Are Americans Being Duped?

The Presidents double-speak on traditional marriage makes for a strange fight.

 

Once again supporters of traditional marriage are making their voice heard and their presence felt. But this time, in a most unusual place…the Inauguration of Barack Obama.

 

In an article on the Christian Post website, and picked up by the Alliance Defense Fund, it was reported that nearly 3 out of 4 people were in favor of traditional marriage; and they showed their support by agreeing to wear “Preserve Traditional Marriage” gear. Over 37,000 people agreed to wear the declarative gear being passed out by Public Advocate, while only 12,000 refused.

 

And yet what is most shocking about this story is the fact the President Obama is a decidedly strong supporter of same-sex marriage. Though he has publicly said he does not support same-sex marriage, his voting record says otherwise, not to mention the people he is installing in key positions within his administration.

 

We must also consider where President Obama stands on current marriage protection legislation.

 

While on the campaign trail, President Obama, in an interview on Hardball, and at the Saddleback Forum with Pastor Rick Warren, said that he opposed same-sex marriage, believed marriage was to be defined as the union of one man and one woman, and said it was the individual states’ right to decide the matter and not the federal government. Here are his exact words:

 

“I’m not in favor of gay marriage, but I’m in favor of a very strong civil union” (Click here for video). 

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.  For me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union…this matter has been settled by the states, and not the Federal Government.” (Click here for video).

 

So it stands to reason that President Obama would be highly in favor of and support the federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, right? But read what Obama has said about DOMA:

 

“For the record, I opposed DOMA in 1996.  It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor.  I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. 

 

What doesn’t make sense, aside from the fact that Obama’s voting record and statements from years past don’t agree with what was said on the campaign trail, is that thousands of Americans who support traditional marriage are also supporting President Obama.

 

Could it be that the American people are being duped? Are we seeing a large scale fleecing of the citizenry in order to accomplish some specific political goals? The idea certainly bears some scrutiny.

 

One thing is for certain, the battle for traditional marriage is just getting started and we must fight vigilantly in order to see it protected. Even the Whitehouse.gov website says that President Obama believes we need to repeal DOMA. So we must continue to contact our state representatives and firmly stand on our belief that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman and that children deserve to be raise by both of their biological parents.

 

To date thousands of e-mails have been sent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s website in support of traditional marriage. And many more thousands need to be sent. We cannot allow the loud voices of the minority few silence the voices and overshadow the will of the majority.      

          

Further Food for Thought:

Traditional Marriage, Family Still Held Dearly

What to Expect from President-Elect Obama on Same-Sex Marriage and Homosexuality in 2009

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

WV Senators Vote to Fund Abortions Worldwide

Yesterday, the United States Senate had the opportunity to reject the President’s plan to use billions of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions worldwide.   On the question, “To restore the prohibition on funding of nongovernmental organizations that promote abortion as a method of birth control (the “Mexico City Policy“),” Senator’s Rockefeller and Byrd voted “Nay.”  Just to be clear, that means the good Senators voted in favor of using more taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, nationally and internationally.

In related news, President Obama appears poised to make good on his campaign promise to begin the funding of UNFPA – the United Nations Fund for Population Activities.  One might ask why the Bush administration ceased this practice.  According to LifeSiteNews.com,

President Bush halted funding for UNFPA when it was discovered by an independent investigation in 2001, and confirmed by a U.S. State Department investigation in 2002, that the UN group supported restrictive laws and coercive population control tactics in China, including forced abortion and sterilization.

In President Obama’s announcement that he was rescinding the Mexico City Policy, he noted his rationale:

I have directed my staff to reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies.  They will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls.

In addition, I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund.  By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries.

Apparently, promoting “safe motherhood” is agreeing with the policy of some nations to force abortions on women.  I suppose, since most on the pro-abortion side of the argument conclude that the “fetus” is not an infant, that would achieve President Obama’s goal of reducing “infant mortality” as well.

I don’t think so.  

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia.

Obama, Pelosi Out of Touch with “Average Joe” American

Recent comments on abortion and birth-control as stimulus prove that new President and Speaker not feeling the pulse of the country.

 I don’t pretend to understand all the views and politics of the far-left liberal lawmakers. At times I simply shake my head in disbelief at the words and thoughts that emerge from Washington and abroad from the people who claim to have my best interest at heart.

 

I was once again shaking my head at two recent stories from World Net Daily and the American Center for Law and Justice. One story comes from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi regarding a push in family planning services, the other from President Obama and his recent reversal of the Mexico City policy.

 

 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided that the best way to encourage economic stimulus in our country is for people to stop having babies because

 

“The states are in terrible fiscal budget crisis now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs.”

 Allow me to translate. Because it costs the government money to help with children’s health services and education, if we all stop having kids then there will be more money for more important things. Important things like luxury apartments, multiple houses, extravagant cars, vacations, and parties. All the things a good government needs to perform their sworn duties.

 

One question Ms. Pelosi, if we all stop having kids, who is going to come behind us and continue our legacy as the American people? This kind of thinking is typical of the liberal left, quick fixes and answers without considering long-term and future ramifications.

 

Despite how silly and practically absurd the notions of Ms. Pelosi are, the two-headed monster that President Obama has unleashed is even more disturbing.

 

During his first week as President, Barack Obama has reversed the Mexico City policy, which bans federal funds from being used to finance oversees abortions and abortion agencies. President Obama told reporters,

 

“For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us. I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.”

 The President is right about one thing, it is quite fruitless to fund overseas abortions. Not only will America now become a global exporter of murder to countless innocent children, but, in the midst of a poor economic situation we are going to send our hard-earned money to other countries to help them kill those innocent children. And then to top it off, the President wants to ask us all to pay more taxes, and “make sacrifices” during this tough economic time.

 
Well here is my very simple thought. Wake up Mr. President. If you stop sending my hard earned money overseas to kill children then perhaps the government will not need as much of my money, then maybe I will have a little more to invest, spend, and help stimulate the economy. But most of all, maybe I will sleep better at night knowing that I am not part of a country that does not think it morally repugnant to help other countries commit murder. God help us all.

 

Further Food for Thought:

Be Fruitful or Plan Your Family?

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

 

 

 

 

               

 

                 

 

DHHS: Sued In Defense of Conscience

As reported in September and November, the now former secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt, created regulations that would allow health care providers the right to refuse to conduct an abortion if their sincerely held religious belief prevented their participation in the act.  Many of you joined our letter to Secretary Leavitt in support of the measure and were pleased when he followed our urging.  

Now, under a new administration, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have partnered together once again in an attempt to intimidate the government out of standing not only for the pre-born, but also for religious freedom.  Our friends at the Alliance Defense Fund have intervened and the case is being handled by a former West Virginian, Matt Bowman.  

While we hope that Secretary Tom Daschle will support his predecessor’s efforts to defend life and religious freedom, not caving to the bullying of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, we are not optimistic for the future of religious freedom.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Be Fruitful or Plan Your Family?

Here’s a great story for your next trip to the water cooler at work.

A story out of Tokyo reports that tech-giant Canon is asking their employees to cut out of work early in an effort to spur the economy.  What are they doing when they leave work?  Working a second job?  Laboring for the government?  Nope.  CNN reports:

In a country where 12-hour workdays are common, the electronics giant has taken to letting its employees leave early twice a week for a rather unusual reason: to encourage them to have more babies.

Japan is in the midst of an unprecedented recession, so corporations are being asked to work toward fixing another major problem: the country’s low birthrate.

. . . 

Analysts say the world’s second-largest economy faces its greatest threat from its own social problems, rather than outside forces. And the country desperately needs to make some fixes to its current social and work structures, sociologists say.

. . . 

The 5:30 p.m. lights-out program is one simple step toward helping address the population problem. It also has an added benefit: Amid the global economic downturn the company can slash overtime across the board twice a week.

I guess that whole thing in Genesis about, “be fruitful and multiply” was not just a theological suggestion, but an economic prophecy.  Add Canon to the short list of companies encouraging procreation over long work hours.

Now compare that to the remarks made by Nancy Pelosi over the weekend.  There, she makes no apology for spending millions on family planning services (read=abortions) in an effort to spur on the national economy.  One of these countries is wrong, and I’m guessing it is not the one listed as the 10th most populated country.  They get the simple notion that children are a good thing.  Good for families and good for the economy.  

Or, as Scripture has put it, children are, “a gift from the Lord.”  

Ms. Pelosi, if you truly hope to stimulate the economy, perhaps you should be encouraging strong families – not adding more Federal funding for policies that will drive our economy into an unsupportable mess.

UPDATE:  It appears that Ms. Pelosi may have thought better of her family planning measure.  Although, still no apology for trying to fund abortion in an economic downturn.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia         

The Day of Truth Gives Students an Opportunity to Speak Freely

The Alliance Defense Fund carried the following post regarding the “Day of Truth” event coming up in April. The Day of Truth is gaining more support each year, as more students across the United States participate to show their moral objection to the homosexual lifestyle. Please read the following post and pass the information along to as many students as possible.

 

Day of Truth to be spearheaded by Exodus International

The Alliance Defense Fund is transitioning its leadership of the Day of Truth initiative to Exodus International.

Day of Truth was launched four years ago in response to GLSEN’s (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) “Day of Silence” national initiative. “Day of Silence,” established in 1996 and aggressively placed in public schools throughout the U.S., asks students to take a nine-hour “vow of silence” to protest what they describe as “discrimination and harassment” against student’s engaged in homosexual behavior.

In 2004, when a student in Poway, California openly objected to this overt promotion of a practice that he found morally offensive, he was punished and silenced by the school administration for expressing his views. The school’s actions prompted the Alliance Defense Fund to legally defend this young man’s rights and, in turn, to launch a national response to the GLSEN’S Day of Silence. That response was the Day of Truth.

Designed to give students an opportunity to openly voice their views on (and objections to) the Day of Silence, the Day of Truth has grown from a handful of students to over 13,000 participants in all 50 states standing for the Truth. As the movement has grown, the focus has continued to broaden…providing students not only with legal assistance when their free speech rights are challenged, but also providing them with information on how to minister and witness to individuals struggling with homosexual behavior.

It’s because of growth in this latter area that this transition is occurring. For more than thirty years, Exodus International has provided thoughtful care to individuals wishing to leave homosexuality and offered support for related families, friends and churches. With 230 member organizations, the Exodus network is mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality…perfectly positioning them to lead the Day of Truth into the future.

ADF will continue to serve as the legal support arm for this project and represent any student who is silenced or punished for speaking the Truth.

When is the Day of Truth?

This year’s Day of Truth will be Monday, April 20, 2009. To view a video and participate this year, visit www.DayofTruth.org and register. Even if you have registered with us in the past, please register again this year. This allows us to track the number of participants every year. (It’s free to sign up!) You may also order products and materials, download free resources, and learn more about the project. On the Day of Truth, participating students wear their Day of Truth t-shirt and hand out “Truth cards” which simply explain that it’s time for “an honest discussion about homosexuality.”

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

 

Stimulating the Economy with “Family Planning Services?” Really Nancy?

Here’s an idea to stimulate the economy: stop bankrolling Planned Parenthood to the tune of nearly $400 million every year.

The fact of the matter is that the Federal government will not create a single job by increasing this pork for the abortion industry. In fact, the only possible outcome is to remove more and more potential workers, entrepreneurs, and ethical CEO’s from the worker pool.

A Matter of Time: What the same-sex marriage crowd isn’t telling us.

There are two issues currently in different courts which need to be recognized and cautiously understood when discussing the topic of marriage. One issue is occurring more frequently as states battle the same-sex marriage proponents, the other is not yet a hot topic issue in this country; though we would be foolishly blind to ignore its implications.

 

In an article picked up by the Alliance Defense Fund, two lesbian mothers who are former partners are battling for joint custody over their 11 and 8 year old sons. Siobhan LaPiana gave birth to the two boys, while Rita Goodman shared in the parenting duties over their 10 year domestic partnership. And now that the couple has split up the biological mother wants sole custody of the two boys.

 

This is a trend that we are going to see more of as the battle to redefine marriage and the family continues. Previously we have wrestled dead-beat dads or an abusive parent. But nine times out of ten there is always at least one biological parent that is capable of providing a safe, nurturing environment for the children where they are capable of growing.

 

But what we will continue to face in ever growing numbers is an entire generation of kids being reared by same-sex couples that may or may not stay together for the rest of their lives. And though separation and divorce are an epidemic problem in society as a whole, the argument of whether or not to place children with a biological parent or non-biological person has never been an issue; until now. 

 

The second issue, currently in a Canadian court, has startling implications for the United States if we choose to follow Canada’s lead by legalizing same-sex marriage. The headline says it all, “Same-Sex Marriage Used to Defend Polygamy in Canada.”

 

Two men are accused of being married to more than one woman at a time, and leading polygamous communities. Winston Blackmore is said to be married to 20 women, while James Oler is charged with being married to 2 women. Their defense is that if homosexuals can marry why can’t they marry two or three, or twenty women?

 

In the article on the Alliance Defense Fund website, Blackmore’s lawyer made the following statement:

 

“If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can’t marry more than one person?”

 That statement should be engraved in stone and placed where every American citizen can see it. Because, and you can take this to the bank, if same-sex marriage is legalized in the United States it will be just a very short time before every other type of cohabitation is sought after. We will see advocacy groups seek legalization of polygamy, incestuous relationships, poly-amorous relationships, relationships with minors, and at the bottom of the barrel will be those wanting relationships with animals.

 

Many of these relationships are taking place illegally right here, right now. So legitimizing them through legal action is not that far-fetched of an idea.

 

The bottom line, when you seek to destroy one of society’s foundational pillars you will inevitably pave the way for an ‘anything and everything goes’ mentality. You won’t hear this news in the media; these are the ideas that opponents of traditional marriage don’t want you to hear. We must protect traditional marriage before anyone and everyone is allowed to define it for us.

 

 

Same-Sex Adoption Case – Media Redux

For those of you who missed the interview with Hoppy on “Talkline” this morning, MetroNews provides this story with audio. (Link will go inactive over time).

From Metronews:

The state Supreme Court will decide whether a baby girl will stay with the lesbian couple in Fayette County that wants to adopt her.

A judge in Fayette County has already called for the child, who is just more than a year old, to be removed from the home in favor of a more ‘traditional’ home with a mother and a father.

On Tuesday, the Family Policy Council of West Virginia filed a friend of the court brief asking the Supreme Court to side with the lower court ruling.

“The state should do everything it can to make sure that kids are placed in a home with a married mom and dad.  The law is simple and it is very clear when it comes to adoption,” says Jeremy Dys, President and General Counsel for the Family Policy Council of West Virginia.

The child had originally been placed in foster care with Kathryn Kutil and Cheryl Hess after being born to a drug addicted mother in late 2007.  The Department of Health and Human Resources had approved the couple for foster care.

Dys says foster care is a temporary placement.  The rules, he says, are different for people who want to adopt.

“People who don’t quality as adoptive parents shouldn’t expect to become adoptive parents just because they want to.  The law requires that the court decide what is in the best interests of the child, not the desires of the foster parents,” Dys said on Wednesday’s MetroNews Talkline.

State law says single individuals and heterosexual married couples can adopt in West Virginia.  In a separate case, one of the women successfully adopted another child.

The lesbian couple now has custody of the young girl pending the outcome of the appeal the state Supreme Court is considering.

In the appeal, attorneys for the couple say the Fayette County judge is setting a ‘dangerous precedent’ for discriminatory treatment of nontraditional families.

Pope Right, Judge Wrong

Once again judges and courts are playing partisan political games, legislating from the bench, and ignoring obvious, common sense solutions to not-so-difficult cases.

 

In this particular instance is the continuing story of Lisa Miller, who is seeking complete separation from her former lesbian lover Janet Jenkins. The two were joined in a civil union in Vermont, and Miller gave birth to her daughter Isabella, before Miller left the homosexual lifestyle after becoming a Christian. Upon doing so she moved to Virginia where same-sex unions are not recognized.

 

But now a Virginia judge has decided he doesn’t like the laws in his state, and has decided to recognize Vermont civil unions. (Does anyone want to guess what the implications of this careless ruling will be?) And by doing so has said that Vermont has jurisdiction over the case, even though Isabella was born in Virginia where Miller has lived for several years now.

 

Miller will be headed back to Vermont soon for a much anticipated January 28 court date where a judge will decide who gets custody of Isabella. Quite frankly it would make absolutely no sense for anyone but the child’s biological mother to get custody. Courts have always ruled that biological parents have more rights to children, and when a child is being raised in a safe, secure, stable home with a biological parent where the child is thriving there is no cause to change such an arrangement.

 

Let’s hope the Vermont courts continue to uphold such a common sense idea. Because if they award custody to a non-biological person over the biological parent, where no abuse or neglect is present, they will signal that it is about political gain and not upholding the law or doing what is best in the interest of the child. And they will open a floodgate of unprecedented chaos in the court system for other non-biological persons to file for custody for seemingly no reason at all.

 

Ironically, Pope Benedict XVI recently told a conference of thousands of Mexicans that only an “undissolvable marriage between a man and a woman ought to be at the heart of a family,” according to a story released by AFP.    

 

But if, as the Pope put it, “undissolvable marriage between a man and a woman” is pushed aside in favor of all sorts of other cohabitations, such as same-sex civil unions, it can be reasonably expected that the strength and stability of our society, which is drawn from the traditional family, will erode as well. And what we can expect in its place is a barrage of court battles where non-biological persons want custody of children with perfectly capable biological parents. And with activist judges already ignoring laws in favor of bench legislation, unprecedented rulings will inevitably take place.

 

This is what happens when we mess with the institutions that have provided structural stability for our society and culture for hundreds of years. If anyone is paying attention they will see that as we move farther from traditional marriage, family, and home, our society continues to further collapse on all other fronts. It is because these foundational institutions are intrinsically linked to every other aspect of our civilization. They are like dominos. To move one means to start a chain-reaction that will bring them all down. And when this happens, “We the people,” ceases to hold meaning.

 

Further Food for Thought:
Former Lesbian Miller Vows to Protect Child
Sears Wants to Make a Difference

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia