Yes on Proposition 8 Headlines
Louisiana forced to recognize same-sex adoption
Two California homosexuals have won a federal lawsuit, allowing both their names to be on their adopted son's Louisiana birth certificate.
According to Chron.com, the state of Louisiana initially refused the request because homosexual adoption and same-sex "marriage" are illegal in that state. Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith then filed a lawsuit, which stated that leaving their names off the birth certificate "singles out unmarried same-sex couples and their adoptive children for the improper use of making them unequal to every one else."
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University's law school, comments.
"What, essentially, you see happening are these other states, through the back door so to speak, bringing in same-sex unions through these other kinds of methods. It's not generally a direct, head-on, frontal assault with regards to same-sex marriage," he notes. "But the fact is, if a sister state is required to recognize same-sex adoption, even though it doesn't recognize it within the state, that is essentially a component that is a significant, central aspect of marriage."
According to Staver, that lays the legal ground for future lawsuits to mandate recognition of homosexual marriage on other states.
However, difficulties continue to arise in cases of unmarried same-sex couples who wish to adopt. Some registrars do not believe a man's name should be on the birth certificate space labeled "Mother" or a woman's name listed as "Father." The lawyer for Adar and Smith contends some states have "resolve[d] the problem" by changing the form to read "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" instead.
Staver says the federal Defense of Marriage Act needs to be amended to so that no state is forced to accept homosexual adoption that is legal in a sister state.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=371746
Pro-lifers push to 'stop subsidizing' abortion industry
A Kansas state senator wants to defund Planned Parenthood.
Republican Senator Tim Huelskamp explains why he believes it is time to drop funding of the abortion provider. "Planned Parenthood has been under criminal investigation for nearly a year now, and they've found probable cause to have committed 107 misdemeanor and felony counts in our state," he contends.
On a national level, Planned Parenthood gets many millions of federal tax dollars and makes a sizeable profit, even though it is a nonprofit organization. "It makes no sense that hundreds of thousands of pro-life Kansans have to fork over more than $550,000 to this organization," he adds. "That's the amount we've discovered."
Huelskamp is submitting a bill to the Kansas legislature to defund the abortion provider. "I think it's time to stop subsidizing the actions of an organization that operates under a cloud of suspicion and scandal," he concludes.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=370710
'Never Again' - combatting a culture of death
In the aftermath of the passage of an assisted suicide constitutional amendment in Washington State, Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, says the meeting and discussion are especially important "to build a culture that rejects 'mercy killing.'"
"And the purpose of the symposium itself will be to bring together our leadership and other people who are interested in the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide and to forge a stronger and forceful direction as to why euthanasia and assisted suicide should remain illegal and why it is a direct threat to our most vulnerable in society," he notes.
According to Schadenberg, that includes the handicapped and the elderly. While top experts will be there, he says it is important for the everyday citizen to join with them as well.
"We should all be concerned about it, but those people who are particularly wanting to do something to stop the onward thrust of this death lobby, they need to understand the directions we need to all go," he points out.
Aside from Washington, only Oregon permits doctor-assisted suicide. The theme for the symposium is "Never Again." Schadenberg says almost every leader in combating assisted suicide and euthanasia in the United Kingdom and North America will be attending or lecturing at the symposium.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=371712
protectmarriage: @sisterlisa yep, got a DM bout some blog link, linked to what looked like a Twitter login, entered login/password, that's what got me...
protectmarriage: sisterlisa and jstrevino -- thanks for the heads up
protectmarriage: Ugh, I've been phished. Sorry for any random messages you may have received!
An indulgence of adult desires
Nothing like the Christmas season to remind us how selfish and adult-centred we should be.
No, you’re right. That doesn’t sound very good.
I have been struggling for a while now to come up with a good logical reason why I dislike stories about surrogate motherhood like this one (requires free registration to the New York Times website). In “Her Body, My Baby,” New York City writer/socialite Alex Kuczynski tells the often heart-wrenching story of how she went from wanting a baby to having a baby. It’s a journey most people go through reasonably straightforwardly but in her case it involved no end of medical complications, ultimately resolved by cutting-edge science, tens of thousands of dollars, and a spare womb inside a 43-year-old Pennsylvania substitute schoolteacher.
You should read the article for yourself, when you’re in the mood and have a good cup of coffee handy. It is very long but also very detailed, and remarkably honest for a woman famous for having written a book about plastic surgery.
I should state at the outset that I sympathize with Ms. Kuczynski’s desire to be a mother and with the pain her own inability to carry a child to term therefore caused her. I also wish to keep an open mind about the surrogate mother, Cathy, and her expressed desire to be “needed in a profound, unique way.” I admit I don’t get it (pregnancy and childbirth for the pure altruistic fun of it?), but I accept it as presented. And most importantly, I do not want to imply that Max, Ms. Kuczynski’s son, did not deserve to live. His conduct is blameless. And he’s here now, so let’s leave him out of the story. But it is possible to approve of an end and still disapprove of the means.
The question here is, why does surrogate motherhood make many of us recoil? Even so-called “gestational surrogacy,” where the surrogate mother did not contribute her egg to the equation, which is the sort Ms. Kuczynski had. In this kind of assisted pregnancy the child that emerges from the surrogate mother is the biological offspring of the parents who will raise him. He has no genetic connection to his “host mother”. The woman who carries him and nurtures him in utero and goes through the pain of childbirth for him must give him up – for, after all, he is not hers.
There’s something very wrong about that. The question is, what?
Yes, the objective is to produce a child, which is good. Yes, all people involved participate voluntarily, which is good. Yes, the surrogate mother, who agreed to the arrangement, is well looked after medically and is compensated financially for her services. It does not sound like exploitation. But it is.
When the prospective parents look for a suitable candidate, they look at her reproductive history, her health, her family situation, and all manner of personal details. Even if you agree to put yourself on the rent-a-womb block, the fact remains that selecting a candidate based on her breeding record is, at the very least, crass objectifying. I’m re-reading Uncle Tom’s Cabin these days, and I can’t help seeing images of potential buyers examining the “merchandise” by looking into its mouth. Yes, its.
“Whoa, honey! Check out the size of that uterus!”
Not very dignified.
Sometimes I envy religious folks. They seem to have such a clearer view of what’s right and what’s not. For instance, the Vatican just released Dignitas Personae, a set of guidelines for the modern bio-ethics age. It reasserts that “any form of surrogate motherhood” is “illicit”.
The reasons are outlined in an earlier document, Donum Vitae:
“Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.”
Basically, the Church appears to think that the only morally licit way to produce children is via the conjugal act between man and wife. Who knew the crusty old moralists were so keen on the fun part?
It’s all fine and good to be against offending the dignity of a child. And certainly one can object, with current techniques, to how assisted reproduction treats the other children: the discarded “superfluous” embryos, those left behind in the Petri dishes, the ones frozen and never thawed, and the ones conceived with donor gametes who will never know their genetic history. It’s also quite fine to promote conjugal fidelity and happy, fruitful marriages. But surrogacy doesn’t have to involve unfaithfulness or unhappiness. And it’s not quite enough to explain my reaction against surrogate motherhood.
No. What bothers me most about it is that it is part of a wider culture that promotes and aggressively encourages anything that lets adults indulge their every whim and fancy. On any given day, countless women go for an abortion while countless others go through invasive assisted reproductive techniques while other women wait to have their uterus chosen to carry someone else’s precious embryo or their ovaries plucked so they can sell their eggs. The only moral standard here is that whatever I want is right, and must be mine. It is not possible to build a coherently decent society on such a basis.
Methinks it’s also not a very grown-up way to behave.
Brigitte Pellerin is a writer and broadcaster based in Ottawa.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/an_indulgence_of_adult_desires/
Prop 8 Debate with Gloria Allred and Andy Pugno January 14, 2009
Register Now
Prop 8 Debate with Gloria Allred and Andy Pugno January 14, 2009
Come weigh-in about how California defines marriage - audience Q&A to follow debate. Join Gloria Allred, attorney representing Robin Tyler and Diane Olson vs. California when she debates Andy Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com/Yes on Prop 8.
The debate will be moderated by Judy Muller, Associate Professor, USC Annenberg School for Communication & Correspondent, ABC News.
Allred filed with the California Supreme Court on November 5th on behalf of Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, who were the first same-sex couple to marry this June in Los Angeles County. Allred said the lawsuit will contain a new and controversial legal argument as to why Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.
Ga. Supreme Court Sponsors ‘Get Married, Stay Married’ Billboards
http://abajournal.com/news/ga._supreme_court_sponsors_get_married_stay_married_billboards
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A Georgia Supreme Court commission is so concerned about the impact of broken families that it is sponsoring a dozen billboards throughout the state with the message “Get Married, Stay Married.”
Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears told the Fulton County Daily Report that she hopes the billboards will help bring down divorce and crime rates, and push fathers to stay involved in their children’s lives.
"It's our job to say to the legislature, and to the executive, 'We see and notice this,' " she told the publication. “We do more than just read cases. We see a lot of human devastation. It's my job to speak out."
Sears is promoting intact families despite her own divorce after 20 years of marriage, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports. “It’s politically incorrect to say marriage has benefits,” she said. “Let’s not be afraid to say marriage is a good thing.”
The Georgia Supreme Court’s Commission on Children, Marriage and Family Law sponsored the billboards and convened a pro-marriage conference last week. Participants talked about topics ranging from the role of spirituality in supporting marriage to whether gay marriage promotes family stability. Sears moderated the gay marriage debate, but didn’t take a position. She told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the issue needs to be addressed by legislation.
The Georgia Bar Foundation paid the $50,000 cost to produce the billboards, and the Outdoor Advertising Association of Georgia donated the space, Sears said. Private foundations also picked up much of the cost of the marriage summit.
The billboards picture a happy looking family or a contented baby and carry an additional message, according to the story in the Fulton County Daily Report. The blurb on some billboards reads, "Children do better with parents together." The other message simply says, "For Children's Sake."
The billboards also list a website, www.getmarriedstaymarried.org.
Lesbian couple wins suit against Methodist camp
In March 2007 the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association refused to permit two lesbians -- Harriet Bernstein, 67, and Luisa Paster, 61 -- to stage a civil union ceremony at the church-owned Boardwalk Pavilion, and returned their check for $250. Subsequently, says Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, the lesbians filed a legal complaint against group. However, Association officials countered that the decision was based on their religious beliefs.
"That didn't make any difference to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights," says Staver of the group that issued its determination on Monday. "They said there's no First Amendment defense here and in fact the church violated the public accommodation law in New Jersey," the attorney notes. "After New Jersey adopted the same-sex civil union law, no longer could the church allow its facility to be used in ministry to the public because to do so would open them up to these same-sex civil unions."
Staver says that puts the church in a quandary. "The church has really been put in the situation where the clash between the same-sex civil unions and the religious liberty is forcing the church to either violate its own religious freedom or open up its facility to the community," he points out.
The church lost a federal court decision dealing with the same matter, and that case is on appeal. The Camp Meeting Association is represented in the case by the Alliance Defense Fund, which has argued that a Christian organization has a constitutional right to use its facilities in a manner consistent with its beliefs.
Founded in 1869, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is affiliated with the United Methodist Church.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=369390
Modesty 'irrelevant' at Univ. of Chicago
Laurie Higgins, the director of the division of school advocacy with the Illinois Family Institute, calls the decision troubling, but not surprising. "I think it reflects a number of troubling assumptions: One is that sex differences are irrelevant, that modesty is irrelevant -- and modesty is not equivalent to prudery -- that parental values and beliefs are irrelevant," she notes.
The living arrangements will not be available to freshman, and the University of Chicago states that it is not aiming for "romantic couples," but couples will not be banned from rooming together. Higgins believes the living arrangements could lead to an increase in sexual assault and that the university is sending a message that it does not care about promiscuity.
"In addition, it's not going to stop here," she contends. "[At] some colleges they actually have coed bathrooms, which of course further emphasizes the idea that sex differences are irrelevant and modesty is irrelevant to administrations."
Higgins notes that one college student argued in favor of the rule change, citing that 18-year-olds are allowed to smoke cigarettes and own guns so they should be allowed to live together. In response to that argument, Higgins points out that most students are not allowed to smoke or have guns in dorm rooms.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=368454
Pharmacists sue IL governor over right of conscience
The pharmacists sued because the order violated their religious beliefs against selling certain abortifacients like the "morning-after pill." Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Center explains why the pharmacists filed suit.
"There is a law in Illinois that allows pharmacists and pharmacies to allow their rights to conscience to take precedence over these kinds of things," he notes.
Rooney believes the governor's executive order requiring them to dispense and sell the drugs was illegal. "When you have a duly enacted statute of law by the legislature, it always takes precedence over an executive order," he points out.
Blagojevich's executive order, according to Rooney, has already hurt the pharmacy industry in Illinois. "There were businesses going out of business," he adds. "There were pharmacists that were being let go -- all because they had deeply held religious beliefs and deeply held moral beliefs."
The state Supreme Court has ruled that pharmacists should be heard, so a trial will soon be held in a lower court.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=368086
Texans boot Planned Parenthood
Then the state reduced funding for the organization, and pro-life workers also continued in their efforts to shut Planned Parenthood's doors. "And as of December 31, there will no longer be any Planned Parenthood offices in the Texas panhandle," Sedlak explains. "They will all be gone."
The two remaining clinics in Amarillo have disaffiliated with the national organization. Sedlak says other cities can accomplish the same goal if they are determined, and information on that is available on the Stopp website.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=368156
Newt Gingrich Warns of ‘Gay Fascism’
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich warns that a “gay and secular fascism” in the U.S. is prepared to use violence to impose its will on the rest of the country.
Appearing on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” on Nov. 14, Gingrich and host Bill O’Reilly discussed the recently passed California ballot initiative, Proposition 8, amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
O’Reilly cited the protests by gay activists that broke out after the vote and troubling incidents associated with them, including a woman who had a cross knocked out of her hand and a Michigan church invaded by gay activists.
Gingrich responded: “I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact.”
He went on: “For that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they’re the opposite of what you’re taught in Sunday school.”
Continue reading the rest of the article at: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Gingrich_Gay_Fascism/2008/11/18/152539.html
Sign and pass on this petition to protect your rights and voice
Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter’s Will
If you are a California citizen, please act immediately to sign this petition to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who is urging the California Supreme Court to overthrow the results of the recent free and fair election which passed Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. His actions as governor in attempting to negate this vote are an insult to the voters of California and undermine the rule of law. We will deliver this letter with your signatures to his office as a means of saying that the voices of the voters should neither be disregarded, nor silenced.
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
Since election day, you have made comments urging the California Supreme Court to overturn the citizens’ will in passing Proposition 8 in California defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This was passed after a rigorous election process by a healthy margin of 52% to 48%.
You have recommended that the state Supreme Court declare the initiative unconstitutional and said, “The important thing now is to resolve this issue.” The election passing Proposition 8 did resolve the issue, according to the most basic tenet of our free society, which is based on the “consent of the governed.”
When Thomas Jefferson put that language about “consent of the governed” in the Declaration of Independence, it was not just a nice-sounding phrase, but the keystone of the Declaration and, indeed, the entire revolution. It captured the fundamental reason the colonists had decided to leave the British Commonwealth, and why they were willing, as the Declaration put it, to “pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” to the cause of independence. The hallmark and foundation of this country is the “consent of the governed.”
James Wilson of New Jersey, who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution, wrote that “the only reason why a free and independent man was bound by human laws was this - that he bound himself.” In other words, he consented to be bound by them, because he participated in the process.
To try to overturn an election is an insult to voters and undermines the democratic process. As governor, it is your responsibility to support and defend the California constitution, which now reads that marriage is between a man and a woman and the foundation processes of our country that are based on “consent of the governed.”
We urge you to:
- Publically accept the results of the ballot initiative as the will of the people
- Publically recant any suggestions that the California Supreme Court should overturn the voice of a free and fair election.
- Condemn the recent assaults upon the First Amendment rights of supporters of Proposition 8. We echo what the Protect Marriage coalition has said, “Amidst all this lawlessness, harassment, trampling of civil rights and now domestic terrorism, one thing stands out: the deafening silence of our elected officials. Not a single elected leader has spoken out against what is happening.” We look to you to speak out against those who would silence free speech by targeting donors, disrupting church services and vandalizing property.
Sincerely,
Your Name & Address Here
Current Number of Signatures: 23699, Thank you for your support!
Please pass this petition on to your friends and urge them to sign it by clicking here. http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php
Next Steps on Prop 8
Dear Friends,
Many people have asked what the Yes on 8 campaign has in mind for next steps. There has been, unfortunately, some chatter from outside groups who claim to represent the Yes on 8 campaign, that has resulted in confusion as to what we are doing. As you know, ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8 is the only official campaign in favor of Proposition 8. It was our group that qualified the measure for the ballot and raised the approximately $40 million to pass the initiative. We had significant help from some critical allies like the National Organization for Marriage, Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and Family Research Council. But ProtectMarriage.com is the only committee that passed Prop. 8. Some other groups are attempting to use the passage of Prop 8 for fundraising and publicity purposes. I’d like to address what we are focusing on, what we are not focusing on, and ask for your continued prayers in support of our efforts.
Legal Challenge. Our most important work now is to defend the People’s right to enact Proposition 8. We have asked the California Supreme Court to set a hearing to decide on the challenges that have been filed against Prop 8 because we are confident that the Court will do the right thing and uphold our right to enact the measure by initiative. By encouraging the Court to hear and decide these cases now, we are hoping to avoid years of costly litigation over Prop 8 as the cases would normally wind through the court system. We have also urged the Court to deny all of the requests for preliminary injunctions that would suspend Prop 8 while the cases are pending in the Supreme Court.
Since we, as the Official Proponents, were not originally named in the lawsuits, we have asked the Court to allow us to formally intervene as official parties, so we can vigorously defend Prop 8. Also, we are opposing the efforts of other groups to intervene in the cases, including the Campaign for California Families which actually campaigned against Proposition 8 until a short time before the election. Since we are the only organization representing the official proponents and the campaign committee that was responsible for passing Prop 8, allowing outside groups to participate in the defense of Prop 8 will only harm our chances of success.
Public relations. We continue to work vigorously in the court of public opinion to defend Proposition 8. Our campaign firm, Schubert Flint Public Affairs, is still on board and is working on long-term public relations strategies for consideration by the Executive Committee. Schubert Flint and members of the Executive Committee have given hundreds of media interviews over the past two weeks defending Proposition 8 from attack.
Future planning. Because we fully expect to prevail in court, we expect that, at some point, we will need to defeat a ballot proposal by advocates of same-sex marriage. Our opponents have threatened such a proposal as early as 2010. We are already beginning the planning process to lay the groundwork to defeat a future proposed initiative that would legalize gay marriage. What we are not doing is discussing the possibility of recalling justices who oppose us. We are fully confident that the California Supreme Court will uphold Proposition 8, even if some members of the Court disagree with the issue. We encourage all supporters of Proposition 8 to set aside any discussions about the possibility of recalling any justice of the Court. We see no need for such discussion. For now we must allow the Court to make the correct legal decision. Making threats to recall justices from office is counter-productive and harmful to our chances of winning in Court.
Counter-protests. Many of our supporters have asked about holding events to offset the numerous protests that have been held by our opponents. We organized a press conference last Friday in Southern California that was heavily attended by the media. This event showcased the vast support that Proposition 8 received from a wide array of groups, including representatives of numerous faith traditions and ethnic backgrounds. Beyond that rally, we do not encourage supporters to organize local demonstrations or counter-protests. Doing so will only spawn further protests from our opponents and potentially spark street-corner confrontations. Criticism of our opponents’ tactics is mounting daily and they would dearly love to provoke our supporters into a confrontation that makes us look like aggressors. Every protest our opponents launch features angry gays screaming at California voters. They call voters bigots and homophobes, and many of them have used racially derogatory terms in referring to African Americans and their strong support for Proposition 8. Their protests are doing great harm to their public position.
Fundraising. We currently have a campaign surplus which is allowing us the ability to continue defending Proposition 8 for a period of time. However, we will likely launch a new fundraising effort in a few weeks to ensure that we have the financial resources necessary to compete in the Supreme Court and the court of public opinion. As you consider giving, please remember that our committee is the only committee that represents Proposition 8 – defending it before the courts and with the public.
Prayers. Please keep the leadership of the campaign, our consultants and our supporters in your prayers. All of us have been targeted by gay activists with vile emails, phone calls and threats. We are praying for those like Scott Eckern, who was forced to resign as Artistic Director of the California Musical Theater because he gave our campaign a $1,000 donation, and for the owners of El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles who are being boycotted because an employee supported us. One supporting business was forced to shut down its Web site and send all phone calls to voice mail due to the disgusting harassment by our opponents. These are just a few examples of those who have been subjected to hateful actions by our opponents who, ironically, demand tolerance from others but seem so incapable of showing tolerance themselves. Thank you for your continued support of traditional marriage and Proposition 8.
Thank you,
Ron Prentice
Chairman, Yes on Proposition 8
© 2008 ProtectMarriage.com. All Rights Reserved. ProtectMarriage.com is a project of California Renewal (I.D. #1302592) | Contact Us
