 on the November ballot. However state elections officials threw out thousands of signatures, recognizing 121,617 signatures as the final tally. According to the Washington Secretary of State, just 120,557 were required to secure approval for the Referendum.

However the situation in Washington is far more precarious than in Maine, as homosexual activists plan to file a lawsuit on Thursday arguing that Secretary of State Sam Reed certified thousands of invalid signatures, which would then disqualify R-71 from the November ballot.

Yet the Protect Marriage Washington coalition is also fighting attempts by two homosexual activist groups to make the identities public of all Referendum 71 signers. The groups and have vowed to create searchable databases of the signers' names, along with the amount they gave and their place of employment. It is unclear whether their home addresses will also be published.

Read the full story here.