Posts Tagged ‘ADF’
“It is no longer debatable that there exists a coordinated, nationwide effort to redefine marriage.” These words were part of the testimony given by president and general counsel of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia, Jeremy Dys. (Click here to download the entire testimony)
This testimony was part of a two-hour legislative hearing by a special study committee to research the implications of whether or not to proceed with a statewide ballot measure to allow the people of West Virginia to vote on the permanent definition of marriage between one man and one woman. Among those testifying were representatives from the ACLU and Fairness West Virginia, both in opposition to such a measure, and the Family Policy Council and Alliance Defense Fund, speaking in support of the people’s right to vote.
The opposition argued that since West Virginia has a DOMA law that a constitutional amendment is “unnecessary” and “redundant,” according to Seth DiStefano of the ACLUWV. But obviously Mr. DiStefano has not been paying attention to other states as activist judges and courts have single handedly struck down those DOMA laws and, without any input from its citizens, legalized same-sex marriage. It is quite obvious to any astute observer that DOMA laws are not safe without constitutional amendments.
Further arguments were made that since no dispute over the definition of marriage in West Virginia has occurred to date, that there is not urgency in a marriage amendment. But those remarks were rebuffed by ADF senior counsel Jordan Lorence,
“Taking no preventative measures because disputes over the definition of marriage have not occurred in West Virginia is ‘like saying we don’t need a swine flu vaccination because we don’t have an epidemic. You don’t wait until the controversy is on you before you start dealing with (it), when you see a problem elsewhere; prevention is always a wise course of action.’”
Later in the hearing, when committee members asked Dys about the idea of allowing civil unions, he simply pointed to the precedent of other states on the issue.
“Dys said those in favor of same-sex marriage are not satisfied with the ‘everything but name only approach.’ [He] added that legislatures in Vermont and New Hampshire had taken such approaches. ‘People there were not satisfied with that, they wanted to go one step further and so they advocated for same-sex marriage, and Vermont, New Hampshire have now legislatively redefined marriage without the input of citizens.’” (Charleston Daily Mail)
The truth is that proponents of same-sex marriage will by any means necessary keep voters out of the decision making process on this issue because they know that the majority of voters in nearly every state support the traditional definition of marriage; were these not true groups such as the ACLU and Fairness WV would support the people’s right to vote. The only reason not to support the people’s right to vote is when you know that such a vote will not go in your favor. And traditional marriage advocates know that if the people are given the opportunity to vote that traditional marriage will be sealed for good.
“Advocates of same-sex “marriage” know they cannot win at the ballot box, and so they deploy a variety of strategies designed to take the question of marriage out of the hands of the people,” Dys said in a recent article for the FPCWV’s blog Engage
But thanks to Dys and the FPCWV, along with support from the ADF, the voices of 94% of West Virginians that believe it is their job and not judges or the courts to define marriage in their state were heard. And our message will continue to be:
“The Constitution of the State of West Virginia belongs to its people. There being no legitimate reason to preclude West Virginians from voting on it, we urge the Legislature to protect every West Virginian’s right to vote on whether the legal definition of marriage ought to be between one man and one woman.”
A good reminder to look around the smoke screen of “religious exemption” provisions meant to satiate politicians who are looking for cover to advance their agenda to redefine marriage.
CONCORD, N.H. — New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch and same-sex “marriage” supporters insist that proposed revisions to legislation that would make New Hampshire the sixth state to redefine marriage will not infringe on religious liberties. But ADF attorneys argue that Lynch’s added protections–and the anticipated concession by the drafters–is merely smoke and mirrors geared to divert attention from the fact that recognizing same-sex “marriage” in the Granite State would open up a Pandora’s Box of new attacks on religious freedom.
“Contrary to what marriage redefinition activists might argue, redefining marriage in New Hampshire would have serious consequences for the religious community beyond the limited protections the governor has proposed,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks. “The governor is right to recognize the threat to religious liberty, but he underestimates the threat by a long shot. Where are the protections for business owners with religious objections to recognizing same-sex ‘marriages’? Formally affiliated organizations are not the only ones who need their religious liberty protected.”
Mike Johnson of the Alliance Defense Fund with a stern warning to…..ourselves. He concludes:
The basic building block of every successful society in history has been the stable, two-parent family. Healthy marriages benefit everyone, and there is simply no replacement for a mom and a dad — because that’s how God designed it. It is no surprise that children blessed to be raised in these households do better in every measureable category of well-being, and usually become happier, more productive citizens.
What shall we do? The answers seem obvious: vigorously defend the institutions of traditional marriage and the family; encourage marriage strengthening initiatives and premarital education; and support innovative faith-based programs, and the often heroic, countercultural efforts of churches and pro-family organizations. Many more of us need to speak the truth in love.
The bottom line is that family stability eventually determines national prosperity and security. If we don’t reverse these current trends, all the government programs in the world will be unable to save our society. We’d better get busy.
Our friends at the Alliance Defense Fund have written a very compelling letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C. We concur. If you’re curious what all the fuss is about, I encourage you to review their entire letter as well:
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys warn that the U.S. Senate should not pass H.R. 1913, the so-called ‘hate crimes’ bill. If it becomes law, ADF attorneys say the bill could severely impede Americans’ constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression while creating additional legal protections for those engaged in homosexual behavior that are not available to everyone else.
“All violent crimes are hate crimes, and all crime victims deserve equal justice,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “So-called ‘hate crime’ laws actually serve only one purpose: The criminalization of citizens based on whatever thoughts, beliefs, and emotions they have that are not considered to be ‘politically correct.’ No one should fall for the idea that this bill does anything to bring about greater justice for Americans.”
ADF attorneys delivered a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 22 urging it to reject the bill, then numbered 1391.
Hat tip – the Alliance Alert.
By almost any measurement, January wasn’t a very good month for children. As much as activists and politicians love to repeat the mantra that “children are our future,” the hard truth is that they seek to use all three branches of government to aggressively corrupt, corrode, and curtail that future for the next generation – the born and the unborn, within and beyond the borders of these increasingly less United States.
Read the rest of the editorial here.
Oh, and be sure to read all the way to the last sentence.
Food for further thought:
As they say in government, but we mean sincerely here, my good friend Austin Nimocks has written a tremendous piece on TownHall.com. I can’t bear to think that you would just see the link and not read it in it’s entirety, so I am posting the entire editorial below.
Well done, Austin.
On the whole, there shouldn’t have been a surer thing than the defeat of Proposition 8 in the California elections last month.
The activists pressing for the approval of same-sex “marriage” had all the heavyweights on their side of the issue: major corporations, big money, the media, the Hollywood elites, the California Teachers’ Association and the university big-wigs, the governor and the attorney general, and a fair portion of the legislature. Even the state’s high court climbed into the ring, ignoring past election results to legalize same-sex ceremonies in a controversial decision last spring.
Going into November, activists promoting the same-sex agenda were giving defenders of marriage a public pounding that even boxing legend Jack Dempsey might have found impressive.
And yet …the activists lost. What’s more, they’re stilllosing—giving up round after round in the crucial post-election bout for public sympathy. And curiously, they’re losing for the same reason the powerful Dempsey lost his heavyweight title fight in 1927.
Boxing fans had waited a year for the rematch between the brutal “Manassa Mauler” and the nimble “Fighting Marine” Gene Tunney, who had won an upset victory against the legendary, savage Dempsey not by knockout, but on points. Now, Dempsey wanted his title back—and in no time, the rematch found Tunney lying dazed and face down on the mat.
And that might have been it…except for what became known as “the long count.”
New rules required boxers to retire to a neutral corner once their opponents were down. Only then could a referee start the 10-second count. But Dempsey was famous for looming over a fallen opponent, waiting to pummel him if he dared get to his knees. And that’s what he did now, despite the ref’s warning.
Long seconds ticked by before Dempsey stormed to his corner…and by then, Tunney had regained his senses. Staggering to his feet on the ninth second of the ten-count, he came back to beat Dempsey again.
There’s a lesson there for activists who are, if anything, less willing than Dempsey to go to a neutral corner and await the judges’ decision. Faced with election results they don’t like—and stung by the upset victory of their opponents—they’ve come out swinging, filing no less than six lawsuits to have the election results nullified and attacking their foes outside the courtroom, too.
By doing so, they’re putting themselves and their cause down for the count in the eyes of a growing number of their fellow citizens. As more and more stories of retaliation and vicious persecution crowd the evening news and morning paper, you can almost hear people counting off reasons to look twice at those who’ve portrayed their cause as a monument to “tolerance”:
One … blacklisting. The activists have laid hold of a list of those who donated to Proposition 8’s defense, and they’re using those lists to intimidate, ostracize, and bully individual citizens and business owners. Some establishments have been effectively closed down by protesters, while a number of employers have succumbed to outrageous pressure to fire workers who merely exercised their God-given rights to speak freely and support the proposition.
Two … denigrating Christians and the Bible. In defending a recent error-ridden Newsweek cover story on “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage,” editor Jon Meacham joined many same-sex “marriage” activists in contriving to prove that, by denouncing homosexual behavior, the Bible is actually endorsing it—although the Bible is not to be trusted, anyway, he says, since “to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.” (In other words, taking the Bible seriously is a disgrace to those who take the Bible seriously.)
Three … church attacks. Across California and around the country, Mormon temples, Catholic churches, and evangelical congregations have been picketed, mobbed, invaded, damaged, and desecrated. In many places, church members have been verbally and physically assaulted.
Four … mock germ warfare. Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City received threatening letters in envelopes containing an unidentified powder.
Five … attacks on the elderly. In Palm Springs, California, protesters yanked a cross out of the hands of an elderly woman and stomped on it. In nearby Carlsbad, a man assaulted an elderly couple who put up signs in their yard supporting Proposition 8.
Six … racist attacks and insinuations. Blacks (who supported Proposition 8 in large numbers) have been accosted with racial slurs—not in inner-city neighborhoods, but in areas like wealthy Brentwood, where many report being physically threatened as well. Ironically, even some blacks who picketed against the proposition were verbally assaulted by other same-sex activists.
Seven … co-opting the Civil Rights movement. These same activists have made disingenuous efforts to paint their campaign as the philosophical parallel to what blacks endured half a century ago—as if securing public enthusiasm for legal sexual behavior was somehow the moral equivalent of winning voting rights and access to public facilities.
Eight … indoctrinating children. Those pressing the same-sex agenda continue to focus an abundance of effort and resources on brainwashing the next generation of children other than their own. For this, they are using health classes, assemblies, field trips, and other venues away from parents to acclimate children as young as kindergarteners to the idea that same-sex “marriage” is as morally valid and laudable as real marriage.
Nine … despising democracy. Unwilling to accept the voters’ verdict on Proposition 8, supporters of same-sex “marriage” are determined to do an end-run on the ballot box, accomplishing their objectives by judicial fiat and strong-arm tactics of tyranny, violence, and intimidation.
Ten … silence. The conspicuous lack of criticism these vicious assaults have received from the leaders of the homosexual political movement speaks volumes. Obviously, these activists have few qualms about the methods or madness being displayed by those who share their political priorities. Their profound contempt for the most basic freedoms of the very citizens whose endorsement they demand is an irremovable stain on their cause.
That’s a full count—but the count goes on, because the judges of California’s Supreme Court haven’t ruled yet. Awaiting their decision is a growing crowd of Americans who have repeatedly shown that they will go to the mat to protect marriage between one man and one woman—only, unlike the activists who oppose them, they’ve done it with a ballot in hand instead of a fist in the air.
Food for further thought:
Traditional Marriage Transcends Lines, by Nathan Cherry.
Sour Grapes Turn More Bitter, by Nathan Cherry.
As you are likely aware, voters in the states of California, Arizona, and Florida voted last week to amend their state constitutions in defense of marriage as between one man and one woman. Leading up to that, those opposed to those measures lashed out by vandalizing personal property, filing frivolous lawsuits, and even physically assaulting senior supporters of the marriage protection amendments.
Just before election day, the following video was launched against the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (who, without their help, Prop 8 would have likely failed):
How tolerant. To our friends in the LDS church, thank you for your gracious stand for marriage. Be encouraged.
Now that the election is over, things are far from quiet. Three lawsuits have been filed in an attempt to undue the democratic process. And, last of all, the blogs of same-sex “marriage” proponents keep demonstrating their commitment to (in)tolerance.
Decisions by voters in Florida, Arizona and California to join residents of 27 other states with constitutional protections for traditional marriage have prompted threats of violence against Christians and their churches.
“Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers,” wrote “World O Jeff” on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier.
. . .
On a blog website, “Tread” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.”
Another contributor to the JoeMyGod website said, “While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve.”
A contributor identifying himself as “Joe” said, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”
For more, if you care to stomach it, read the entire WorldNetDaily.com article.
Food for Further Thought: