Happy Martin Luther King Day: Fight the FOCA

Happy Martin Luther King Day! We have achieved so many dreams for civil rights in this country. We have a black president! Children of all races go to school together. No one has to drink from a separate drinking fountain.

Despite all of these beautiful advances, unborn children have no rights. Their lives are at the mercy of their mothers’ choice.

Came across this post at the Opine-Editorials blog. It has some compelling ideas about how to fight the Foca.

Newly Minted Federalists: Freedom of Choice Act

by Op-Ed

"Newly Minted Federalists" is what Opine contributor Fitz called foes of the Federal Marriage Amendment back in 2007. Then, several senators voted against bringing the amendment to a vote on the grounds that marriage was a social issue best left to the states. Fitz doubted their sincerity at the time, and perhaps with good reason. The proposed amendment was voted down primarily on party lines with the Democrats voting against. Democrats historically have not been known for their support of states' rights.

Federalism, it seemed, was simply a convenient fig leaf behind which senators at the time hoped to hide their opposition to marriage as currently constituted. Well now we have a chance to put these newly minted federalists to the test.

Democrats are planning to introduce a sweeping bill taking away what little latitude has been left to the states in that other contentious social issue of our time: abortion. Senate Democrats, flush from their gains in the 2008 election plan on reintroducing the Freedom Of Choice Act, a bill designed to crush existing state laws regulating abortion, many of which have already been found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have included below the names of all Senators who opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2007. I cannot research myself all of these senators to see which gave "states' rights" as their reason, but I urge Opine readers to call their senators and ask if they voted for states' rights in 2007 whether they plan on voting the same way when it comes to federalizing abortion. While you're at it, feel free to call President Elect Obama's office and get his take. In 2007 he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment on the grounds that it should be left to the states but he promises to vote against states' rights and sign the Freedom of Choice Act if it makes it to his desk.

Senators voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment:

Email links for senators: Family Leader Network Map

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)

Full results of the vote can be found here. Votes on a house version in 2006 can be found here.

Technorati Tags: Civil rights,Martin Luther King Day,fight the FOCA,federal marriage amendment,senators,federalism,federalists,newly minted federalists

Sign the Petition: Oppose Senate Resolution 7 and HR 5 in the Assembly

From United Families International:

Since the passage of Prop 8 California's Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger has gone on record calling for the State Supreme Court to overturn that vote.

Our state senate and assembly have drafted resolutions blatantly fighting against Prop 8.

"On Tuesday, [...] Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (both D-San Francisco) launched senate resolution 7 and HR 5 in the Assembly. If approved, the bills would place both houses of the California Legislature on record as opposing the controversial initiative and declaring it an illegal revision to the state constitution." Politicker CA, December 2, 2008

Remind California legislators of their responsibility to voters: sign this petition

Write to your State Senator and Assemblymen---Let them know they are accountable to the people who voted for them.

Camel in the Tent: New Jersey Civil Union Findings

We found this post on Beetle Blogger.

We think people should know about it.

“What do we want?” “Equality!” “When do we want it?” Now!”

“All we want is to be equal!” “Stop Treating us like second-class citizens!

Oh…No Wait…Equal Isn’t Enough.
Let’s Call it Marriage!

Camel nose in the tent strategy rears it’s head in New Jersey.

A New Jersey commission on the legal equality of civil unions in that state has weighed in on the marriage debate. After talking to everyone under the sun and not being able to find a single case where the legal benefits of civil unions differed from the legal benefits of marriage, the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission has determined that their state should accept gay marriage because civil unions are “too hard to understand”. This is a new tact for same sex advocate groups who have previously stated that all they wanted was to be able to have the same rights as married couples. Now that civil unions are equal under NJ law, the commission says it’s still not good enough. They need to take it to the next level.

The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission (NJ-CURC) was established by the New Jersey Legislature after the passage of the Civil Union Act in February of 2007. The Civil Union Act gave civil unions statewide, all of the legal benefits that were afforded married couples. The duty of the commission was to study all aspects of the Civil Union Act, which authorized civil unions. The Commission’s duties included evaluating the implementation, operation and effectiveness of the act.

There are two obvious problems with the credibility of this study. First, the commission was universally comprised of same sex marriage advocates who elevated anecdotal evidence over actual testimony, and second, they totally missed the boat on the purpose of their commission. They basically heard a bunch of private citizens and gay activist groups saying “it’s not the same… we want the word marriage”, and responded to that rather than just doing their job which was to make sure that there was no legal discrimination against civil unions.

They were supposed to come back with results like, “this law makes same sex unions and marriage equal under the law” or “same sex unions are unequal in the following areas.” What they did say was same sex unions are too complex for hospitals and others to understand so we should make Civil Unions into Marriages. This conclusion was based on, as far as I can tell, absolutely no firsthand testimony.
State Healthcare Facility Director, John Calabria who is responsible for responding to complaints from citizens of New Jersey about medical institutions testified directly to them that “We have received no complaints” regarding the compliance of medical facilities to the Civil Union Act. Although the agency receives 8000-9000 complaints per year, none of them was about being discriminated against in a medical institution.
New Jersey Director of the Division of Taxation, Maureen Adams was given the leading question, “If the state moved to marriage, how that might affect [the taxation of citizens with civil unions] that you’ve just testified to?” She responded, “There would be no fiscal impact, any filing impact, has all been realized with the Civil Union Law.” AKA you can’t give these people anything to make them more equal.

On the other hand, impassioned testimony from Peggy Sheahan-Knee who is the President of the New Jersey State Bar Association agrees with the commission. She claimed multiple people were discriminated against and denied access to their loved ones in medical institutions. The trouble is that she didn’t provide any specific examples in her testimony. Not only that but her integrity is somewhat in question since she also stated emphatically that, “The Civil Union Law fails to provide equal rights to same-sex couples” but was was unable to provide a single example of this. She provided several examples where the law was misunderstood by the public but none where the law failed to provide equal rights.

So what is the whole conclusion to this befuddled mess? “Since civil unions and marriages are the same, let’s give them the same name to reduce confusion.”

Here’s a newsflash for the Commission….reducing confusion was not on the menu, legal rights were. All this time we’ve been hearing ad nauseum about the gay community needing rights, wanting rights, demanding rights. Now they have them and they’re still not happy. Now we have to have the name, marriage, which is what the whole ordeal has been about from the beginning.

It’s not about rights.

The Associated Press release can be found here

Why is Gay Marriage a 'Right' That is Being Denied?

Opinions submitted to The Wall Street Journal.

In regard to the Dec. 2 Letters to the Editor "Gays Are Fighting the Tyranny of the Majority," responding to William McGurn's Nov. 25 column "Main Street: Gay Marriage and the California Courts":

The correspondents obscure the absence of rational justifications for "gay marriage." Even if substantial majorities in many states are not fooled by phony argumentation and create laws that do not recognize "gay marriage," this does not provide any evidence that a right has been denied. Just because someone claims something as a right does not make it so.

The union of a man and a woman is the natural means by which procreation occurs, and it provides the opportunity for the optimal environment for delivering offspring to maturity with the interplay of male and female perspective. It does not take religion or even a belief in God to come to such a conclusion. And civilized societies free of confused and misplaced guilt recognize this.

Marriage does not discriminate. Whether people choose to marry or opt for an alternative lifestyle is their choice. Californians have been quite tolerant and have made substantial provisions in their laws for gay unions. Other systems (e.g., health insurance, Social Security, etc.) could be easily modified to facilitate the well-being of gay people without corrupting the primary unit of society. But this is not what advocates for "gay marriage" are pursuing. The debate is not about civil rights; it is an attempt to obtain total public acceptance through the pressure of political correctness and ultimately through the force of law.

Dan Pisenti
Mill Valley, Calif.

[Read more...]