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.

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.

New law ‘mainstreams sexual deviance among children’

Feb 7, 2008 

Contact: E. Ray Moore, Jr., Chaplain (Lt. Col.) USAR Ret, Director of Exodus Mandate or Dr. Bruce Shortt, 803-714-1744. California Exodus contacts: www.Californiaexodus.org, press@californiaexodus.org

COLUMBIA, South Carolina, Feb. 7 /Christian Newswire/ — California Governor Schwarzenegger signed legislation mandating that public school children be indoctrinated to accept as normal the homosexual lifestyle and other forms of sexual deviancy. In the wake of the failed effort to obtain a referendum to repeal this legislation, a broad coalition of Christian grassroots organizations have endorsed the Campaign for Children and Families’ call for California families and churches to rescue their children from California’s public schools.

 Cal Lutheran’s gym: the high school was sued for expelling two alleged lesbians. Their attorney argues that the Christian school should be treated like a business, and adhere to the state’s homosexual “nondiscrimination” laws.  

Note below how the alleged lesbians’ attorney calls the Lutheran school a “business” that must adhere to California’s pro-homosexual nondiscrimination laws. It is foolhardy to argue that such laws do not war against religious freedom — the litigious evidence is all around us. So it now becomes a battle over priorities: many “gay” activists believe their homosexuality-based “rights” — a trendy legal concept dating back a few decades, based on supposedly innate and unchangeable “orientation” — take precedence even over religious schools’ faith creeds. However, religious freedom dates back to the founding of this nation. Certainly, preserving America’s “first freedom” must take priority (the lesbians are free to form their own school if they wish).

Also, consider how a federal ENDA law (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) would open schools in states without “sexual orientation” laws to similar lawsuits in federal courts. — Peter LaBarbera 

WorldNetDaily.com, which is to be commended for its vigilance in covering these matters, reports (emphasis added):

Lesbian suit against Christian school tossed
‘No triable issues’: Academy’s right to expel 2 girls in ‘relationship’ confirmed

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com, Jan. 25, 2008

A California judge has ruled that Christian schools can set standards for behavior for their students, and impose penalties if they are not met.

The decision comes from Riverside County Superior Court Judge Gloria Trask, who found ‘no triable issues’ on claims that a Christian school discriminated against two girls because of their perceived sexual orientation, according to a report in the North County Times.

Trask recently dismissed the claims made against California Lutheran High School in Wildomar by the two girls and their parents.

The case developed in 2005 when the girls, members of the junior class, were expelled after school officials noticed behavior by the two that may have indicated a lesbian relationship.

http://www.florida4marriage.org/

Officials Report 30,000 Petitions Short in Unprecedented Recount

Immediate Action Needed to Collect More Petitions 

(Tallahassee, FL)  Monday January, 14, 2008 — Leaders of Florida4Marriage.org declared a state of “constitutional emergency” today when they learned from Division of Elections officials that due to an “audit” ordered by the Division, the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment fell short by some 30,000 petitions. The state constitutional amendment seeks to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and would prohibit polygamy, group marriage, and same sex marriages in Florida. 

According to state officials, only 589,020 petitions were officially certified after the unprecedented audit, leaving the petition effort just under 22,000 short of the needed 611,009 needed to be certified for the ballot in 2008.  Florida4Marriage.org State Chairman John Stemberger said, “Right now, we are not interested in whose fault this is.  We just want to finish the job — and finish it immediately.” 

And the Punch Line Is …

 Will the ACLU’s bathroom-sex agenda stall?

By Brenda Zurita

Reprinted with permission from CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, Jan. 16, 2008

Due to the current Hollywood writer’s strike, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has jumped in to fill the gap existing in late-night monologues and sit-coms. If only that were true there might be a joke in there somewhere.

Alas, the title refers to a brief filed by the ACLU in the Larry Craig case in Minnesota. Yes, the senator of the “wide stance” fame has a new defense argument, courtesy of the ACLU.

The Associated Press reported that the ACLU is arguing there is an expectation of privacy when people have sex in public bathrooms.

Hmmm, when I enter a public bathroom I have the expectation of toilet paper being in the stall, not a sex encounter. And privacy in a public bathroom is at a minimum. The gap around the door frame and the open space between the dividers and the floor and ceiling provide only a modicum of coverage. Not exactly a rendezvous spot for randy patrons expecting privacy. It does however make an excellent place for exhibitionists to meet.

Imagine taking your child to a public restroom and hearing two people engaging in a sex act six inches away. Again, due to the construction of the average public restroom stall, there is little that is private. Having an expectation of privacy there is laughable. And what about the expectation of people using the restroom for what is was intended and not being subjected to sex acts?