Monday, December 1, 2008

Monday, November 24, 2008

Prop. 8

The California State Constitution, Article 1 Section 7.5 reads, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This amendment to the state constitution was made after the Nov. 4th election in which 52% of California voters made the powerful statement that family does matter and traditional marriage will be protected.

In the weeks since California defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, the pro-gay marriage movement has become a scary and almost militant group of individuals. They have held demonstrations in nearly every big city in America and have sought to strike fear in those who oppose them. From racial slurs directed at the Black Californians who supported traditional marriage by 70% to hate filled memos to members of religious organizations, the gay community is quickly transforming their anger to an out-of-control rage.

Gary Bauer, of American Values had this to say about the recent demonstrations, "Thousands of homosexuals continued to march in major cities this weekend from coast-to-coast against America’s laws and common sense values regarding marriage. These individuals are insisting on more than tolerance, which they already have. They are demanding that the whole country throw thousands of years of Western Civilization in the trash can and redefine marriage. Even the New York Times acknowledged what is at stake by describing same-sex “marriage” as “an issue that many gay men and lesbians consider a critical step to full equality.” Indeed, that is exactly the issue because marriage is the foundation of our society and the first institution ordained by God. Marriage is society’s “stamp of approval."

He continued, "These protests are shedding light on the authoritarian, anti-democratic impulse of the militant homosexual rights movement. While most of the press coverage of the weekend protests was glowing, one San Francisco station, KTVU, filmed a mob of angry gay radicals threatening a small group of Christians who had gathered to pray on a street corner Friday night. Police in riot gear had to be called in to escort the Christians safely out of the area."

One of the great traditions we hold in our great country is that of peaceful transfers of power. A republican may replace a democrat in the White House and there is no war in the streets, that is what makes these radical demonstrations so absurd. We live in a land of democracy and as such we understand that when the majority make their opinion known, it is accepted by all. Our democracy is being mocked and it is a true embarrassment.

Amid the contention in the streets we will rejoice that the family has been protected. We appreciate all who worked to pass Prop. 8 in California and those who fought to preserve our religious freedoms. We surly have not seen the last of this fight and we will continue to press on.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

As the 2008 election has played out it has been somewhat different than I expected. I thought we would hear a lot about the war--the war in Iraq that is. Instead I have witnessed first hand the tremendous need to protect, promote and strengthen the family. The war that has come to the forefront has been a cultural war--a war on our culture and our families--a war on which the outcome of our civilization rests. I have thought often of Joseph Daniel Unwin, a well known anthropologist of the early 1900’s, who set out to prove like many today that marriage was irrelevant. His research chronicled the decline of 86 different cultures and he was forced to conclude that only marriage with complete fidelity could produce cultural prosperity.

I have wondered many times if our civilization would learn from the past. Will our society choose to fall or fly? Will we recognize that families are essential to personal and national liberty and must be given the highest possible protection under the law or will we allow the tyranny of tolerance towards the politically correct to redefine and redesign our social structure completely out of existence?

Monday, October 27, 2008

Dumbing Down to A Different Level

I remember when it was important for schools to teach students about reading, writing, math and science. In fact, No Child Left Behind was designed to help schools focus on the mastery of those subjects so that American children would be able to compete in the global economy.

Today, it looks like American children are being subjected to the teachings of another sort. Kindergartners were recently sent on a field trip to witness their teacher's same-sex marriage to her long time partner...another woman.

Is this what is in store for the next generation? Reading, writing homosexuality, instead of reading, writing, 'rithmetic?

Protecting Marriage protects society

The marriage debate has surely opened my eyes to the importance of educating oneself on the issues and voting according to that education rather than the confusing rhetoric that surrounds each campaign. There is a tremendous amount of deception that can only be dispelled as the issues are carefully studied. The opposition to the marriage amendment in AZ says the amendment is not necessary because AZ already has state law protecting marriage. If this amendment is redundant, why do they care if it passes? The fact is, it is NOT redundant! It is very important to have a constitutional law regarding marriage or the statutory law that is presently protecting marriage can be easily overturned. The law concerning marriage is AZ this year is far different than the one defeated in 2006 because this law deals only with the definition of marriage: the union of one man and one woman. Who wouldn’t want that definition protected? Marriage is the foundation of the family and the family is the foundation of civilization. It is in families that the next generation of responsible adults is created! Study it out folks. A simple yes vote protects marriage—and society—in Arizona, California, and Florida!

Friday, October 24, 2008

The Opposition to Marriage Gets Ugly

What ever happened to the concept of respecting other people's opinions? I was always taught to disagree agreeably even when passionate about the issue. Unfortunately, the anti-family, homosexual groups have gone nuclear by taking disagreeing to a whole new level.

Not only will those who disagree with the redefinition of marriage as a right for same-sex couples to marry be pummeled with anti-discrimination accusations; their names, contributions and religious affiliation is being published on a blog or website near you.

The intention is to smear the good names of those that are brave enough to stand up for what they believe and put their hard-earned money where their mouths are. A request has gone out from overzealot activists for all to do Internet searches on these names in order to find some dirt.

I have heard of this type of political ball being played, but normally it goes on quietly and discretly. These folks are in-your-face shameless.

Oh, and did I mention that the only religion published is that of the Mormons? In fact, the homosexual-rights folks are protesting in front of the Oakland LDS Temple where they hope to discredit and harrass those attending services.

If I did not know better, I would think this is a hate crime...

Smearing the names, harrassing and revealing the religious affiliation of political contributers may or may not be a hate crime, but it is a crime. At the very least it is immoral and anti-American.

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Do You Know What Your Child is Reading?

You carefully monitor the types of television your children watch. You restrict the movies they attend and you are vigilant about the types of reading material they bring into the home. So have you covered all of the bases? If you haven’t read your children’s text books you may be in for a surprise.

It is possible; no it is probable, that some of the textbooks your children are using contain topics and references that you will find inappropriate. Even if you live in an area with a strong conservative or religious base the textbook choices available to your public school district many times contain questionable material.

1. So what can you do?

The most important thing you can do is to become informed by reading your children’s textbooks and other assigned material. If you find material that you consider to be objectionable talk to other like minded parents and then contact your school district. Every district has a curriculum committee. Even if they do not agree with your position they work for you and they must consider your concerns.

Many districts provide an opportunity for parents to participate on textbook review committees. It is much more effective to influence the choice of a textbook prior to the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars rather that after the fact.

2. Review the education laws in your state.

Below is a link that might aid you in your search.

3. Monitor the activities of the State and National Education Associations

Find out what theses folks are thinking and doing. Many professional educators feel that it is their duty to educate children according to the philosophies of the time. In fact the National Education Association (NEA) the largest and most powerful teachers union in the country is committed to the development of curricula that includes favorable references to teenage sexuality, homosexuality, abortion, etc.

As a parent you have the right and the responsibility to influence the educational material that is presented to your child. The cultural pressures within public education are strongly skewed to support liberal ideologies some of which you may object strongly to. In spite of these influences you can be heard and you can cause change. School will be starting soon--your children need you to be engaged.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

The Majority of Americans Want Their President to Support Traditional Marriage

I found the results of a national poll quite reassuring. The vast majority of Americans want their President to support traditional marriage. Fifty-eight percent of likely voters would be more likely to support a candidate that favors state marriage protection amendments—only 29 percent said they would be less likely to support such a candidate.

To see the full results of the national survey see:

This bodes well for the state of Arizona’s Marriage Amendment, as well as for the proposed amendments in California and Florida. It appears that citizens do understand the importance of maintaining the definition of traditional marriage. I’ll sleep just a little easier tonight.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Read UFI's Latest Book: 'Guide to Family Issues: The Harms of Pornography'

Since the arrival of the Internet, cell phones and the DVD and video industries, pornography has become the most pervasive and immediate threat to marriages and families, adults and children. Addiction and divorce are the most recognizable social costs of pornography, but the costs run much deeper. United Families International’s “Guide to Family Issues: The Harms of Pornography” examines what is perhaps the most insidious threat to individuals and families around the globe today.

History and research reveal the many harms of pornography:
  • Pornography seeks out people from all walks of life, then poisons and corrupts them. The allure of substantial profits seduces corporations, hotel chains, cable television companies and Internet entrepreneurs – without concern for the well-being of families.
  • Pornography has the propensity to deaden husbands’ attraction for their wives. The result is often heartache, alienation and divorce.
  • Pornography is a perpetrator of family breakdown.
  • Pornography demeans its participants. It is a form of prostitution, and porn subjects are frequently the victims of molestation, rape, coercion and blackmail.
  • Pornography corrupts children and robs them of their innocence. Children have been raped and murdered by the producers of pornography.
  • Organized crime is heavily involved in pornography, and crime rates are much higher in the neighborhoods where pornography is available.
  • Pornography takes billions of dollars out of economies that could be much better spent on the needs of families.
  • Pornography is not a benign phenomenon; it leaves a clearly discernible trail of victims.
    The scenes of sex crimes and the homes of those committing sex crimes are frequently littered with pornography. Pornography creates callous attitudes toward rape and causes users to develop distorted perceptions about sexuality.
  • Pornography acts as a harmful “drug.” Physiologically, viewing pornography commonly triggers internal, endogenous drug production. An image in a person’s head acts as an electrical signal for no more than a few seconds can leave a trace that will last for years.
  • Pornography distorts a healthy understanding of human sexuality.
  • Pornography is pervasive, and no one is beyond its reach. One does not have to look for pornography; it will find you.
  • Driven by greed and a disregard for families and consumers, businesses continually seek to expand pornography’s reach by creating new markets.
  • Pornography contributes to the rising tide of sex trafficking.

The preponderance of social science research demonstrates how pornography harms men, women, children, families and marriages and poisons homes, work places, governments, communities and corrupts the mass media culture.

Read UFI's "Guide to Family Issues: The Harms of Pornography" online.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Dad, You Make Your Family and Community Better

Sunday, June 15 is Father's Day, and this is a message for all Dads.

Do you know just how indispensable you are to your wife and your children? To your community?

When you are present in the home and married to your children’s mother, so many positive things are in play.

For instance, your teens are significantly more likely to be involved in constructive use of their time through groups, sports and religious organizations.

Marriage strengthens the bonds you have with your children. Typically, you are more involved with your children and enjoy better relationships with them than unwed or divorced fathers. Your role of husband and father encourages you to voluntarily take responsibility for your children.

Students living with you and their mother score consistently higher in reading and math than other children.

Your wife is statistically much safer because of your presence.

Just having you at home and in their lives means your boys and girls are less likely to be suspended or expelled from school, less likely to commit delinquent crimes, less likely to be reported for problem behaviors at school, less likely to receive low grades in two or more subjects and more likely to score well on standard tests of cognitive development.

Your children are more likely to complete high school, attend or graduate from college.

Your daughters are less likely to become pregnant as teens.

With you present and in their lives, your kids are less vulnerable to serious emotional illness, depression and suicide.

Happy Father’s Day. Remember how valuable you are to your wives and children. Your presence in the home contributes to positive dynamics for your family and your community.

Enjoy your day!

Every Teen Doesn't Have Sex

We constantly hear from Planned Parenthood and other liberals that "everybody does it." And since every teen is supposedly sexually active, the remedy is condoms.

Now a new study comes out to refute those tired lines. And guess what? The Center for Disease Control study reports that just 34.1 percent of U.S. high school students are sexually active. That's a little short of "everybody." This figure is down from 54 percent in 1991, which is about the time that abstinence education began gathering momentum.

The 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System study showed a 2-percent dropoff in the percentage of teens who said they used condoms while having sex. As students progress through high school, their condom use drops off -- despite the heavy dose of condom education by Planned Parenthood.

Despite the falling rates of sexual activity, there is still too much early sexual activity. In Mississippi and Delaware, more than 60 percent of high school students have had sexual intercourse. The rates are over 50 percent in 14 other states.

The further students go through high school, the more likely they are to engage in sexual activity:

Ninth-graders: 20.1 percent
Tenth-graders: 30.6 percent
Eleventh-graders: 41.8 percent
Twelfth-graders: 52.6 percent

Nearly 15 percent of high school students have had sexual intercourse with four or more persons in their life.

The figure for students having sex for the first time before the age of 13 is 7.1 percent. Just 4.5 percent of high school seniors fit this category.

Sexual activity among Black and White students is declining, but there was no decline among Hispanic students.

One of the surprising findings of the study is that 29.1 percent of high school students in San Francisco have ever had sex. In contrast, 70 percent of students in Baltimore had engaged in sexual intercourse. Other major metro cities with high rates were Detroit, Memphis, Milwaukee and Philadelphia.

Read the study

Friday, May 23, 2008

18 Conclusions to Take Away from California Supreme Court’s Decision to Constitutionalize Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

1— The court parroted bromides commonly tendered by the homosexual agenda, including: comparing restrictions of same-sex “marriage” to past laws barring interracial marriage, and same-sex “marriage” does not impact heterosexual marriage. Race cannot be compared to homosexuality because no one is born homosexual. The court re-defined “marriage” for everyone, including heterosexuals, and it rendered meaningless the gender of fathers, mothers and children.

2—The court did not accept the argument that marriage is fundamentally about raising children, and it argued that through adoption and assisted reproduction individuals incapable of bearing children are capable of raising children. This logic fails to recognize that both genders contribute in unique ways to the psychological development of children.

3—The court said marriage is basically about individual happiness. This logic discounts children and fails to recognize that marriages based primarily on personal happiness are lacking in depth and contribute to the high divorce rate.

4—The court a) cited the dissent of a New York Supreme Court justice who last year argued that tradition is not a sufficient argument for maintaining the status quo of heterosexual-only marriage; and b) rejected the Court of Appeals’ basis for using the absence of historical or precedential support for same-sex “marriage.” If history and tradition are accorded so little weight, then why do courts go to such great lengths to cite precedents?

5—The court cited changes in the State of California’s understanding and legal treatment of homosexuals and asserted that homosexuals are fully capable of entering into the kind of loving and enduring committed relationships that may serve as the foundation of family. These relationships are actually less likely to last, more fraught with behavioral problems, more infidelity, more likely to end quickly and less likely to provide stability for children in the home.

6—The court dealt with the state’s Domestic Partner Act at great length only to conclude the act did not have a significant impact on its decision. Because the state legislature had already enacted a comprehensive domestic partnership law granting to same-sex couples virtually all of the substantive legal rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, the plaintiffs were relieved of the burden of presenting a constitutional challenge to obtain those rights and benefits. This indicates that the Left won this case by making incremental gains in the past.

7—The court referred to a 1972 constitutional amendment adding “privacy” to the “inalienable rights” of all Californians and said the state constitutional right to marry now falls within an individual’s interest in private autonomy. The privacy argument could be used to defuse any state law, but was selectively used in this example of judicial activism.

8—The court cited past court decisions and the United Nations for recognition of the family as the basic unit of society and then assumed any adult coupling can achieve these ideals. The ideals cited were established by heterosexual marriage over the annals of time and have never been equaled by homosexual parenting.

9—The court ruled that the right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice and as such is of fundamental significance to society and to the individual. The court cited no social science studies to show that alternative family forms provide the same benefits to society contributed by heterosexual-headed families. The burden of proof still remains with the court.

10—The court recognized an individual’s “opportunity to live a happy, meaningful and satisfying life as a full member of society” as grounds for granting all individuals and couples without regard to sexual orientation the right to marry. This thinking opens the door for polygamy and all manner of marital arrangements.

11—The court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim of “sex discrimination” as it relates to the California equal protection clause, but it insisted that “the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation.” The court also stated that heterosexual and homosexual persons have the legal right to marry someone of the opposite gender, but nevertheless insisted that behavior was applicable to the equal protection clause.

12—The court ruled that denying “marriage” to same-sex couples amounts to “second-class citizenship.” Nomenclature matters, and states should continue to protect traditional marriage and oppose counterfeit forms of “marriage.”

13—According to the court, the circumstance that the majority of Californians voted in favor of retaining the traditional definition of marriage does not exempt the statutory limitation from constitutional review, nor does it demonstrate that the voters’ objective represents a constitutionally compelling state interest for purposes of equal protection principles. This is judicial arrogance at its highest.

14—The court stated that in the past, interracial marriage was banned, women were excluded from many occupations and official duties and racial minorities were relegated to separate facilities and institutions. Race and gender are immutable characteristics, but one’s sexual orientation is not a basis for “minority group” status.

15—The court acknowledged a heavy burden of proof upon the state to demonstrate why homosexuals should not be permitted same-sex “marriage rights. However, the governor and the attorney general both approve of same-sex “marriage.” It is thus not surprising that the court found their arguments less than compelling.

16—The court stated that “affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.” This is a hollow “protection” for those churches, businesses and individuals who don’t support this court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Boy Scouts and other organizations have the right to determine their own membership, but that did not prevent cities, states and political parties from demonizing the Boy Scouts.

17—The court concluded that Family Code section 300 – which designates marriage as the union of a man and a woman – is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute. The remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. The limitation of Family Code section 308.5 “can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.” These actions circumvent the legislative process and the will of the people of California. As Justice Marvin Baxter dissented, the majority violated the separation of powers.

18—The majority placed great reliance on Perez v. Sharp (1948), a case that ruled in favor of interracial marriage. However, Perez and many other cases establishing the fundamental right to marry were all based on the common understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

California Supreme Court Marriage Decision – May 2008

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Are You Getting a Divorce...

A new Gallup Poll shows that 70 percent of Americans think that divorce is morally acceptable. That’s up 11 percentage points from seven years ago. Good thing? Bad thing? Well the Gallup people seem to think it is a good thing: “People going through divorce often deal with a range of difficult emotions, including anger, sadness, trepidation, remorse, and a sense of failure. One issue becoming less and less a factor in that gut-wrenching mix is the sting of moral condemnation.”

But if you ask the some 42 million children (since 1970) who have been devastated by their parents’ divorce, I think they might prefer a little more public “sting” if it were to help keep their family intact. The research is pretty clear: divorce has a dramatically negative impact on children with many suffering from its effects throughout adulthood. (See UFI’s Guide to Family Issues: Divorce) As I read polls such as this one, my heart aches for the children and for the adults who seem to be cavalier and clueless regarding the impact of divorce.

I am reminded of an experience that an acquaintance shared with me. She and her husband were having a tiff and their young daughter, unfortunately, was a witness to the louder than usual voices. As the argument wound down, the couple noticed that their daughter was particularly distraught. Upon inquiring, the young girl choked back her tears and said: “Are you getting a divorce….just like Cami’s parents? Please! Don’t get a divorce.”

The couple took the opportunity to gather their children together and explain:
“We are sorry that we were fighting and we’ll try to handle it differently next time, but know this: Your parents will NEVER get a divorce. It doesn’t matter what happens; we can fight, stomp out of the room, be very unhappy with one another… but we have made a commitment to one another and we will work through our problems. Divorce is not an option for us; so take that off your list of concerns forever.”

I believe her. I only wish that the rest of the country believed in their marriages as much.

And Its Not Even Halloween

Isn’t a half-human, half-animal creature the stuff of mythology? Well not any more. The British House of Commons has just this week passed an animal-human hybrid law. British MP’s have granted scientists the license to create any kind of hybrid (human and animal combination) including those derived from cloning, animal eggs and human sperm, genetic engineering and more. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill will allow researchers to empty an animal egg and fill it with human genetic materials. The caveat: these cloned human-animal hybrid embryos are then allowed to live for just 14 days before they are to be destroyed.

The folks in charge claim that this is necessary for the progress of embryonic stem cell research. Human eggs are just too hard to come by—too painful for human females to donate and too expensive for researchers to obtain. So we gotta have animal-human hybrids… It doesn’t matter that embryonic stem cell research has yet to yield even one successful medical treatment for humans and adult stem cell research (which doesn’t destroy human embryos) has given the world, at last count, some 75 new and successful treatments.

Has Britain shown us the slippery slope? Is the next step to legalize the “production” of biological chimeras—creatures that are composites of several animals, including part human. We are well on our way toward having the technology. We could create a creature made from an equal number of cells from two species that would look like one species, but contain the organs, genes and intelligence of another species. Just think of the possibilities and the positive benefits to mankind! We can then send these creatures to fight our wars for us, spend them to do space exploration, keep our full-human brothers and sisters safe from any dangerous or unpleasant situation. Or imagine some creature having the appearance of a human, but stuck with the intelligence of a cow.

The people who block the production of genetically-engineered (GE) foods to feed a starving developing world are the same people who champion laws such as this new “Frankensteinian” law in Britain. I guess they have a problem with genetically modified ears of corn, but don’t see any problem with animals having a human’s ears, DNA, or brain.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Dr. Wilkins: California Marriage Decision will Have Serious Long-term Consequences

Last week's decision by the California Supreme Court to legalize same-sex "marriage" is sending shock waves around the world. Dr. Richard Wilkins, a constitutional law professor and legal expert on marriage and managing director of the Doha International Institute for Family Studies and Development, Qatar Foundation, issued the following statement today to United Families International:

The recent decision of the California Supreme Court redefining marriage demonstrates the continued willingness of unelected judges to overturn – and frankly ignore – the will of the people on a vital issue of social policy that lies at the core of any successful society. The decision to alter dramatically the meaning of marriage in California will have long-term (and as yet not fully known but nevertheless serious) consequences. The decision, at the very least, flies in the face of mounting evidence that children need (and deserve) the care of a father and a mother. The decision also ignores the now undisputable facts that altering the historic meaning of marriage destabilizes the institution of marriage and weakens its vitally important social roles. For example, in countries that have had same-sex "marriage" for a significant period of time (e.g., the Netherlands), marriage rates are at all-time historic lows, the number of children born out of wedlock are at all-time historic highs and marital dissolution rates have reached all-time historic levels.

The People of California must act – dramatically and quickly – to place a constitutional amendment preserving marriage on the ballot. The meaning of marriage involves much more than a simple question of “equality.” Rather, it involves a broad range of issues that go to the very core of the social processes that make civilization possible. Those who support marriage as the union of a man and a woman are not driven by animus toward those with diverse sexual orientations. On the contrary, they are driven by well-founded concern for the future of their children, grandchildren and generations of Californians yet unborn.

Dr. Wilkins has in a most articulate manner put the California situation in proper perspective. The decision of the court was short-sighted.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

California’s Supreme Court Declares Marriage Unconstitutional

California’s Supreme Court refused today to recognize a “compelling state interest” in traditional marriage:

"We cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

By a 4-3 decision, the court struck down Proposition 22, which defined marriage as one man and one woman. That initiative won by a landslide 61-39 percent margin.

High courts in other jurisdictions, including New York and Maryland, have in fact found a compelling interest for their states to recognize only marriage between one man and one woman. The California court could have done likewise, but chose not to.

Justices voting in the majority were:

Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the opinion. He was appointed by former Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, in 1991.

Justice Joyce Kennard, appointed by Republican Gov. George Deukmejian in 1989.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, appointed in 1994 by Gov. Wilson.

Justice Carlos Moreno, appointed in 2001 by Gov. Gray Davis.


Justice Marvin Baxter, appointed by Gov. Deukmejian in 1990. He accused the court of substituting “its own social policy views for those expressed by the people.”

Justice Ming Chin, a 1996 Wilson appointee.

Justice Carol Corrigan, a 2005 appointee of current Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Today's ruling will have unintended consequences. The ruling will allow legal same-sex “marriages” in 30 days and puts men, women and children at risk. Taxpayers will pay out more in social agency costs as a result of today's decisions. The nations that do allow same-sex “marriage” have shown high rates of domestic violence rates in the homosexual community, and children do not fare well in homes headed by homosexual adults. The safest place for children is in the homes of married parents of opposite gender.

Friday, May 2, 2008

Abortion on Trial in South Dakota Again

You have to hand it to those avid pro-lifers in South Dakota. For the second straight election cycle, they have qualified a ballot initiative in an attempt to limit abortions in the homeland of Mount Rushmore – the Shrine to Democracy.

Nothing is more central to democracy than the right to life.

Initiated Measure 11, if passed by voters November 4th, would ban any abortions not deemed necessary to preserve the lives or health of women and in cases of rape or incest.

A more restrictive ban passed by the Legislature lost at the ballot box in 2006, 56-44 percent. That initiative lacked exceptions.

Credit the group for leading the effort to protect the unborn children of South Dakota for collecting the necessary signatures for the new ballot measure.

The 2008 initiative looks like a good bet to win. However, South Dakota will no doubt see a celebrity parade of pro-choice sympathizers coming into the state. We suggest that anyone with any doubts about the right to life for all pre-born children and the harms of abortion to utilize the following two resources:

UFI’s “Guide to Family Issues: Abortion

Report of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Abstinence Education Under Fire Despite Great Success

On Tuesday, speakers at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., announced that two new studies have joined the growing list of research demonstrating the efficacy of abstinence education. Despite a plethora of evidence to this effect, Democrats in Congress still want to discontinue or reduce federal funding of abstinence education. A study by Dr. Stan Weed, of the Institute of Research and Evaluation, evaluated the role of abstinence education in decreasing the sexual activity of students in Virginia’s middle schools. The program achieved a significant reduction in teen sexual initiation. Also, Christine Kim and Robert Rector, of The Heritage Foundation, released their comprehensive review of 21 previous studies of the effectiveness of abstinence and virginity pledge programs. Sixteen of the 21 studies of abstinence education reported lower levels of sexual activity among students who had studied abstinence. It is not surprising that new studies confirm what we have known all along: discussing and teaching abstinence provides a valuable service to children and their families. The focus on condoms in so-called “safe-sex” education classes cannot compare to abstinence education in any way. Nevertheless, Congress needs to recognize the success of abstinence education and appropriate federal funding.

Today, Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California), an aggressive opponent of abstinence education, brought in seven witnesses to testify to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is deliberating on federal funding options for sexual education. Waxman stacked the deck with anti-abstinence education witnesses. Six of the seven witnesses testifying opposed abstinence education. As the only witness offering testimony on the efficacy of abstinence education, Dr. Weed pointed out that most studies demonstrate that abstinence education clearly works better than comprehensive “safe-sex” education and its reliance on encouraging teens to be sexually active and use condoms.

The Heritage Foundation Study

Friday, April 11, 2008

UFI President in Kosovo to Address Constitutional Issues

UFI President Carol Soelberg is in Pristina, Kosovo working with pro-family/pro-life coalition allies for the purpose of commenting on the draft of a new constitution’s treatment of social values. Carol filed this report:

I am safely in Kosovo. It was a long, but good trip. I am meeting many wonderful people here and our agenda continues to add new appointments. Our goal is to actually start a few grassroots organizations that will help convey our message when we leave. Our fear is that the newly formed government is moving from "dependence" under the ruling of the United Nations to unelected international bureaucrats, as opposed to their own independent rule.

The man who picked me up from the airport told me a fascinating story. He is an Albanian and has lived here with his family all his life. In 1999, all Albanians were called to the city center for a "rally." When they arrived, they learned that they were all to be killed on the spot. The commander in charge could not bring himself to do such a dastardly deed, so he put all 8,000 people in trucks and drove them to Albania, where they had to stay for three months until things settled down some. They left without any clothes or supplies, but were grateful to be alive.

Our coalition team of legal and human rights experts is meeting with top government officials and religious leaders about the draft constitution. The team comes from some of the most influential non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the United States and Europe that focus on social policies related to constitutional and international law, human rights and international institutions. I am representing United Families International here. The team consists of members from: the Alliance Defense Fund, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, Concerned Women for America, Chrétiens Démocrates Fédéraux, Action pour la famille-Actie, Educational Initiative for Central and Eastern Europe, Human Life International, Alliance of Romania's Families and Advocates Europe.

The group is concerned that aspects of the draft constitution removes any ability for Kosova to determine what issues are constitutionally protected. For instance, language in the draft could be misinterpreted to promote certain rights including special rights for “sexual orientation” leading to same-sex “marriage," a right to abortion. The coaliton is also concerned that the draft could violate the rights of conscience of Kosovar professionals and limit speech, media, assembly and association, preventing any public expression of unpopular viewpoints – the viewpoints that most need constitutional protection.

We are meeting with senior government officials and we also held a press conference today. This weekend, the group will provide a lecture at the University of Pristina and meet with religious leaders.

Our purpose is to comment on the substance of the constitution, not to address the question of independence.

UFI vs. European Union: The Fight to Keep Abortion Rights Language out of UN Document

Marcia Barlow, UFI’s director of international policy, is at the United Nations attending the annual International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). She filed this report today:

What seemed like a very tame day Wednesday turned out to be not so great. Late that day, Nan Kennelly, leader of the U.S. delegation here, introduced family-friendly language to the ICPD’s outcome document, in several places. She used language that I drafted -- eight words in total. The United States delegation is one of the key allies for UFI and our coalition efforts to defend the traditional family from the ongoing assault by anti-family change agents.The family language is included the document at present, but isn’t popular. Kennelly said that when she introduced the language there was a "huge groan" from the assembly of delegations. The negotiating group permitted the European Union (EU) to pack the document with sexual and reproductive health services language. Thus, the standoff that we face at all of these social conferences at the UN was set.

The EU refuses to accept any descriptive terms that refer to the traditional family in singular terms, preferring instead to promote the more politically correct term “families.” As in the multiple forms of families -- broken, headed by homosexual adult(s) and cohabiting households that result in extraordinary costs to government social agencies. UFI believes it is in the best interests of governments to work to strengthen marriages and the family in order to assure healthy communities which require less drain on taxpayer-funded social costs. A group of EU member nations introduced an amendment to the ICPD document which would add three sentences on “reproductive health services” – code language for abortion. Now we've got a real problem. Our pro-family coalition was greatly alarmed by this development. It will take hard work to remove the reproductive health services language, and it may result in losing the pro-family language introduced by the U.S. That is precisely what has happened during past ICPD assemblies.

It is pretty much a waiting game now. We have our usual vigil going outside the negotiating room. Utilizing UFI’s “United Nations Negotiating Guide,” we are pulling up all the past conference documents and language precedents that we can to refute the bad language and we are doing everything we can to persuade delegations to remove the EU-preferred terminology.
More as things develop …