Americans for Truth about Homosexuality

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AT ITS WORST: This will always be immoral. California’s highest court has created a “fundamental” marriage right out of behavior — homosexuality — that is fundamentally wrong and destructive. At left is a homosexual male kissing scene as it appeared on the CBS soap “As the World Turns.” Everywhere Americans turn — TV, media, schools, in corporations and the courts — this unhealthy and immoral behavior is being promoted.

California’s highest court has just invalidated California’s Proposition 22, creating a legal “fundamental” right to homosexual so-called “marriage” out of thin air, under the guise of equal protection. We’re reading the 172-page decision — available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF — now, but as we suspected, the court’s majority made use of the fact that in California, homosexual couples already have been given most of the same rights as normal couples — including the right to adopt children.

Footnote 72 on page 117 of the California decision is key:

Contrary to the contention of the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund and the
Campaign, the distinction in nomenclature between marriage and domestic partnership cannot be defended on the basis of an asserted difference in the effect on children of being raised by an opposite-sex couple instead of by a same-sex couple. Because the governing California statutes permit same-sex couples to adopt and raise children and additionally draw no distinction between married couples and domestic partners with regard to the legal rights and responsibilities relating to children raised within each of these family relationships, the asserted difference in the effect on children does not provide a justification for the differentiation in nomenclature set forth in the challenged statutes.”

Read the rest of this article »

Concerned Women for America

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, May 15, 2008

FOR MORE INFORMATION: NATALIE BELL

(202) 488-7000, ext. 126

California Supreme Court Betrays “We the People” on Marriage

Washington, D.C. — Today the California Supreme Court imposed, through judicial fiat, so-called “same-sex marriage” on Californians, thus totally disregarding the sanctity of marriage and the will of the people. In 2000, Californians adopted Proposition 22 to protect marriage and maintain its definition as a union between one man and one woman, and expressly prohibiting the state from recognizing “same sex marriages.”

NOTE: the California Supreme Court decision is available on the court’s website at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

To ensure that marriage is protected and the voice of the people is heard, a constitutional marriage amendment must be placed on the November ballot and national efforts need to be made to generate a federal constitutional marriage amendment. The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people.

Matt Barber, CWA Policy Director for Cultural Issues [Barber is on the Board of Americans For Truth], said “The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there’d be a day when so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the ridiculous notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off.

“So-called ‘same-sex’ marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it’s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.

Read the rest of this article »

American Family Association of Pennsylvania

http://www.afaofpa.org

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 14, 2008

CONTACT: Diane Gramley 1.814.437.5355 or 1.814.271.9078

Too Many PA Legislators Bow to Pressure from 2.9% of the Population

(Harrisburg) On April 30th the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a Washington, D. C. homosexual lobby group, released a study entitled, “Findings from the Hunter College Poll of Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals,” which was commissioned by the HRC Foundation. The findings of 2.9% of the adult population identifying as gay, lesbian or bisexual once again expose the lie that homosexuals make up 10% of the U.S. population. The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA), a statewide pro-family organization, is providing this information as well as additional information to each Pennsylvania legislator.

Read the rest of this article »

Gender-confused “rights”? Women should feel safe and not have to worry about (“transgender”) men in dresses using female restrooms and shower facilities, say Maryland activists with the Citizens for Responsible Government.

From NotMyShower.com and the Citizens for Responsible Government, a Montgomery, County Maryland grassroots organization formed by citizens outraged at Montgomery County, Maryland’s passage of a “gender identity” “nondiscrmination” bill:

“By the stroke of a very powerful pen, County Executive Leggett has broken the biological barriers that separate male and female facilities. No longer will women and girls be able to feel completely safe in the most private and personal bathroom and locker facilities of schools, public pools, malls, stores, health clubs, restaurants and other such public places throughout the county. County Executive Ike Leggett signed Bill 23-07, the outrageous legislation that may result in forcing even religious schools to hire transgender teachers; and then also allow cross-dressing but biological males in your daughter’s school locker room. Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government has filed a referendum to prevent the implementation of Bill 23-07. We are calling on every concerned Montgomery County citizen to join us in this huge undertaking.”

Read the rest of this article »

Concerned Women for America writes: “An altercation on a college campus leads to federal hate crimes charges against student Brett VanAsdlen despite the fact that all other charges stemming from the event were dropped. Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues discusses this incident with Pete LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth and Bob Knight, Director of the Culture and Media Institute, an arm of the Media Research Center.”

Click HERE to listen online to the CWA broadcast, and HERE to download it. Click here for AFTAH’s original story on the case: “Illinois Teen Faces Three Years Jail Sentence for Potentially Fraudulent ‘Hate Crime.’”

In the interview, Knight calls Champaign TV station WCIA-3′s initial story on the incident — in which reporter Amanda Evans interviewed only one side of the dispute — a “classic case” of media bias. More from Knight:

The message here is that there’s a special class of victim. If a homosexual is involved in this equation at all, the media and the legal system are supposed to presumably come to the aid of the homosexual every time. And it’s that selective victimization that you’re talking about, Matt, that’s so frightening.

Congratulations to the Thomas More Law Center, AFA of Michigan and all the pro-family groups, legislators, citizens, and churches in Michigan for successfully defending marriage in your state!

LANSING, Mich. (Catholic News Agency), May 8, 2008 — The Michigan General Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages also blocks Michigan governments and state universities from offering “domestic partnership” benefits for homosexual couples. Click HERE to read the Michigan Supreme Court ruling.

The Marriage Protection Amendment was approved by nearly sixty percent of voters in 2004. Considered the broadest of the 11 state marriage amendments barring same-sex marriage, the language of the Michigan amendment says “…the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

The Michigan ACLU, representing the AFL-CIO homosexual activist group National Pride at Work, had challenged the application of the law as based in Attorney General Mike Cox’s interpretation of the amendment.

The Michigan court’s 5-2 decision did not rule on whether government employment benefits can be offered to homosexual partners on some broader basis also available to other employees. Some local governments and universities have attempted to maintain present benefits by amending the eligibility requirements.

“The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees,” said Gary Glenn, one of the co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment and head of the American Family Association of Michigan.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, praised the decision, saying, “The Michigan Supreme Court courageously upheld the will of the people.”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12591

Related news release from Thomas More Law Center: “TMLC Praises Michigan Atty General Cox for Defending Marriage Amendment; Blasts Gov and Universities”

What will happen if California’s highest court imposes “gay marriage”?

The quotation below was sent to us by Gary Glenn of American Family Association of Michigan. Homosexual activist Wayne Besen, author of Anything But Straight, describes the chaos that would result if California’s highest court were to mandate homosexual “marriages.” Rather than create public sympathy to rectify alleged anti-homosexual “discrimination,” as Besen hopes, we think the ensuing confusion would only heighten citizens’ awareness of the crisis caused by the homosexual lobby and arrogant, social-engineering courts.

Only a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) would establish a national standard preserving the historic institution of marriage as one-man, one-woman — perhaps in name only if current trends continue. California becoming a “gay marriage” state would certainly breathe new life into the FMA. However, another cultural/legal/political battle would follow over “civil unions,” which — far from being an acceptable compromise — are merely another tactic advancing the “gay” activists’ goal of putting government power and authority behind homosexual couples and the creation of unnatural “families.” And as the people of Massachusetts and Vermont know well, lots of bad things (e.g., more pro-homosexual indoctrination in schools, curtailment of moral freedoms) flow from state-sanctioned homosexuality.

Read the rest of this article »

Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues at Concerned Women for America (and Board Member or Americans For Truth), has requested prayer for Lisa and Isabella Miller, whose tragic case will be heard before the Virginia Supreme Court this Thursday, April 17. Lisa Miller is a born-again Christian who abandoned the lesbian lifestyle. As Matt writes, “this hearing will determine whether a lesbian woman who is Lisa Miller’s former partner will share custody of Isabella, Lisa’s daughter. The woman is neither an adoptive parent nor is she biologically related to Isabella. In fact, she’s a total stranger to the little girl. Isabella, who is now 6-years-old, hadn’t seen this woman since she was 17-months-old. This case could have national ramifications and will help decide whether state’s like Vermont and Massachusetts get to export their radical new definitions of marriage and family around the country.”

Please pray for justice and protection of this innocent child. You can commit to praying for the Millers at www.cwfa.org/millersign.asp. Below is Matt Barber’s original column on this sad situation:

You’re Not My Mommy!

By J. Matt Barber

This article was published by CWA on August 1, 2007:

The person trying to take Isabella away from her mother is entirely unrelated to the little girl and is essentially a total stranger.

Read the rest of this article »