Excerpted from Governor Signs Bill to Ban School Bullying, by LYNN CAMPBELL, published Mar 6, 2007, by Des Moines Register:

…Gov. Chet Culver signed a bill to ban bullying in all Iowa schools.

“This bill makes it clear Iowans are committed to providing protection against intolerance in every Iowa school district,” Culver said at the signing ceremony at Valley High School in West Des Moines. “Bullying, threats and intimidation have no place in our public education system.”

…With Monday’s bill signing, Iowa becomes one of 10 states in the nation to enact a comprehensive, statewide anti-bullying policy, Culver said.

…The new law protects students regardless of their age, color, creed, national origin, race, religion, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical attributes, physical or mental ability or disability, ancestry, political party preference, political belief, socioeconomic status or family status.

Continue reading in Des Moines Register…

Posted on Log Cabin Republicans website as of Mar 6, 2007:

Republican Wyoming State Rep. Takes Courageous Stand for Basic Fairness

Republican Wyoming State Rep. Dan Zwonitzer (R-Cheyenne) urged his colleagues to vote against a discriminatory bill that would have banned recognition of marriages for same-sex couples performed in other states, saying

“I believe this is the civil rights struggle of my generation…If standing up for equal rights costs me my seat, so be it. I will let history be my judge—the overall theme is fairness, and you know it. I hope you will all let history be your judge with this vote.”

Read the full text of Rep. Zwonitzer’s remarks.

Excerpted from Lawmaker to File Bill Reinstating Gay Foster Parent Ban, by Andrew DeMillo, published Mar 2, 2007, by Associated Press:

…Sen. Shawn Womack said he plans to file a bill banning gays and lesbians from becoming foster parents, a prohibition that justices struck down last year…

“Clearly, the public policy of this state has been that we prefer to have kids placed in traditional families,” he said.

Proof that homosexual “rights” will take precedence over freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech…

Excerpted from UK: Religious Schools May Not Teach Christian Sexual Morals “As if They Were Objectively True”, by Hilary White, published Mar 5, 2007 by LifeSite News:

…The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of members from Parliament and the House of Lords, has issued a report on the implementation [in April] of the [Sexual Orientation Regulations] recommending that religious schools be required to modify their religious instruction to comply with the government-approved doctrine of “non-discrimination”.

Although religious schools will be allowed to remain open and may continue to give instruction in various religious beliefs, instruction must be modified “so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong.”

The report says the Regulations will not “prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful,” but they may not teach “a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true”.

Published February 26, the report says, “We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the sexual orientation regulations.”

…The homosexual political doctrine, accepted by the British as well as other governments, requires that no distinction be made between the person, the act and the condition or “orientation”, making any criticism of the movement’s political goals an offence against persons.

From Broken Promise in the Promised Land, published Feb 1, 2007, by CWA:

Israel records homosexual “marriage” for first time

For the first time in history, Jerusalem has recorded the “marriage” of a homosexual couple. Two men who wish to be identified as “Binyamin and Avi Rose” were “married” in Canada over the summer of 2006 and moved back to Israel where their marital status is now being recorded through the Interior Ministry’s Population Registry. Israel’s highest Court ruled in November that same-sex “marriages” that have been legally performed in foreign countries will now be included in Israel’s records. Concerned Women for America (CWA) prays that the nation of Israel will embrace and defend the Biblical definition of one man, one woman marriage and not go down the slippery slope that seeks to destroy traditional marriage.

CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues Matt Barber said,

“Christians, Jews and all people of faith from around the world will no doubt be saddened and shocked by this alarming development in Israel – as should anybody who recognizes the tremendous benefits conferred upon humanity by the institutions of legitimate marriage and family. It defies logic that the state of Israel would grant any official recognition to counterfeit ‘same-sex marriage.’

“God ‘made them male and female.’ The Biblical model irrefutably defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It provides that all sexual relations are to occur within the bounds of marriage.

“But this is not just a spiritual issue. Even within secular society, marriage has, by definition, joined male to female since time immemorial. Unless the Israeli government reverses course here, it has now inexplicably capitulated to the radical and destructive redefinition of marriage.”

Excerpted from Judiciary Won’t Allow Christian Beliefs, published Mar 3, 2007, by WorldNet Daily:

A magistrate judge in Sheffield, England, has been told he cannot serve on the local court’s Family Panel, even though he’s been recognized as having “an unblemished record and is well regarded by fellow magistrates” because he is a Christian.

“This case is a clear picture of how Christian faith is becoming privatized in society,” said Andrea Williams, of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship. “It is yet another example of the repression of Christian conscience and signals the prevalence of a secular ‘new morality’ and the erosion of Christian values at the expense of our children’s welfare.”

The case arose when McClintock realized he would be assigned to hear cases involving adoption by homosexual couples, which are allowed now under England’s Civil Partnerships Act 2002. Realizing the concerns that might arise, he asked that his religious beliefs be accommodated and he be “screened” from such cases.

He also expressed concern that children would be put at risk by the unproven social experiment of homosexual duo adoptions.

“Andrew McClintock believes that the best interests of the child are served by placing them in a situation where they would have both a mother and a father and therefore he could not agree to participate in gay adoption,” Williams said. “The imposition of secular values in every aspect of our lives will force those who hold Christian beliefs out of jobs. It will be to the detriment of the whole of society.”

McClintock took his case to the Employment Tribunal in Sheffield…

The Tribunal, however, said the case did not involve religious freedom or conscience. Further, the Tribunal concluded even if Mr. McClintock had been able to show he made his decision to resign based on his religious beliefs, there still was no case for discrimination.

“If a judge personally has particular views on any subject, he or she must put those views to the back of his or her mind when applying the law of the land impartially,” the Tribunal ordered…

A report in the Telegraph said the decision came as the government in England prepared to introduce a plan to prevent homosexuals from being discriminated against in the “provision of goods and services.” And the report noted the Sexual Orientation Regulations now could require schools to give equal weight in sex education classes to homosexual and heterosexual practices.

From U.S. Supreme Court vacates widely criticized 9th Circuit decision in Poway “T-shirt” case, published Mar 5, 2007, by Alliance Defense Fund:

Nation’s highest court grants request of ADF attorneys to consider case, then vacates 9th Circuit’s approval of censorship of Christian students

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review of the appeal of a high school student represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund who was prohibited from wearing a T-shirt at school expressing his biblical views on homosexual behavior. The court then ruled 8 to 1 to vacate a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit against the student.

“Students simply do not lose their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Two 9th Circuit judges issued an extremely dangerous ruling last year, allowing a school to censor the Christian point of view, while permitting students to speak out in support of homosexual behavior. Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court summarily eliminates that ruling, giving us much firmer footing in pursuing this case.”

….ADF attorneys are representing Chase Harper, a student at Poway High School who was prohibited by school officials from wearing a T-shirt expressing his religious point of view on homosexual behavior. A school administrator told Harper to “leave his faith in the car” when his faith might offend others. Harper’s younger sister Kelsie is also represented by ADF attorneys in the case…A copy of ADF’s writ of certiori petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in Harper v. Poway Unified School District can be read at Harper Petition.

A copy of today’s order vacating the 9th Circuit’s ruling can be read at Harper Supreme Court Order.

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed the 9th Circuit, which includes the state of California, more times than any of the other federal appellate circuits across the country.

Continue reading at Alliance Defense Fund… 

A news release from American Family Association of Pennsylvania dated Mar 6, 2007:

With Stephen Glassman’s involvement with a homosexual rights Get Busy, Get Equal Conference on Saturday, the American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA) once again questions his authority to speak in his official capacity as the Chairman of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC). The AFA of PA asks Governor Rendell to review Mr. Glassman’s involvement in not only this conference, but his meeting with those who opposed last year’s Marriage Protection Amendment and his efforts to get municipalities to add ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ to their human relations ordinances.

The PHRC has the responsibility of administering and enforcing the PA Human Relations Act (PHRA) and the PA Fair Educational Opportunities Act (PFEOA). These acts prohibit discrimination because of race, color, religion, ancestry, age (40 and above), sex, national origin, non-job related disability, known association with a disabled individual, possession of a diploma based on passing a general education development test and familial status.

“Stephen Glassman has a personal agenda and he has become more aggressive in recent years. He is continually pushing for the addition of ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ to human relations ordinances on the local level and beyond. Those terms are not part of the mission of the PHRC,” noted Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA, a statewide traditional values group.