[Active-l] (NEWS) Today's Cultural Warfare Update

[Dara (R'ykandar Korra'ti)]

Oh, hey, look, I was wrong about the fundamentalist movement taking  
the week off. How unfortunate. "Faith and Freedom Network," our very  
own local theocrats, are _not_ taking the week off, and instead have  
sent out a position paper and pastor's letter and announcement about  
how they're going to fight any form of "spousal equivalency"  
legislation this coming year, saying, of course, that they "redefine  
marriage." The interesting part about this how they have their  
position paper, their announcement, and then a third thing that  
they're sending specifically to preachers and pastors which outlines  
their specifically religious core opposition to any recognition of  
same-sex partnerships. Quoting their Pastor's Letter:

	That is, _sexually active partners who are not married are in direct
	conflict with biblical principles. Government incentives to promote
	these activities may lead many to defy God’s Word and fail to
	recognize the threat of their eternal salvation._

[_Bold_ as in original. I also presume they meant "to their eternal  
salvation" rather than "of their eternal salvation," but I'm not  
fixing their errors.]

Not only is it explicitly theocratic in nature, they even say  
outright that they're _leaving it out of their position papers_,  
presumably to avoid charges that they're implementing religious law.

_Neat._

Oh, I've also noticed - tho' I haven't been repeating their posts -  
that FFN has been doing a lot of reposting of Focus on the Family  
material. It's mostly just reprints, or link-tos with some small  
amount of additional commentary. They're well connected into the  
James Dobson network. He's built quite the theocratic empire... which  
leads us to Canada, where Focus on the Family is busily putting  
together their extended network of front-groups as part of their  
effort to export American theoconservatism. There are several news  
stories from Canada here today, too.

And now, today's news.

Faith and Freedom Network's official position paper opposing any form  
of "reciprocal benefits," no matter how minour, for GBLT couples;

FFN's "Pastor's Letter" wherein they explain that the real reason for  
opposing these benefits is because they think it'll encourage more  
people to violate God's Law; includes ACTION ITEM to pastors to  
preach against reciprocal benefits and have their congregations write  
in against any such legislation;

Washington State Senator Dan Swecker's opposition paper, as adopted  
by FFN - slightly different than the first link;

Institute for Canadian Values claims they are neither "surprised nor  
disappointed" by the overwhelming free vote _not_ to reconsider  
marriage rights in Canada, say it wasn't what they wanted anyway;

Canada Family Action Coalition vows to keep fighting GBLT marriage  
rights, proclaims it wasn't "really" a free vote because the Bloc  
Quebecois and NDP didn't release their MPs to vote against their own  
party positions; also snipes at the Liberal party, despite the  
Liberals allowing their MPs free votes; also lists a bunch of  
unsourced statistics popular in the theocon movement - about how  
queers are diseased, have lower lifespans, are incapable of stable  
relationships, and so on;

Focus on the Family Canada story about the free vote not to  
reconsider marriage rights; note that this "story" is in part about  
the "Institute of Marriage and Family Canada" report, which they  
quote as if it were a completely separate entity, rather than a Focus  
on the Family project in Canada. This is, again, how they recycle  
material endlessly to make it look like it's coming from many  
different sources - the "echo chamber" effect;

Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (a Focus on the Family  
project) press release saying "this ain't over," will continue to  
fight GBLT marriage rights;

Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (a Focus on the Family  
project) newsletter: C-38 (allowing marriage between lesbian and gay  
people) is a "fundamental re-engineering of parenthood" and is  
"gender under construction";

Focus on the Family's Institute of Marriage and Family Canada seems  
to be trying to revive an abortion debate in Canada - they got an op- 
ed by one of their people in the Ottawa Citizen last month.


----- 1 -----
Faith and Freedom Network’s Position Opposing Reciprocal Benefits  
Legislation
Faith and Freedom Network
Online as of 28 December 2006

http://www.faithandfreedom.us/benefits.htm

“Any redefinition of marriage would create significant problems for  
traditional families in our society. Some Christian leaders and  
others have proposed the adoption of ‘reciprocal benefits’  
legislation as an alternative to redefining marriage. Different  
versions of the legislation specify a variety of relationships that  
would be eligible for expanded benefits. Adopting this legislation,  
as well as legislation creating civil unions more broadly defined,  
would create even bigger problems for our society.

As the law now stands, traditional marriage is limited to one man and  
one woman. This is, of course, the only type of relationship that can  
produce children. The intent of the law is to provide incentives for  
a man and a woman to remain together as long as possible, to provide  
benefits to spouses and offspring and to define the process of  
dissolving those relationships if the marriage fails (custody and  
provision for the children.)

A first concern is that ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation would  
extend benefits to a much larger group of people. Any attempt to  
expand the eligible class of beneficiaries of both private and public  
programs will reduce critical resources available to sustain children  
and families in traditional marriages. Many of these programs are  
already strained for lack of resources, particularly health insurance  
and Social Security. With finite resources, increasing the number of  
beneficiaries will reduce the resources available to those already  
covered.

[More at URL]


----- 2 -----
Pastor Letter opposing Reciprocal Benefits
Faith and Freedom Network
P.O. Box 399
Bellevue, WA 98009
800.731.5328
www.faithandfreedom.us

http://www.faithandfreedom.us/pdf/2007_PastorLetter_Benefits.pdf

Dear Pastors and Christian Leaders:

There is a concerted effort to adopt some form of  “reciprocal  
benefits” legislation in Olympia during the 2007 legislative session.

Some Christian leaders, as well as other activists, are supporting  
the move under the guise of an alternative to redefining marriage.

We have been meeting with Senator Dan Swecker and other political  
leaders, who prefer not to be publicly identified at this time,  
regarding this matter. They are deeply concerned about it and feel  
any form of “reciprocal benef its” or civil unions is both  
inappropriate and unnecessary. In that the State Supreme Court has  
ruled in favor of traditional, biblical marriage, it is inconceivable  
that anyone would want to give back something that many of  us feel  
was given to us by God.

While we are aware that this will not be a popular position and will  
be caste as discrimination, bigotry or even hatred. Our motivation is  
none of these but rather a deep conviction that this would be a step  
toward re defining marriage, rather than an effective way of   
protecting traditional marriage.

Please read the attached position paper written by Senator Swecker  
and adopted by Faith & Freedom.

The Senator outlines two concerns regarding “reciprocal benefits.”  
There is a third concern, which we purposefully left out of the  
official paper, but one that you will readily identify with.

That is, _sexually active partners who are not married are in direct  
conflict with biblical principles. Government incentives to promote  
these activities may lead many to defy God’s Word and fail to  
recognize the threat of their eternal salvation._

We hope that by taking the strongest possible position up front we  
may cause some of  the support of such legislation to be lost.

As this and other legislation of interest developes during this  
session, we will notify you.

Would you stand with us for the sake of  righteousness?  Jon Russell,  
our lobbyist will be in Olympia everyday, meeting with lawmakers and  
their staff on behalf  of the Christian community. He will be posting  
regular reports on our website.

Here’s how you can help us:

* Encourage your congregation to call or write their elected  
officials and express their position on the issues as appropriate.

* Help circulate our regular reports from Olympia. They will be  
posted on our website; www.faithandfreedom.us.

* Help underwrite the expenses of  our fulltime lobbyist.

If you would like to receiv e regular email alerts, please add your  
name to our e list located on the home page of the Faith & Freedom  
website; www.faithandfreedom.us, and select “Pastor’s Alerts.”

God Bless You,
Gary Randall
President

[Editor's Note: _Bold_ as in original.]


----- 3 -----
Faith and Freedom Network’s Position Opposing
Reciprocal Benefits Legislation
Faith and Freedom Network
Office of Senator Dan Swecker
Available as of 28 December 2006

http://www.faithandfreedom.us/pdf/ReciprocalBenefits.pdf

Also found as page two of:
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/pdf/2007_PastorLetter_Benefits.pdf

_The following position paper was proposed by Washington State  
Senator Dan Swecker and adopted by Faith and Freedom Network._

“Any redefinition of marriage would create significant problems for  
traditional families in our society. Some Christian leaders and ot  
hers have proposed the adoption of ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation  
as an alternative to redefining marriage.  Different versions of the  
legislation specify a variety of relationships that would be eligible  
for expanded benefits.  Adopting this legislation, as well as  
legislation creating civil unions more broadly defined, would create  
even bigger problems for our society.
As the law now stands, traditional marriage is limited to one man and  
one woman.  This is, of course, the only type of relationship that  
can produce children.  The intent of the law is to provide incent  
ives for a man and a woman to remain together as long as possible, to  
provide benefits to spouses and offspring and to define the process  
of dissolving those relationships if the marriage fails (custody and  
provision for the
children.)

A first concern is that ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation would  
extend benefits to a much larger group of people.  Any attempt to  
expand the eligible class of beneficiaries of both private and public  
programs will reduce critical resources available to sustain children  
and families in traditional marriages.  Many of these programs are  
already strained for lack of resources, particularly health insurance  
and Social Security.  With finite resources, increasing the number of  
beneficiaries will reduce the resources available to those already  
covered. [Editor's note: I like to contrast this with the theocon  
position that there are really very few actual lesbian and gay  
people, so extending benefits to us is a waste of time - there are  
too few of us to care about. Somehow there can simultaneously be  
hardly any of us, and we can bankrupt the system. Incoherent!]

A second concern is that ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation will work  
at cross purposes to the original intent of the institution of  
marriage. [Editor's note: Which was property rights, specifically,  
ownership of the wife by the husband.] That is, it will provide  
incentives for unmarried heterosexual partners (who may produce  
children) to remain unmarried.  This is the exact opposite of the  
single most important goal of traditional marriage, permanent  
commitment.  It will also diminish the value society places on this one
most important union.

Finally, children produced in these relationships [Editor's note:  
which they just said above can't happen in these...] will miss the  
single most important benefit of traditional marriage, the security  
of a mother and father committed to the life long preservation of the  
family.  Many children currently lack the important elements of  
protection, provision, sustenance and nurturing provided by most  
traditional families.  Creating government incentives to abandon this  
tradition will increase the number of children lacking these  
necessary elements.”

[Signature of David ("Dan") Swecker]

Senate Office:
PO Box 40420
Olympia, WA 98504 0420
360 786 7638

_Faith and Freedom Network can see no tangible advantages resulting  
from ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation.  Instead we believe it  
violates many of the most important fundamental principles that under  
gird the traditional definition and purposes of marriage._

[Editor's note: _Bold_ as in original.]


----- 4 -----
Institute neither surprised nor disappointed with "irrelevant" vote  
on marriage
Institute for Canadian Values
Date: Dec 07, 2006

http://canadianvalues.ca/news.aspx?aid=248

The Institute for Canadian Values today expressed neither surprise,  
nor disappointment with what it calls an "irrelevant" vote on  
marriage in House of Commons today.

The vote was on a Motion calling on the government to introduce new  
legislation restoring the traditional definition of marriage. 175 MPs  
voted against the Motion while 123 supported it.

"We're neither surprised, nor are we disappointed with this outcome,"  
said Joseph C. Ben-Ami, Executive Director and Director of Policy  
Development at the Institute. "We didn't ask for this vote, nor did  
it address what we have asked for all along - a comprehensive, non- 
partisan study to determine the long term impact of changing the  
definition of marriage and recommend changes to legislation to  
address its deficiencies. From our point of view, although we would  
have preferred that MPs support the government's Motion the outcome  
is irrelevant."

Ben-Ami was mildly critical of what he described as a lack of  
leadership by the government in support of its own Motion, saying  
that the government should not take conservative voters for granted.

"Mr. Harper and the Conservatives are going to have to explain, I  
think, what people in our constituency are going to perceive as a  
certain lack of leadership surrounding this question in the last few  
days."

Ben-Ami was responding to the Prime Minister's statement to reporters  
that he would not bring the matter back before Parliament. "I don't  
see reopening this question in the future," Harper told reporters  
when asked whether same-sex marriage would return to the table if the  
Conservatives ever formed a majority government.

"Either the new Conservative Party is a big tent with room at the  
table for all conservatives, including social conservatives, or it's  
not," said Ben-Ami. "I hear lots of talk about how there's nowhere  
else for these voters to go come election time. The fact is that they  
can just stay at home."

"The result might be another Liberal majority with barely 37 percent  
of the popular vote."


----- 5 -----
Muzzling free speech; Why can't people speak against same-sex marriage?
Two views of homosexuality are creating tensions in Canada
By Gwendolyn Landolt
REAL Women of Canada
Republished by Canada Family Action Coalition
[Undated but online as of 29 December 2006]

http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/family/marriage/two- 
views.htm

Some believe, on the basis of equality, that there should be no  
distinction drawn in any way by society between homosexual and  
heterosexual relationships. Others are opposed to homosexuality for  
practical, medical, moral and/or religious reasons.

The "no distinction" approach has dominated primarily because of the  
decisions of appointed judges and human rights panelists. It was on  
this basis that the legalization of same-sex marriages was made.

Even within the parliamentary process, the decision on same-sex  
marriage has been made by a very few individuals. When same-sex  
marriage was first debated in Parliament in June 2005, 19 NDP MPs and  
the 39 Liberal Cabinet members were ordered by their leaders to vote  
in support of it.

The Liberals then rammed through the legislation by disallowing any  
amendments and imposing closure to cut off debate.

In debate last week, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois parties again  
excluded the public from the same-sex marriage debate by requiring  
its MPs vote along party lines.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion was not much better. He begrudgingly  
allowed a free vote, although making the claim that same-sex marriage  
is a "fundamental" right under the Charter of Rights.

He was wrong. The Supreme Court of Canada has never ruled on whether  
the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The  
Ontario Court of Appeal decision on same-sex marriage, which assumed  
the leadership role among the provincial courts on this issue, is now  
under a cloud, due to a complaint laid against Chief Justice Roy  
McMurtry before the Canadian Judicial Council for serious judicial  
impropriety and the apprehension of bias for his part in that case.

[...]

Same-sex marriages are not functionally equivalent to opposite-sex  
marriages, but are different in structure, values and practice. It is  
widely acknowledged that these differences include the fact that  
sexual faithfulness is not usually regarded as a requirement in same- 
sex relationships, but is of vital importance in a heterosexual  
marriage.

Same-sex partners experience a higher incidence of health problems  
resulting in shorter life spans.

The duration of same-sex marriages is shorter than that of opposite- 
sex relationships: on average, the former last only two to three  
years. These factors are detrimental to children who require  
stability in their lives.

[More at URL]


----- 6 -----
Debate needed on future of the family
Focus on the Family Canada
December 13, 2006

http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/family/stories/121306_01.html

For many Canadians, last week’s vote in the House of Commons may have  
brought final closure to the issue of same-sex marriage. But others  
believe all it has done is help spawn a much bigger issue that  
Parliament still needs to address.

“We need a royal commission . . . that talks about the future of the  
family in the 21st century,” Dave Quist, executive director of the  
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, told Today’s Family News.

[Editor's note: Institute of Marriage and Family Canada is a Focus on  
the Family project. They're quoting them here as though they were an  
external organisation in order to make the Focus on the Family  
theoconservative machine look larger, and to create a sense that  
there are many independent sources for the same ideas.]

“With all the changes in family structure, the stresses and strains  
on it, I think we’d be well served to find out what we are doing  
right and how we can strengthen our children and our families for  
tomorrow.”

Harper had promised on the first day of the federal election campaign  
just over a year ago that if the Conservatives were elected, his  
government would ask MPs whether or not the 2005 law legalizing same- 
sex marriage should be re-visited.

Last Thursday, MPs voted 175-123 against a Conservative motion that  
proposed “to introduce legislation to restore the traditional  
definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while  
respecting existing same-sex marriages.”

[More at URL]


----- 7 -----
IS THE MARRIAGE DEBATE OVER?
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
(A Focus on the Family project)
For Immediate Release
December 7, 2006

http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/Marriage_Vote_December_7_2006.pdf

(Ottawa)  While many will feel that today’s vote in the House of  
Commons of whether the question of the definition of marriage should  
be reopened or not, will draw this issue to a close, the definition  
of marriage is really only a small part of a much larger question  
that requires our attention.  Of greater import is how Canadians view  
the institution of family, that cornerstone of society and in turn  
how we can strengthen it.

“The debate around the definition of marriage has really only opened  
up the subject of the Canadian family in society today.  If we value  
a strong family – and I trust that we do – we must determine what we  
doing right and how can we make the family stronger,” stated Dave  
Quist, Executive Director of the Institute of Marriage and Family  
Canada.

Social policy cannot be determined by legislation alone.  Social  
science researchers have learned a great deal in the past number of  
years, yet many of the decisions are not reflecting or taking into  
account what has been learned. “I would urge the Federal Government  
to initiate a Royal Commission on the Future of the Family that draws  
on the family, social and hard science experts in order to set out a  
course of action that will result in strong positive family policy  
that will carry us through to the end of the 21st Century” continued  
Quist.

“Without an educated and informed plan, the institution of family  
will be eroded, resulting in dire consequences for all of us.”

– 30 –

For additional information or comment, please contact: Dave Quist,  
Executive Director at 613-565-3832.


----- 8 -----
Caution ahead: gender under construction
By Peter Jon Mitchell, Research Analyst, Institute of Marriage and  
Family Canada
[A Focus on the Family project]
No. 5
December 2006

http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/eReview-December_20_2006.pdf
When Chris Gardner, the hero-father in the new Will Smith movie The  
Pursuit of Happyness was faced with life obstacles beyond our  
understanding—he clung stubbornly to caring for his son. He declared  
unlike his own life experience, his son would know who his father  
was, not allowing the two of them to be separated by his wife’s  
departure, by an eviction from their apartment, and subsequently from  
a motel. In one of many poignant scenes in the movie, Gardner is  
bathing his son: scrubbing him with a soapy cloth as the light in the  
homeless shelter turns off.  He puts his son to bed—assuring him that  
he is nearby, and that his son can trust him.

That might leave a gender-bending movie watcher to comment that  
Gardner was actually mothering. Men can be mothers according to  
feminist philosopher Sara Ruddick who claims that “a mother is a  
person who takes on responsibility for children’s lives and for whom  
providing childcare is a significant part of her or his working  
life.” [1] Ruddick reduces motherhood to a job description ably  
filled by a woman, man or seemingly anyone willing to take on the  
right tasks. But in the act of nurturing and caring for children, do  
women and men offer a unique contribution derived from their  
biologically and socially influenced gender?
[...]

Scientific pursuit may continue to demonstrate biological  
associations to gender. Epigenetics may continue to reveal the  
biological and environmental relationship that affects the lives of  
future generations. These sciences may further clarify social  
research that confirms the unique and necessary influence of a  
married biological mother and father in a child’s life. When  
parliament passed Bill C-38 it tipped its hat to an ideology without  
considering the future ramifications of redefining parenthood. Policy  
makers and legislators sighed with relief when the same-sex marriage  
issue was pronounced ‘finally closed,’– but will policy makers have  
the fortitude necessary to reconsider the fundamental reengineering  
of parenthood?

[More at URL]


----- 9 -----
Pro-life doesn't mean anti-woman
The Ottawa Citizen
Linked to as an IMFC op-ed by Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
(a Focus on the Family project)
by Andrea Mrozek
Manager of Research and Communications at the
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
Thu 07 Dec 2006
Page: A17

http://www.fpinfomart.ca/help/help_db_details.php?db_code=otct
After a heated debate on campus and in the media, Carleton  
University's student association decided this week to limit the  
activity of pro-life groups on campus. Students spoke out in favour  
of freedom of speech or in favour of women's rights, but this is a  
false opposition.

There's no battle between feminists and freedom. Being pro-life is a  
distinctly pro-woman stand; it is only for a lack of freedom of  
speech in Canada today that the debate is rarely framed this way.

The abortion debate is only partly a question of rights. It is, more  
often, a question of life. With each repetition of "my body, my  
choice," women's rights to complete information, to intellectual  
integrity, to the scientific roots of life, furthermore to her own  
physical and mental health, are denied.

Without consideration for the status of the unborn fetus, there  
simply is no abortion debate. If the fetus is not a person, who  
cares? But if it is, then the Constitution applies, we are faced with  
competing rights and there are a number of other considerations that  
are admissible, one of which is the fetus's right to life, liberty  
and security of the person. But how many of us frame the debate this  
way?

[More at URL]