The Engage Family Blog

Official Blog of The Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Archive for September 2008

Continue to StandForMarriage.com

leave a comment »

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The stakes are high.

The last few months have seen a drumbeat of court decisions eroding traditional marriage in America. The pace of these assaults is quickening. If we do nothing, marriage in America could be redefined forever.

StandforMarriage.com is borne out of the idea that no one organization or person can bear the burden of this fight alone. We must all stand together to support our friends across America who are fighting the battle to protect marriage on the front lines.

Will you stand with us on the front lines to ensure this battle is won?

The forces aligned against us are determined and strong. The homosexual groups can count on friendly coverage from the media and checks from big Hollywood donors. This is why is helping StandforMarriage.com raise an army of support to win key battles for marriage in the next 35 days.

The Family Policy Council of West Virginia stands firmly behind StandforMarriage.com and we hope you will too. The stakes are too high for us not to act. Please give what you can to support marriage today.

Thanks.

Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq.
President and General Counsel

P.S. In just 2 weeks, StandforMarriage.com has raised more than $55,000.  Many Family Voice readers have done their part.  Now, we’re asking you to recruit your friends to follow your example.  Others, like Tim Gill, are cashing in their reserves.  They think it’s important to put their money where their mouth is.  Do you?

CA: Stand for Marriage California, a Committee for Proposition 8, 3843 S. Bristol St. #434, Santa Ana, CA 92704, paid for by Stand for Marriage, Inc. AZ: Sponsored by the Protect Marriage Committee, paid for by Stand for Marriage, Inc., an out-of-state contributor. FL: Pd. Pol. Adv. sponsored by Florida4Marriage.org, 4853 S. Orange Ave., Suite C, Orlando, FL 32806. Paid for in-kind by Stand For Marriage, Inc., 1 South 6th Street, Terre Haute, IN 47807.

Written by Jeremy Dys

September 29, 2008 at 3:35 pm

DHHS: Should a Physician’s Conscience be Penalized?

with 5 comments

At this point in our nation’s history, it is axiomatic to say that we enjoy a freedom of religion. Yet, at times one wonders just how far that freedom reaches. When abortion “rights” meet rights of conscience, who wins?

The answer to that question (aside from that fact that one is found explicitly within our Constitution and the other only within the “penumbras” surrounding it) is precisely what the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt is trying to figure out. Today is the last day for the public to comment on proposed regulations by HHS that would extend the constitutionally guaranteed rights of conscience to physicians, pharmacists, and other healthcare providers. The proposed regulations would require recipients of Federal dollars to certify that they are compliant with Federal laws protecting the rights of conscience for pro-life medical professionals. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Jeremy Dys

September 25, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Standing for Marriage and Religious Liberty

leave a comment »

Recently there has been much said here at Family Voice about the importance of marriage and why we must stand for it (click here for those articles).  As we stand together for marriage we are also standing together for religious liberty.  The redefinition of marriage will inevitably impact everyone and not just a select few.  For example, in an e-mail sent yesterday from the Family Research Council, we can readily see how the redefinition of marriage will impact religious liberty and different stratospheres of society.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Jeremy Dys

September 24, 2008 at 3:07 pm

You Think We Make This Stuff Up?

leave a comment »

Several years ago, David Schroer, a former Army special forces soldier, applied for a job with the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. Wowing his interviewers, Schroer was immediately offered the job. Just before he began his job, he informed the person who hired him that he was “transitioning” and would be showing up to work, not as David Schroer, but as Diane.

Feeling a bit deceived, not to mention flabbergasted, the hiring official rescinded the job offer. Diane…er…David filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of his civil rights. Last week, U.S. District Judge James Robinson found the Library of Congress guilty of sex discrimination.

Note: it is important to note that the court found the government guilty of sex discrimination, in that (a) whatever discrimination that occurred was premised on David’s sexual orientation since he is yet biologically a man (according to reports) and (b) Federal law does not yet recognize “sexual orientation” as a civil right. At least, not yet.

Said Judge Robinson:

In refusing to hire Diane Schroer because her appearance and background did not comport with the decisionmaker’s sex stereotypes about how men and women should act and appear, and in response to Schroer’s decision to transition, legally, culturally, and physically, from male to female, the Library of Congress violated Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination.

With that, Judge Robinson set precedent (which is being appealed) that men pretending to be women may retrieve protections typically reserved for acts of racism, age discrimination, glass ceilings, sexual harassment, and religious discrimination.

It should be noted that this is the precise scenario that can be expected in WV should bills like S.B. 600 from this year’s legislative session pass. What is unclear, given that the Federal government has not made “sexual orientation” a civil or human right (yet), is whether a similar circumstance might be actionable here in West Virginia.

For more, click here to read the AP’s report of the story. To read the actual decision by Judge Robinson, click here (opens PDF document).

Finally, consider the video below, a work of www.wearethinking.com (Note: Links to websites outside of the FPC does not constitute an endorsement of the content or messages thereon).

Written by Jeremy Dys

September 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm

David Blankenhorn: “Marriage is society’s most pro-child institution.”

leave a comment »

Maybe you saw it already, but today was the first time I had the chance to read last week’s opinion piece in the L.A. Times by self-professed “liberal Democrat” David Blankenhorn.

For those of you who feel ambivalent towards marriage, wanting to protect what we have always known marriage to be, while at the same time accommodating the homosexual lifestyle in some way, please give some thought to Blankenhorn’s logic.

Here are a few snippets to whet your appetite:

I’m a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together. Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That’s certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage.

But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I’ve come to a different conclusion. Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

. . .

All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.

And my personal favorite line:

Moreover, losing [the right for children to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world] will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn’t last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around.

Marriage was the first institution to hold dead-beat parents (Dads, in this case) accountable.

And, to those in the egalitarian camp I mentioned above:

Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these two good things conflict? Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution — marriage — that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.

Ok, so we will agree to disagree, perhaps on some finer points, but on the whole, Blankenhorn has some astute points. When we endorse same-sex “marriage,” we set as public policy a law that would knowingly deprive children of a mom and a dad. We cannot allow that to happen.

Click here to read the rest of this excellent piece.

To support the efforts in CA, AZ, and FL, see our blog entry immediately below.

Written by Jeremy Dys

September 23, 2008 at 6:39 pm

StandForMarriage.com

leave a comment »

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The institution of marriage is under attack. And that attack affects everyone.

Activist judges continue to redefine marriage against the will of the people. The sacred institution of marriage — the underpinning of our families — in being radically redefined in America.

“Gay marriage” is no longer a distant possibility, but becoming a reality in more and more states across our country. And it’s not just in those places you hear about on the news. Many more states will be forced to recognize “gay marriages” performed in other states.

This is why we are proud to support StandforMarriage.com. Over the next 40+, StandforMarriage.com days will be launching a campaign to educate voters across the country about issues that threaten to redefine marriage. Your money will be immediately spent on making sure voters understand what is at stake this year.

Simply go to www.standformarriage.com and support marriage today. Give what you can to support marriage today!

The stakes are too high for us to do nothing. I hope you’ll stand with us in supporting StandforMarriage.com.

CA: Stand for Marriage California, a Committee for Proposition 8, 3843 S. Bristol St. #434, Santa Ana, CA 92704, paid for by Stand for Marriage, Inc. AZ: Sponsored by the Protect Marriage Committee, paid for by Stand for Marriage, Inc., an out-of-state contributor. FL: Pd. Pol. Adv. sponsored by Florida4Marriage.org, 4853 S. Orange Ave., Suite C, Orlando, FL 32806. Paid for in-kind by Stand For Marriage, Inc., 1 South 6th Street, Terre Haute, IN 47807.

Written by Jeremy Dys

September 23, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Posted in Marriage

Tagged with ,

Virtual Debate 08 – Day 6

leave a comment »

Attorney General of West Virginia

Welcome to the final day of Virtual Debate ’08, the opportunity for candidates for statewide office in West Virginia to speak directly to you, the voter.

Today, the office of Attorney General for West Virginia has been given the opportunity to answer questions of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia, our allied ministries, ministry friends, and members of the West Virginia media.  In addition, each candidate was given the option of submitting, and answering, a question of their own design.

Both candidates were given the same questions and the same amount of time to answer them.  It should be noted that each candidate was informed that, should they wish not to participate, then the words, “This candidate has declined participation in Virtual Debate ‘08” beside their entry.

It is not our intent to endores or oppose any candidate for office.  We simply transmit directly to you the answers of those running for office as we received them.

Day 6…. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Jeremy Dys

September 22, 2008 at 12:17 pm