July 12 2008 Chad Groening OneNewsNow

A human rights activist and author says after years of a sagging birthrate, the U.S. has once again climbed above the all-important replacement birth rate.

Mosher attributes the improvement to the success of the pro-life movement. "Pro-life sentiment in this country is gradually increasing," he says, "[and] people who are pro-life tend to be open to life -- they tend to have larger families. People who are not pro-life tend to have smaller families. If you are in favor of abortion, you tend to abort your children.

"So over time, America is becoming more of a pro-life country. The birth rate is creeping upwards," Mosher says. "So we're in a very different situation than Europe. And in part, I think, it's because of the strength of religious faith in this country."

Mosher says Americans read the Bible which says that children are a blessing.

July 15 2008 Devon Williams, Associate Editor Citizen Link

Same-sex couples will be counted as 'unmarried partners.'

Massachusetts and California may have decided to legalize gay “marriage,” but the U.S. Census Bureau will not count same-sex “marriages” in its 2010 census report.

Census officials said even though same-sex “marriage” is legal in some states, federal law defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

“The U.S. Census Bureau procedures used to count and tabulate relationship data are guided by and comply with legal requirements of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which requires all federal agencies to recognize only opposite-sex marriages for the purposes of administering federal programs,” said Stephen Buckner, a spokesman for the Census Bureau. “Many of these programs rely on Census Bureau statistics.”

Jenny Tyree, associate marriage analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the Census Bureau is just one arena in which a redefinition of marriage would cause chaos.

“The word 'marriage' has long been understood across many cultures as the cooperative union of male and female with a vital interest in the next generation,” she said. “Thankfully, President Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act and gave the Census Bureau a clear guideline.”

The Census Bureau defines a family as two or more people related by birth, adoption or marriage. So, if a respondent refers to a person of the same gender as "husband" or "wife" on the 2010 census form, the Census Bureau will assign them to the "unmarried partner" category.

“The way that the federal government looks at it is the way that the law says it should be in California,” she said. “We’re very confident we’ve got the law on our side here in California. We’re going to fight very vigorously to get this passed in November.”

Good News: California Home-Schoolers Applaud Decision

July 14 2008 Devon Williams, associate editor Citizen Link

Family-court action could convince appellate court not to interfere with home schooling freedoms in California.

A California family-court judge has dismissed the case that led a higher court to call for a statewide ban on most forms of home schooling.

Home-school advocates are hopeful the decision will influence the 2nd District Court of Appeals, which ruled Feb. 28 that California parents without teaching credentials cannot home-school their children.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the family-court ruling is a victory for home-schoolers. 

“This development likely means that the horrible Court of Appeals decision outlawing home schooling in California will not be resurrected,” he said. “That's good news for the 200,000 home-schooled kids in that state.”

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, said the appellate court is expected to decide in the next few weeks whether to drop its earlier ruling.

“If that were to happen, we would be back at square one as if this whole mess had never taken place — at least legally speaking — because there’d be absolutely no precedent on the books,” he said.

Gary McCaleb, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said he is hopeful the court will do the right thing.

“We’ve had a tremendous alliance arguing on behalf of home-schoolers, and the case has been tossed out of the lower court,” he said. “We think the appellate court will do the right thing and settle the matter that parents can home-school in California.”
 
Dacus encouraged home schooling families not to lose heart.

“These ups and downs can be very nerve-racking, but in the end, we’re confident home schooling will be legal in California,” he said. “People should be praying for this matter, praying for the appellate court.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Learn more about the decision to outlaw home schooling in California.

California Voters Will be Given a Chance to Ban Same-Sex 'Marriage'

July 16 2008 Bob Unruh WorldNetDaily

Black robes say proposed constitutional amendment will be on ballot

The state Supreme Court in California is allowing voters this November to consider a plan to define marriage as one man and one woman, a move that could overturn that same court's ruling in May that same-sex duos should be recognized as "married."

"Obviously, the Supreme Court decision delivers a significant blow to our opponents," she told WND. "It does send a very strong message to our opponents that they won't be able to evade democracy which is what they've been trying to do by going to the court system.

"They've been trying to keep the ballot issue away from the people of California," she said. "The people of California, back in 2000, by more than a 61 percent majority, upheld the definition of marriage [as one man and one woman]. I believe they will do so again."

The court action had been brought by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and several other groups against California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, who already had certified the amendment for the ballot.

The amendment states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," and if it is passed, it will nullify the 4-3 ruling of the California Supreme Court issued on May 15 and would ban same-sex marriage in California.

According to Liberty Counsel, "The same-sex marriage advocates were seeking to remove the amendment from the November ballot, erroneously arguing that 'the rules for revising the California Constitution were not properly followed.' Their brief claimed that an initiative was not enough to put the amendment on the ballot, since it must also be approved by two-thirds of the legislature. The suit also alleged that petitions for the initiative, which were circulated prior to the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, were misleading because they stated the amendment would not change existing law and would not have a financial impact on the state."

"If the people have an opportunity to participate in the democratic process, they will vote for marriage as one man and one woman," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel. "Those who push for same-sex marriage are willing to destroy both marriage and democracy to achieve a selfish result. Marriage between a man and a woman is best for our children and for our country."

California voters, long pushed by homosexual activists to legalize same-sex "marriage," in 2000 voted to establish the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman.

However, the state Supreme Court opinion in May overturned that vote of the people – which was established only in law, not in the constitution. The actual "ceremonies" between same-sex duos were launched in June. But the new amendment would establish the one-man-one-woman definition in the state constitution, beyond the reach of activist judges.

Staver told WND earlier those who opposed the issue being presented to the people were out of line.

"They're suggesting the Supreme Court can rewrite the entire institution of marriage, but people can't amend the Constitution to go back to its historical definition," Staver said. "It's absolutely ridiculous to argue that courts can turn society upside down in 30 days, but the people have no right to define it."

Of 28 states where such an amendment has been considered, voters in 27 states – all but Arizona – have passed the amendment. A Los Angeles Times poll recently reported 54 percent of Californians polled supported the amendment, while 35 percent opposed it. A simple majority of the vote is needed to add Proposition 8 to the California Constitution.

July 16 2008 Jennifer Mesko, editor Citizen Link

Pro-family legislators threatened by those pushing the homosexual agenda.

Massachusetts legislators are considering a change to state law that would allow homosexuals who are not residents of the commonwealth to come there to "marry." The potential consequences of the proposal could be chaotic, says one family advocate.

Homosexual activists succeeded in getting Massachusetts' Supreme Court to legalize same-sex "marriage" in 2003. But a 1913 law prevents couples who are not residents of the state from getting "married" there. But that could change tomorrow (July 15). The state legislature is considering a repeal of the non-resident marriage ban.

For 95 years, Massachusetts has declined to provide marriage licenses to couples who can't legally wed in their home states — which includes most same-sex couples.

Now it looks like that 1913 law — which was upheld by the state's highest court just two years ago — will be repealed, pushing gay "marriage" on the entire nation.

The state Senate voted Tuesday to repeal the law; the House is expected to vote soon. Gov. Deval Patrick has indicated he will sign the legislation.

"The Massachusetts Senate has no right to infringe on the internal issues of how other states define marriage, but that's exactly what they voted to do," Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, told The Associated Press.

In their push to export same-sex "marriage," Patrick and other Democrats are calling the 1913 law racist; pro-family state senators have received threats of being labeled "racist" if they express support for the law.

The law dates to a time when the majority of states outlawed interracial marriages. Massachusetts has allowed interracial marriages since 1843, according to The AP. The state Supreme Court, which upheld the law in 2006, did not mention race in its opinion:

"The Commonwealth also has a significant interest in not meddling in matters in which another State, the one where a couple actually resides, has a paramount interest.

"Massachusetts can reasonably believe that nonresident same-sex couples primarily are coming to this Commonwealth to marry because they want to evade the marriage laws of their home States, and that Massachusetts should not be encouraging such evasion."

Mineau said he knows the real motive behind the repeal effort.

“There’s no justification for repealing this law other than to placate the homosexual agenda," he said.

July 15 2008 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

July 14 2008 Jim Brown OneNewsNow

A pastor and conservative activist is urging fellow North Carolinians to raise their voices in opposition to a controversial anti-bullying bill in the state General Assembly that's being pushed by homosexual activists and their allies.

RALEIGH, N.C. - Conservative Christians are lobbying hard against an anti-bullying bill that they say would advance special protections for homosexuals in North Carolina.

The legislation would target bullying in school that appears to be motivated by sexual orientation as well as race, religion or other characteristics.

Bill supporters reject concerns that the bill would open the door to making sexual orientation a protected category in other state laws.

But the Mark Creech says the legislation could force school officials to affirm gay behavior.

Around Texas:

July 16 2008 Free Market Foundation

In May 2007 we celebrated an academic-freedom victory when the Texas Legislature passed Rep. Warren Chisum’s course requiring school districts to offer elective courses on Bible history and literature.

You might also recall our legal division’s victory in Odessa, TX, defending a school district against an ACLU attack on its Bible electives. After two whopping triumphs in the legislature and the courts, liberals are now trying to sway the State Board of Education (SBOE) to obstruct the elective classes.

Just last week Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued his expert opinion on the topic, saying that the SBOE’s guidelines for the courses meet constitutional muster. Unfazed by the Attorney General, disgruntled liberal groups are pressuring SBOE board members and discouraging them from accepting the TEKS requirements on Bible electives in a vote this Thursday and Friday.

Free Market’s Director of Legislative Affairs, Jonathan Saenz will be testifying before the SBOE at a hearing on the issue this Thursday, and with our legal expertise and court experience, plans to fully equip the voting members with the truth on the constitutionality and success of these classes.

July 13 2008 Houston Cronical

AUSTIN — Texas spent a nation-high $17 million last year for abstinence education programs that continue to stir debate about whether classes promoting virginity before marriage work in public schools.

Federal statistics in June showed that 52.9 percent of Texas students in ninth through 12th grades had sexual intercourse, compared with 47.8 nationally. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also reported that Texas youths are less likely to use condoms.

Public schools in Texas are not required to offer sex education, but those that do must make the lessons abstinence-focused. Instructions about condoms are couched in terms of how often they fail, according to state law.

Abstinence-only supporters say more comprehensive sex education sends a mixed message to teenagers that having sex at their age is fine, while opponents cite surveys that they say prove abstinence lessons are failing.

Regardless, a change in Texas policy does not appear likely, the Austin American-Statesman reported Sunday.

"The governor is comfortable with the current law and supports abstinence programs," said Allison Castle, a spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Perry.

But the state lawmaker who co-authored the abstinence legislation in 1995 says the law was not meant to eliminate comprehensive sex education in schools. Democrat Garnet Coleman of Houston said he put up the bill at a time when he feared conservative state officials would abandon sex education completely.

"I think the interpretation has morphed into abstinence-only, which is not our policy," Coleman said. "If I could fix anything, it'd be to make the law more instructive to say, 'This is what you can teach'" about contraceptives.

The federal government has spent $1.1 billion on funding for abstinence programs since 1982, according to federal officials. Texas has spent more than other state — almost $117 million, including $32.4 million of its own money.

Twenty-two states have rejected money from federally funded abstinence education programs, opting instead for a more comprehensive approach to sex education.

In Texas, some school districts struggle with how much information they can give students in the classroom. Texas Education Agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe says the state gives school districts "flexibility" about how to teach sex education, but few appear to be doing so.

"It breaks my heart," Whitney Self, a health teacher at Chapa Middle School in Kyle, said about the uncertainty of how far the district can go when talking about contraception.

In some schools in California, teachers can demonstrate condoms. In Texas, schools are forbidden to hand out condoms or instruct proper use.

Abstinence supporters say it's the job of parents, not the schools, to determine how much their teenage children know about contraceptives.

"Can you imagine being a parent and having your child come home and tell you all the ways they learned in school that you can (have sex)?" said Republican state Rep. Rob Eissler, chairman of the House Public Education Committee.

There is a movement on Capitol Hill to defend our freedom from Islamofascism. I’m not talking about more funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or legislation to bolster our intelligence community. Instead, members of Congress are growing increasingly concerned about a legal jihad being waged by Islamists in European courts against American writers and publishing companies. Given the propensity of liberal judicial activists to bow to foreign law, a bi-partisan coalition has introduced legislation in Congress to counter this threat. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) explaining the danger. Here are some excerpts:

“Under American law, a libel plaintiff must prove that defamatory material is false. In England, the burden is reversed. Disputed statements are presumed to be false unless proven otherwise. And the loser in the case must pay the winner’s legal fees.

“Consequently, English courts have become a popular destination for libel suits against American authors. In 2003, U.S. scholar Rachel Ehrenfeld asserted in her book, ‘Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It,’ that Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz helped fund Osama bin Laden. The book was published in the U.S. by a U.S. company. But 23 copies were bought online by English residents, so English courts permitted the Saudi to file a libel suit there. Ms. Ehrenfeld did not appear in court, so Mr. Bin Mahfouz won a $250,000 default judgment against her. He has filed or threatened to file at least 30 other suits in England.

“Fear of a similar lawsuit forced Random House U.K. in 2004 to cancel publication of ‘House of Bush, House of Saud,’ a best seller in the U.S. that was written by an American author. In 2007, the threat of a lawsuit compelled Cambridge University Press to apologize and destroy all available copies of ‘Alms for Jihad,’ a book on terrorism funding by American authors. The publisher even sent letters to libraries demanding that they destroy their copies…

“Our bill bars U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law. The bill also permits American authors and publishers to countersue if the material is protected by the First Amendment. If a jury finds that the foreign suit is part of a scheme to suppress free speech rights, it may award treble (triple) damages. …we are engaged in another great struggle -- this time against Islamist terror -- and again the enemies of freedom seek to silence free speech. Our legislation will help ensure that they do not succeed.”

While I applaud this effort to check liberal judicial activists who may be tempted to bow to foreign legal opinion in the fight against Islamofascism, it is a damning indictment against our legal culture that such legislation is even necessary. Moreover, I hope members of Congress will take a similar stand in defense of traditional American values, which are also threatened by the “evolving standards of decency” abroad. Justice Anthony Kennedy, for example, referenced foreign law in his 2003 opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which many legal scholars recognize as the legal foundation for same-sex “marriage” in America. He did it again two years later in a case limiting the use of the death penalty.

In fact, liberal legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wrote nearly three years ago, “Kennedy has a passion for foreign cultures and ideas, and, as a Justice, he has turned it into a principle of jurisprudence. Over the past two years, he has become a leading proponent of one of the most cosmopolitan, and controversial, trends in constitutional law: using foreign and international law as an aid to interpreting the United States Constitution. Kennedy’s embrace of foreign law may be among the most significant developments on the Court in recent years -- the single biggest factor behind his evolution from a reliable conservative into the likely successor to Sandra Day O’Connor as the Court’s swing vote.”

Toobin may find Kennedy’s transformation from a “reliable conservative” to a “cosmopoltian swing voter” admirable, but our Founding Fathers did not fight a war to win our independence just so liberal judges could subvert American law to foreign courts. Sadly, liberal judicial activism has been tolerated for so long that Senators Specter and Lieberman now believe it is necessary to defend the First Amendment from our own courts! Elections have consequences, my friends, and one of the biggest consequences of every election is that the men and women we elect to public office nominate and confirm the judges who sit on our federal courts, including the Supreme Court.