my favorite part of protesting...

... all the creative signs!

GLAD Files Lawsuit Against Federal Government

Here’s another update from our friends at The Family Leader Network.

Handful of same-sex couples attack federal Defense of Marriage Act passed overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans

A lawsuit was filed yesterday with the federal District Court in Boston that seeks to declare portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, unconstitutional.

The suit addresses the use of DOMA Section 3, which makes clear that spousal protections in Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees' and retirees' benefits, and in the issuance of passports are reserved for married couples only.

The plaintiffs in the suit are eight homosexual couples who say they are "married" and three individuals whose homosexual partners have passed away.

The suit was filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD).

"Public policy should be decided by the public, not by one judge and a very small number of radical activists," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. "America continues to overwhelmingly reaffirm that marriage is one man and one woman. Does the democratic process mean anything anymore?"

• 45 states have laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
• All 30 states that have sought to affirm marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitutions have done so.
• DOMA passed in 1996 by an overwhelming majority of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate and was then signed by President Bill Clinton.

"None of these facts appear to matter to the people who have filed this lawsuit," Raum explained. "They do not care about the negative social impact on children if federal judges redefine marriage. Courts should never impose a system which guarantees that more kids will be brought up in homes without a married mom and dad. How can we justify hurting millions of children for the possible emotional benefit of a very small number of adults?"

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins expressed concerns that the Obama administration's Department of Justice would not suitably defend DOMA against the lawsuit, given Obama's personal position in favor of repealing the law.

"We advise the Obama Administration to fulfill its constitutional duties and defend DOMA energetically and competently. We also urge any federal courts that hear this case to dismiss it and preserve the right of the people to decide such important public policy decisions," said Perkins.

My question is why are these people filing a lawsuit now? Where were they in 1996 when this was signed into law? The majority of America feels that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that’s the way it needs to stay.

Technorati Tags: marriage,prop 8,DOMA,obama,constitution,voting,tolerance,families

State Legislators Didn’t Listen to Our Vote

From CRI: California Legislature Violates Separation of Powers, Passes Anti-Prop 8 Resolutions

The Assembly and Senate passed resolutions stating their opposition to Proposition 8.

Both houses of the state legislature are trying to go on record opposing Proposition 8 prior to the California Supreme Court’s hearing of the lawsuits against Proposition 8 on Thursday. In lengthy floor debates, Democrats passed HR 5 (Ammiano) and SR 7 (Leno), which express the opinion of the legislature that Proposition 8 was an unconstitutional revision and must be ruled invalid. However, the legislature’s passage of HR 5 and SR 7 violates the separation of powers doctrine which clearly instructs the legislature to refrain from influencing the judicial process, particularly pending legal cases.

Many Democrats rose to speak out against Proposition 8, even those from districts that clearly voted in favor of Proposition 8. “How arrogant for these lawmakers to express their personal opposition to Proposition 8 and try to persuade the court when their constituents voted in favor of traditional marriage,” stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

Assemblyman Van Tran eloquently pointed out that HR 5 is an attempt to “retroactively disenfranchise the votes of over 7 million voters” who passed Proposition 8. He explained that HR 5 is also an “illegal ex parte communication with the court.” Tran went on to chastise the Democrats for seeking to unduly influence the judicial review of Proposition 8 after the people had voted, and the legislature is politicizing the judicial process just a few days before the hearing.

Republican assemblymen Chuck DeVore, Ted Gaines, Joel Anderson, Steve Knight, Mike Villines and Dan Logue all rose to speak out against HR 5 and affirm the people’s right to pass Proposition 8.

Joel Anderson called on this fellow lawmakers to refrain from interpreting the law in the legislature, leaving that constitutional duty to the judicial branch.

http://www.capitolresource.org

Technorati Tags: prop 8,constitution,voting,tolerance,marriage,HR 5,SR 7,state legislators

First NBC, Now CNN Rejects Pro-Life Ad

I received this email from CatholicVote.org. We all know that the media is very liberal, which is why it is even more important to keep our voices going strong on the internet.

We have been quieter than usual the past two weeks for good reason. Following NBC's refusal to air our ad during the Super Bowl, we received some great feedback from our members on what we should do next.  The consensus was that our latest ad should be broadcast following President Obama's first State of the Union Address -- scheduled for next Tuesday. 

So we contacted CNN, thinking their audience contains precisely the type of people we want to reach.  Further, given CNN's track record of running advocacy ads, we were confident we would succeed.  Not so.

For the past two weeks, we have been pushing and prodding them for an answer.  And late this week we finally got a response: No way.

A representative from CNN wrote: "Thank you for your patience.  We have decided to pass on this creative. CNN doesn't accept advocacy ads that portray personal decisions in a manner that suggests a position in favor of the advocacy message, without having permission of the persons involved."

This is absurd. Our ad does not suggest that Barack Obama is pro-life. Instead, our ad presents nothing but facts. President Obama, like every human being, began as an unborn child. Because he was born, he was able to become the President of the United States.

CNN and others simply don't like the obvious conclusion of our ad - there was no ‘choice' for abortion back in 1961. Thankfully, we had laws then safeguarding unborn children -- laws that protected the life of a future president who tragically is unwilling to fight for those same protections today.

But wait. Is this fair?

The standard CNN used to reject our ad did not prevent the network from airing a 2005 ad sponsored by the pro-abortion group NARAL that suggested that then Judge John Roberts supported violence against abortion clinics.

FactCheck.org described the NARAL ad this way: "An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers ‘supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber' and of having an ideology that ‘leads him to excuse violence against other Americans' It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. The ad is false.'"

Several prominent pro-abortion supporters condemned the ad, including President Clinton's Solicitor General Walter Dellinger. The commercial, which attributed views to John Roberts that were not his, was ultimately pulled from the air not by CNN, but by NARAL.

At the time CNN issued a statement saying: "CNN accepts advocacy advertising from responsible groups from across the political spectrum who wish to express their views and their opinions about issues of public importance."

CNN is willing to run ads insinuating that a federal judge supports violent criminal activity, but it won't allow an ad celebrating the potential of all human life, including Barack Obama? Not to mention, we are fairly sure NARAL didn't get permission from John Roberts to run their ad.

If you want to express your concerns, please do so firmly, but charitably.  You can write CNN President Jonathan Klein at jonathan.klein@cnn.com

So what now?

We aren't going to sit back and complain.  We are still looking at several additional options to air the ad.  We are also working on our next ad, and have set our sights high once again.

If you liked what we have done so far, we are confident you will be excited about what is coming next.

Brian Burch

CatholicVote.org

P.S. I discussed the decision by CNN to reject our recent ad with an executive of a prominent commercial ad agency. He said bluntly: "Their excuse is a textbook answer for a network that does not want to run your ad."

Of course, all is not lost. CNN's refusal will only create more attention for our ad, which has been widely discussed even among abortion groups like NARAL and nationally-syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman. The ad remains a viral hit on the Internet with over 1.6 million views on YouTube.

We have successfully provoked a national conversation about the gift of every human life -- which is why we created the ad to begin with.

Technorati Tags: voting,catholic,obama,families,pro choice,pro life,advertisements,cnn,nbc,super bowl,marriage

Time to Make YOUR Vote Count

I received this email from United Families. It is time to stand up and make your vote count. Here’s the email with all the details:

On Tuesday, February 17th at 10:30 am, The Assembly Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing followed at 12:30 pm by a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Proposition 8. The committees will be considering crafting a joint resolution encouraging the California State Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8. By issuing the resolution the Assembly will officially express its opposition to Proposition 8, calling for its repeal, and stating that it was an "improper revision" to the state constitution.

Passing these resolutions flies in the face of the will of the voters.  Prop 8, was passed by a clear majority of California voters in November 2008. Fifty-two percent of California voters stood up to protect the family, which is the lynch pin of civilization. William Glaston, a former policy advisor to President Clinton, is quoted in the UFI Marriage Advantage Family Guide. He states, "Marriage is an important social good, associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike....Whether American society succeeds or fails in building a healthy marriage culture is clearly a matter of legitimate public concern."

Don't let the Assembly take your vote away. Join us in protecting marriage, children and the future of family and our society.

What You Can Do

Attend the hearing. It is taking place Tuesday, February 17th at the state capitol in Sacramento. The Assembly hearing will be in room 4202 at 10:30 am. The Senate hearing will be in room 4203 at 12:30pm. We encourage you to make the trip. By attending you will send a visible signal to the committee members in support of the family. To get driving directions and parking information follow the click on the links below:

For directions
For parking information

Call the members of the committees and fax letters asking them to vote no on HR5 and SR7

Julia Brownley
Phone: 916 319 2041
Fax: 916 319 2141

Noreen Evans
Phone: 916 319 2007
Fax: 916 319 2107

Mike Feuer (Chair)
Phone: 916 319 2042
Fax: 916 319 2142

Dave Jones
Phone: 916 319 2009
Fax: 916 319 2109

Steve Knight
Phone: 916 319 2036
Fax: 916 319 2136

Paul Krekorian
Phone: 916 319 2043
Fax: 916 319 2143

Ted Lieu
Phone: 916 319 2053
Fax: 916 319 2153

Bill Monning
Phone: 916 319 2027
Fax: 916 319 2127

Jim Nielsen
Phone: 916 319 2002
Fax: 916 319 2102

Van Tran
Phone: 916 319 2068
Fax: 916 319 2168 

Senate Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on SR7
Ellen Corbett
Phone: 916 651 4010
Fax: 916 327 2433

Dean Florez
Phone: 916 651 4016
Fax: 916 327 5989

Tom Harman
Phone: 916 651 4035
Fax: 916 445 9263

Mark Leno
Phone: 916 651 4003
Mimi Walters
Phone: 916 651 4033
Fax: 916 445 9754 

Please forward this to your friends and family members. We believe that through a grassroots movement, we can secure a safe future for families in our state. 
United Families California

Technorati Tags: voting,prop 8,marriage,family,california,tolerance,rights

Are We A Socialist Society?

 

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

William J. H. Boetcker, 1916 (often attributed to Lincoln )

My mom said that her goal was to raise her children to be independent and contribute to society. Now, as the youngest of six turns 18 in a couple of months, I look at my brothers and sisters and where we are in our lives. I think my mom has reached her goal.

How is the list by Boetcker related to the paragraph about my family? It is my strong belief, back by research, that it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children how to become members of society. It is not up to the teachers at school, leaders in church, or president of the United States. Outside leaders assist in the teaching, but the primary responsibility is up to the parents.

Technorati Tags: voting,socialism,obama,united states,capitalism,rights,freedom,family,marriage

Court Date Set for Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Regarding Prop 8

Well, get ready... we have a court date for the Supreme Court to hear the case regarding proposition 8. Below is an article from Advocates for Faith and Freedom.

Marriage has its final day in Court!

The California Supreme Court announced this week that on March 5, 2009, they will hear oral arguments concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the initiative that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The oral argument will be broadcast live on the California Channel. In addition to considering challenges to Prop 8, the Court will consider the fate of 18,000 same-sex marriages that occurred before the November election.

On January 15, 2009, Advocates for Faith and Freedom filed an Amicus Brief (“friend of the court brief”) with the California Supreme Court in defense of Prop 8 and to preserve the will of the people.

The homosexual agenda is spreading across America, one state at a time, as state legislatures consider significant expansion of homosexual rights. View our Top Story, “The Advance of Same-Sex Rights in New Mexico," here: http://www.faith-freedom.com/news/advance-same-sex-rights-new-mexico

In the coming weeks, please cover the hearing on March 5th with your fervent prayers believing that God will intervene in a sovereign way and speak to the hearts and souls of the California Supreme Court justices. Also lift up the attorneys presenting the case in support of Prop 8.

Obama Picks Porn Lawyer for Deputy Attorney General

It’s time to get your pen/pencil/computer out and write another letter to our senators. They should know us by name now! Our President has elected a porn lawyer for Deputy Attorney General. We need to let our Senators know that this is not okay with us, to have someone with such a reputation in a leadership position.

Obama Picks Porn Lawyer for #2 at Justice

CHICAGO, February 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - President Obama has made a major mistake and put America's families at risk by selecting David Ogden to become Deputy Attorney General, says Fidelis, a pro-family organization.

"David Ogden is a hired gun from Playboy and ACLU. He can't run from his long record of opposing common sense laws protecting families, women, and children.  The United States Senate has a responsibility to the American people to insure that Mr. Ogden's full record is fully reviewed before any vote on his nomination" said Brian Burch, President of Fidelis.

"Ogden's record is nothing short of obscene. He has represented Playboy Enterprises in multiple cases, Penthouse Magazine, the ACLU, and the largest distributor of hard-core pornography videos.  He has opposed filters on library computers protecting children from Internet smut, and successfully defended the right of pornographers to produce material with underage children."

"David Ogden has collected checks from Playboy and Penthouse to fight any attempts to establish filters on federally-funded public libraries. Ogden even sued the federal government in an attempt to publish Braille versions of Playboy magazine - at taxpayer expense, of course," said Burch.

As a lawyer in private practice, Ogden has argued for an unlimited abortion license, gays in the military, and has urged courts to treat traditional definitions of marriage as a social prejudice.

"A vast majority of Americans support parental notification before a minor's abortion and protecting kids from Internet pornography in our libraries," continued Burch.  "Yet David Ogden has fought tooth and nail against these common sense laws protecting our children from harm. At a time when America's families are under increasing assault, Mr. Ogden is a dangerous choice for a position whose responsibilities include the enforcement of our nation's laws. "

See a full dossier on Ogden compiled by Fidelis here: http://www.scribd.com/full/11607068?access_key=key-18yr2u50t8o0sz54rbrl

To express concern to Senators regarding the appointment visit: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

 

Technorati Tags: marriage,family,obama,deputy attorney general,senators,pornography,vote,voting

Sacked by the Mainstream Media

I just heard that NBC refused to show an ad from Catholic.org, saying that the NFL and NBC are not interested in advertisements that involve “political candidates or issues.”

Really? Because I’m quite the sports fan and I remember watching the Super Bowl last year and I remember seeing an ad for Mitt Romney, who was running for President of the United States at the time. I’ve also been told that NBC has allowed PETA to run an ad.

So what’s the real deal here, NBC? They are willing to sell everything from tortilla chips to beer to cars to sex, even show a commercial for the most extreme animal rights activists, but not allow a conservative message about hope and life?

Here is the commercial that NBC does not want to show:

We need to stand up and let the mainstream media know that the majority of the people in the United States would rather watch a message about how sacred life is than watch half naked anorexic barbie dolls drooling over a guy because of the beer bottle in his hand.

Technorati Tags: voting,tolerance,marriage,abortion,rights,NBC,commercials,Super Bowl,conservative

Who Do the Legislators Represent?

 

“For politicians, standing up for marriage equality is not touching a third-rail; rather, it is a track to re-election,” said Freedom to Marry Executive Director Evan Wolfson. “Legislators should take the findings of this report as proof that there’s no reason to back down from supporting the freedom to marry and opposing anti-gay measures. And those of us outside the legislature should not be afraid to ask our representatives to do the right thing.”

While I agree with the last sentence of this quote, the rest of it is quite troublesome. It is time that we make sure that our vote counts… and how do we do that? By letting our legislators know that they represent the people, not the lobbyists or liberal agenda. If they do not uphold our vote, then it is our responsibility to vote them out of office.

You can read the entire article here.

Technorati Tags: marriage,voting,traditional marriage,rights,legislators,congressmen,prop 8,proposition 8