Church and State

Filed under: California, Homosexuality, Same-sex Marriage, Liberalism, Marriage

In California, four judges think they are smarter, better, more tolerant, more intellectual, and more advanced than 4,618,673 citizens of their state. By a 4-3 vote this afternoon, the breathingist judges struck down a law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman adopted in 2000 by 61% of California voters called Proposition 22. Here is the full opinion (pdf).

Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.

The ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall.

It's one thing when voters in a state overwhelmingly deny a state marriage amendment. Oh wait, that's never happened before. They've all passed, except Arizona last year which narrowly lost because of some language technicalities that independent voters weren't comfortable with. Even Oregon and Hawaii have succeeded. California had as well. But not if four breathingist, elitist judges can help the matter. Is it any wonder that it was in California that Snob-ama delivered his not-yet-but-will-be-soon famous "cling to religion and guns" speech?

Liberty Counsel, which argued in favor of the marriage laws, released a statement indicating California residents will now need to work overtime to re-gain their rights:

California residents have submitted petitions to place a state constitutional marriage amendment on the November ballot. If the requisite number is certified in the next few weeks, California voters will have the opportunity to amend their state constitution so that it expressly defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Such an amendment is necessary to protect marriage from being undermined by a mere majority of four justices of the California Supreme Court.

The ACLU acknowledges that the court gave them this gift, thereby admitting that it is NOT the will of the majority of the people:

Even more important, the rest of the country recognizes that California is America’s cultural trendsetter, that cultural change in California is usually a preview of what is to come in the rest of the United States. Most Americans already believe that marriage for same-sex couples is bound to happen sooner or later. I think marriage in California will help persuade many of them that this is an issue of basic fairness, and that the time for it is now

"It might happen" doesn't mean they support same-sex marriage. 27 states have already spoken clearly on the issue. I don't think four judges are going to suddenly change millions of minds. Hysterical. ROFL!!!!!

Now, of course, we have to hold on to it. It appears fairly certain that anti-gay forces have gotten enough signatures to put on the November ballot an initiative that would amend the state Constitution and overrule the decision.

That initiative is scary. We lost a different vote on marriage only eight years ago. And our opponents, recognizing that marriage in California is a great prize, will fight with all their might. Which means that to win, we’ll have to raise a great deal of money and run a very smart campaign.

Socialist translation: We can't convince the majority of voters to support us, so we'll need to force our will on them, just like we did today.

Here's the kicker:

No more will our opponents be able to call marriage the child of “activist judges” or out-of-control local officials. The court has given us the chance to win marriage for ourselves, and push the fight for full equality ahead by years.

So, the court has given you the opportunity to win the gold medal. A gift in your hands. If you defeat the will of a vast majority of Californians, then it won't be from activist judges. So, by default, the ACLU admits this decision IS a result of activist judges. Thank you, ACLU, for this gem of political hypocrisy.

Others: Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, Ed Morrissey.

Filed under: Yes2Marriage, Florida Family Action, Florida Amendment 2, Homosexuality, Liberalism, Christianity, Marriage

I received this news release from Yes2Marriage, a division of Florida Family Action, concerning Amendment 2, the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment. An anti-family group, Red and Blue, has sent deceptive letters containing false and misleading information to what appears to be hundreds of thousands of voters who signed the Florida4Marriage.org petitions. The release is lengthy, but demands attention because it shows, yet again, the intolerance of the left who refuses to debate the issue in a civil way. Instead, they fabricate lies and spread deception. Read the whole thing and donate a buck if you can.

The first of these letters, which began to be received by voters on Monday, May 12, further emphasizes the group's strategy to attack Amendment 2 by trying to trick Floridians and misguide voters instead of debate the policy issue of whether homosexual marriages are good for Florida.

First, their direct mail piece states "people collecting petitions are not always honest about the issues they are pushing-especially if they are being paid by the signature." This is a deliberate and verifiably false statement. At no time during the collection of marriage petitions were paid petition gathers used. 100% of the petitions were collected by volunteer citizens in communities throughout Florida.

Second, their "hit" mail piece further states that voters were "misinformed" when they signed the petition. That is an insult to the intelligence of the more than 650,000 Florida voters who signed the petition knowing full well the importance of marriage to children, families and the common good of society. Florida wants the people and not judges deciding this issue. Activist judges gave Massachusetts the first homosexual marriages-- and judges just this past year in Iowa, Maryland, and California have tried to do the same.

Adding to the deliberate misrepresentations, the letter goes on to state that the Amendment will take away rights from "millions of Floridians." Yet, the Florida Supreme Court approved the language of the amendment in 2006 and stated in their opinion: "the voter is merely being asked to vote on the singular subject of whether the concept of marriage and the rights and obligations traditionally embodied therein should be limited to the union of one man and one woman." (Advisory Opinion, Page 3). The fact is that every legal authority in Florida holds that Amendment 2 does one thing and one thing alone. It defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and it does not affect existing rights in anyway.

One needs only look at the signer of the letter to see that homosexual activists are behind the so called "Florida Red and Blue" group. The letter is signed by Dwain Wall, a board member of Florida Red and Blue. Mr. Wall is also the managing partner of Bridge Lifestyle Communities in Palm Beach, an exclusively gay and lesbian residential community.

The leaders of Florida Red and Blue would do a huge service to the people of Florida if they simply came clean and discussed the real issue addressed by the amendment - protecting marriage between a man and a woman. The fact is that they can not debate the public policy merits of same-sex marriage, because they are afraid they will lose like they have in the 27 other states which have also protected marriage in their state constitutions by overwhelming majorities.

For more information about the facts on Amendment 2, please visit www.Yes2Marriage.org.

TAKE ACTION: Make an online donation now to help us protect marriage and fight this deception in Florida by clicking HERE. Thanks for caring enough to get involved.

A lie, an insult, and another lie. Red and Blue can see the inevitable writing on the wall. The same writing that appeared for the 27 states before them. And so it will be in Florida.

Filed under: University of Toledo, Crystal Dixon, Liberalism, Homosexuality, Christianity

Remember the moonbat wacko president of University of Toledo that disciplined human resources employee, Crystal Dixon, by placing her on paid leave for writing a dissenting column in the Toledo Free Press? Well, they fired her, after justifying it with a demotion and pay cut?

"She has been fired," said Brian Rooney, spokesman for the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based legal-defense group which is representing Dixon.

Rooney told Cybercast News Service that the university had offered Dixon "another position, in a different part of the university, not in human resources" because she had argued in her editorial that sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like race or sex and should not be afforded the same protection under civil rights laws.

"She was speaking as a private citizen when she wrote her column and, clearly, our Constitution protects speech, and there shouldn't be a consequence to that free speech as far as discriminating against somebody based on their speech and the content of that speech," Rooney told Cybercast News Service on Monday.

Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, said the action apparently taken by the University of Toledo was "an egregious violation."

"I think the University of Toledo has really betrayed their anti-Christian bigotry and intolerance," Barber told Cybercast News Service . "Just because many Christians have a viewpoint that is unpopular in leftist circles, does not mean those leftists have a right to violate the law and discriminate against Christians."

Anything short of employment continuance is outright assault on Dixon's First Amendment rights.

A gay blogger who is somehow holy enough to ascend above the bible and see the gaps in pro-family beliefs (and has written a book about it) fails miserably in an attempt to slice Dixon's arguments, stretching technicalities too far:

I have read the claim on several sites that Dixon indicated that she was speaking for herself and did not involve the University.

This is may not be true. Nowhere in her column did Dixon indicate that she was solely giving her opinion. She even indentifies herself as an employee of the university.

as Dixon herself phrased it in the column -- "as a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and a business owner."

Actually, it just says "employee." It says nothing about being employed by the University of Toledo. Strike one. He gets two more:

I myself have been very disturbed by yet another example of an African-American self-righteous wannabe attacking the lgbt community.

That's just pathetic. Strike two for whining. Homosexuals are the ones trying to equate their "struggles" to those of black Americans who fought for and gained their freedom through the civil rights movement, the aid of the Republican Party and at the expense of many lives. Homosexuals might be legally inconvenienced, but they aren't martyrs. Gotta give him one more shot:

Matt Barber from Concerned Women for America weighs in the situation with his usual brand of hysteria:

Don’t let this egregious and discriminatory action by the University of Toledo be ignored. Please contact University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs and respectfully request that he immediately reinstate Crystal Dixon and issue a public apology to her, the African-American community and to Christians worldwide.

Apologize to Christians worldwide? Apparently Barber takes too much on himself. I am sure that many Christians worldwide do not agree with Dixon's statements.

Why not? Strike three. Every time a homosexual is criticized publicly, a demand goes out to apologize to all glbt's. Though the thought that not all glbt don't always agree on everything probably never crossed this guy's mind. It's this type of one-way, intolerant pot-banging that earns many homosexual activists a bad name in religious circles. It's hard for homosexuals to see the love that Christians are showing when every reaction is packed with such belligerence. Especially when many glbt justify their sin and claim to be Christians themselves.

Filed under: Michigan Supreme Court, Homosexuality, Liberalism, Christianity, Family Values

The Michigan ACLU represented twenty-one same-sex couples in a 2005 lawsuit that sought to re-define the family as anything they determined under the guise of "health benefits." A constitutional amendment from 2004 was approved by a majority of the voters in Michigan and defined the union between a man and woman as the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose." Fortunately, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that state entities cannot provide health benefits to homosexual couples.

The 5-2 decision affects up to 20 universities, community colleges, school districts and governments in Michigan with policies covering at least 375 gay couples.

The court ruled that while marriages and domestic partnerships aren't identical, they are similar because they're the only relationships in Michigan defined in terms of gender and lack of a close blood connection.

Voters "hardly could have made their intentions clearer," Justice Stephen Markman wrote, citing the law's "for any purpose" language.

Tony Perkins' op-ed in USA Today last week sheds light on the scope of powers of the judicial branch and how the left has abused it:

To some critics of his [McCain's] view that judges should interpret and not make the law, the debate is merely about different forms of judicial activism — liberal vs. conservative.

American history powerfully refutes that view. The Federalist Papers set forth the argument that the judicial branch of the national government would be the "least dangerous" to liberty. In Alexander Hamilton's famous words, the federal courts would have "neither force nor will, but merely judgment."

Those words are carefully and perfectly chosen. Force — the police power — is a feature of the executive branch; will is the voice of the people through their elected officials.

Through the centuries, overreaching judges have attempted to seize power on questions that span the social and political spectrum. Activist U.S. Supreme Courts gave a green light to slavery in 1857 and to child labor in 1905, overturning duly enacted laws.

In our time, the Supreme Court has given the nation abortion on demand, thereby creating a national issue and actually delaying — because it doubted — the ability of the American people to reason together to solutions. Today, various courts claim the power to levy taxes, strike down the national motto, remake the institution of marriage, seize private property for non-public purposes, and run state agencies.

Liberals have turned to the courts because the rest of the country refuses to move as far to the left as they would like. In Michigan, liberals expect the ACLU and the courts to deliver their agenda. It's disguised as "health benefits." But do not be fooled. This blatant attack on God's design for the family is obvious and, fortunately for conservatives, not even able to be crammed through as a breathingist decision.

Liberals will attack me calling me evil for supporting a ruling that denies health coverage to people and even some children. The ruling plainly says that only married couples are allowed to receive the benefits of marriage. Since homosexuals cannot marry in Michigan, employers will have to find creative ways to provide those benefits, which they are probably capable of doing and will be monitored by the state insurance board. More power to them. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with homosexuals using the courts to create special laws that would grant them "family" status, which is legally reserved for what is coincidentally a biblically-based family.

Filed under: Harvard, Liberalism, Marriage, Children, Conservatism

Liberal moonbat Harvard University psychology professor, Daniel Gilbert, not only has little common sense remaining after years teaching students how to be little moonbats, he demonstrates a complete inability to research and read polls. His warped opinion, which he gleefully shared at the Happiness and its Causes conference in Sydney, Australia, yesterday, is that "marriage is a constant source of joy, but introducing children into the relationship will send your happiness in a downward spiral."

Marriage, money and children were conventionally considered to be the cornerstone of happiness but such thinking did not stand up to scientific scrutiny, Harvard University psychology professor Daniel Gilbert told the Happiness and its Causes conference in Sydney today.

According to scientific and economic research, only marriage proved to be a constant source of joy.

Scientific research? Probably the same esteemed, "peer reviewed" science that still thinks micro evolution is a logical explanation for how humans got here, despite NO ONE, EVER having actually observed it taking place. This twisted thinking places a higher value on some lives over others and inevitably will lead a moonbat to believe unborn babies are not humans and children spoil happiness.

Real polls, not staged research studies by liberal scientists, show otherwise:

Jenny Tyree, associate marriage analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said it's not about short-term happiness.

"In a Pew poll taken last July, 85 percent of people said that their relationship with their children was their greatest source of fulfillment," she said. "I think that says more about the value of children to their parents" than Gilbert's conclusions.

It's common knowledge that evolution scientists aren't even in the same game when they begin their research with depraved presuppositions. It's the same with Gilbert's so-called "research." They begin with an anti-family presupposition and it's easy to see how they could arrive at such a twisted view. Fortunately, evolutionists have been largely unsuccessful at selling Americans on their atheistic worldview and this likely won't be any different.

Filed under: Liberalism, Homosexuality, Politics, Christianity

This one will be hard to top anytime soon. A University of Toledo administrator, Crystal Dixon, wrote a response article for the online Toledo Free Press decrying an column by Michael S. Miller in which he compared the struggles of homosexuals [to acquire "special" rights] to black Americans in the civil rights movement. Miller was wrong, Dixon was right, but the university bows at the altar of political correctness and took measures to discipline Ms. Dixon even though she expressed her opinions as a private citizen:

As first reported on WTOL TV, Crystal Dixon, associate vice president of human resources, wrote in her column posted on the newspaper's Web site April 18, “As a black woman … I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman … Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few.”

Tolerance and equality. Until someone crosses them, and then it's hell to pay.

Liberal altar boy, Lloyd Jacobs, who also bumbled his way to becoming the University of Toledo President, wrote a column for last Friday's edition that provides a great illustration of the view while bowing at the altar of tolerance:

Although I recognize it is common knowledge that Crystal Dixon is associate vice president for Human Resources at the University of Toledo, her comments do not accord with the values of the University of Toledo. It is necessary, therefore, for me to repudiate much of her writing and to make this attempt to clarify our values system. The Strategic Plan of the University of Toledo states certain “Core Values.” Among them are “Diversity, Integrity and Teamwork.” The document further states that we “create an environment that values and fosters diversity; earn the trust and commitment of colleagues and the communities served; provide a collaborative and supportive work environment, based upon stewardship and advocacy, that adheres to the highest ethical standard.”

I have to interrupt here. “Diversity, Integrity and Teamwork.”? Unless it goes against your personal, or even the majority, opinion. Just be honest for once and say that you care more about advancing your agenda than actually caring about people and their rights.

“...adheres to the highest ethical standard.” Hello, earth to the, uh, President, if you tolerate homosexuality as an acceptable expression of sexuality, you have no ethical standard. What you have is a fluctuating standard that varies depending on the opinion du jour.

Here is the bald face lie:

The University of Toledo welcomes, supports and places value upon persons of every variety. Disability, race, age or sexual orientation are not included in any decision making process nor the evaluation of worth of any individual at this university.

“...welcomes, supports and places value upon persons of every variety...” Don't look now, but you just lied. You certainly aren't welcoming the opinions of Ms. Dixon and we all know why - they don't align with yours. Your next sentence clearly exposes your lie:

To the extent that appearances may exist which are contrary to this value statement, we will continue to do everything in our power to align all of our actions every day with the value system discussed.

We will be taking certain internal actions in this instance to more fully align our utterances and actions with this value system.

What "value" system did you discuss? The one that depends on what liberals decide is tolerable when they woke up that morning.

It is my hope there may be no misunderstanding of my personal stance, nor the stance of the University of Toledo, concerning the issues of “Gay Rights and Wrongs.”

Oh, don't worry, there is no confusion at all. That is, if your worldview is de-sensitized enough to recognize your lies. If we simply try and pretend you are being honest, then misconception will abound.

Filed under: Education, School-choice, Conservatism, Politics, Liberalism

Public schools are failing. And liberals always have the same answer: throw more money at it. Essentially, grow the government and keep control out of the citizens' hands. But this year, a record 44 states have introduced school-choice legislation. And many are doing so to help low-income families get their children out of failing schools.

Lawmakers are using tax credits and other incentives to help low-income families get their children out of failing schools. Georgia started with a special-needs scholarship bill last year and expanded on the concept this year.

“The Georgia Legislature approved a $15 million corporate tax credit bill this year," said John Schilling, chief of staff of the Alliance for School Choice. "We are hopeful the governor will sign that bill.”

The bill would provide a tax credit for families and companies that give to private school-choice programs.

Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Louisiana is getting in on the action.

“Because of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans has had to build its education system from scratch," she said. "This has opened up huge opportunities for school choice in that state."

And don't forget Louisiana's new conservative governor, Bobby Jindal, a hot topic currently whom many would like to see as McCain's VP. Though highly unlikely for 2008, look for him to surface in the near future. For the time being, he is excited about fixing Louisiana.

Filed under: Homosexuality, Liberalism, ENDA, Politics, Religion, Christianity, Canada

UPDATE - 6:00 pm: One success in court... Scroll for updates.

All Americans need to do is look north to learn what happens when liberalism runs amok. Universal healthcare is a colossal failure. And homosexuals continue to demand special rights that, were they to be installed in the United State, would far exceed the Constitutional bounds set forth by the Founders. A recent event transpired in Ontario where a Christian ministry was fined for firing a woman actively engaged in a same-sex relationship, despite having clearly laid the ground rules forbidding employment to anyone involved in any type of sexual immorality.

Christian Horizons is an evangelical ministry in Ontario that has cared for more than 1,400 people with developmental disabilities in 180 group homes. The group requires all employees to sign a contract agreeing to abstain from all sexual immorality, including homosexuality. When Christian Horizons fired a female employee who became involved with another woman, she complained to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which fined the ministry $23,000 and two years back pay.

Jordan Lorence with the Alliance Defense Fund believes the homosexual agenda will continue to persecute the Christian agenda as it gains power. He labels the Canada situation "a very significant threat to religious liberty."

In addition, contends the attorney, it is another example that "whether you're in Europe or Canada or the United States, when the homosexual activists gain control with their legislation, they show an increasingly authoritarian core to beat down any Christian or traditional-type opposition to their same-sex relationships and conduct."

The tribunal, according to Lorence, also ordered the ministry to stop using the "no immorality" contract and to make its managers undergo training to force acceptance of homosexuality. He warns what that portends for the United States.

Liberals are constantly putting forth the mantra of equality and tolerance. That is, unless it stands in the way of their agenda. And currently, the Constitution does just that, as well as a vast majority of Americans. To combat this, homosexual activists in the U.S. utilize their cohorts in the school systems to teach acceptance of any sexual preference from kindergarten age. They also teach that homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation despite no scientific evidence showing a "homosexual gene." Additionally, efforts from Christian groups that are well within their First Amendment rights to balance some of the appetite for special rights are met with frowns and, often times, unwarranted discipline from school officials.

Unfortunately, Canada lacks a deep-seated history of religious liberties and freedom of speech, which does not bode well for Christian Horizons, which can legally appeal the case in Canada. But, if ENDA [Employment Non-Discrimination Act] legislation passes in the U.S., Americans are more braced for a fight than our brothers and sisters to the north. Let's learn early and quickly from them so we don't have to fight that fight. Let's send the message to our homosexual brethren that we love them too much to allow them to trample the rest of us and we pray they will turn from their sin.

UPDATE - 6:00 pm: One success in court:

A US federal court has granted permission for a teenager to wear a t-shirt with the slogan "Be Happy, Not Gay" during a Christian day of action held in response to a gay rights protest.

A high school in Neuqua Valley, Illinois, had banned student Alexander Neuxoll from wearing the t-shirt in class for a Christian group's "Day of Truth'' opposing homosexuality.

The school, while stressing its neutrality, barred Mr Neuxoll from wearing a t-shirt saying "Be Happy, Not Gay'' on the grounds that it was insulting.

What's insulting is homosexual activists who chant tolerance until someone speaks out that doesn't agree with them. Not everyone sings the same tune. And on the other side of the same token, speaking out against homosexuality, a biblical sin, does not constitute hate or bigotry. It's simply calling sin what it is: sin. The choice to turn from it is up to each individual. While many Christians may have not represented Christ in the best way on this issue, that does not mean they were wrong. They simply delivered the message a bit harshly.