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

[Dara (R'ykandar Korra'ti)]

	I think this is the largest single-day CWU ever; last Friday's was the  
largest two-day CWU ever. And this is with several of the sites slowing  
down a bit, and with a couple of the groups not being as heavily into  
the anti-marriage amendment as you'd expect; too many of them are  
unhappy that it isn't _more_ virulently anti-gay, and doesn't ban civil  
unions as per the 2004 version.

	In Washington State news, Tim Eyman didn't show up with anti-gay  
initiatives today. He showed up with his latest  
destroy-all-road-maintenance car-tabs initiative instead. He says he'll  
be in on Tuesday with the anti-GBLT signatures instead, and that he's  
awaiting a last shipment of petitions from Spokane. Tomorrow is the  
last day, so I guess instead of finding out _today_ whether an  
all-church petition drive can get a referendum on the ballot, we'll  
find out on Tuesday, instead.

	And now, today's news.

-----

Official transcript of President Bush's radio address endorsing the  
anti-marriage "Marriage Protection Amendment"; "In our free society,  
people have the right to choose how they live their lives" - so we need  
an amendment against queer marriage. What the fuck? Seriously, this  
might as well have been written by the FRC;

Fundamentalist Mormons against "supposed-to-be conservatives," the  
American Family Association, and _The Advocate_ on polygamy;

Focus on the Family's ACTION ITEM against marriage rights and for the  
anti-marriage Federal amendment;

FotF article (and ACTION ITEM) promoting the FMA/MPA amendment;  
apparently their Tuesday broadcast will have White House Press  
Secretary Tony Snow on, pushing the amendment;

Focus on the Family talking points against marriage rights;

Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM to vote Alabama anti-marriage amendment  
in the PRIMARY ELECTION TOMORROW (Tuesday); also, what the hell is  
"Focus on the Family Alabama Marriage Amendment Committee"? Are they  
making individual committees for every anti-gay initiative out there  
now, or is there something in Alabama's political law requiring this? I  
dunno;

Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM for Pennsylvanians to contact their  
state legislators in advance of an anti-gay anti-marriage-rights  
amendment vote later this week;

FotF ACTION ITEM to support some form of either "obscene" or  
"objectionable" (they use both words) materials ban in Yellowstone  
County, Montana; they're voting on it in tomorrow's primary;

FotF article on sash-wearing gay Catholics being denied communion;

LA Times reports on disgruntled social conservatives unhappy with  
Bush's _level of_ support for the anti-marriage amendment;

Concerned Women for America now says lesbians and gays don't just want  
societal approval, they're demanding approval from GOD;

Family Research Council's Tony Perkins "Joins 100 Black Pastors on  
Marriage";

FRC ad against Sens. McCain and Clinton in _USA Today_ on the  
anti-marriage amendment; includes ACTION ITEM to support the amendment;

American Family Association article warning on the dangers of not  
passing the anti-marriage Federal amendment;

AFA outrage that a judge has ruled against Iowa paying Prison  
Fellowship to convert inmates to fundamentalist Christianity; it's the  
"InnerChange Freedom Initiative" and that is in fact what it did;  
Prison Fellowship is having to return $1.5M in taxpayer dollars they  
were paid by Iowa;

AFA article on last Sunday's planned "Marriage Protection Sunday"  
effort in Southern Baptist Convention and other churches; I don't know  
how this went, but I missed this particular article so am running it  
now;

AFA suggests that the government should regulate Google for dropping a  
right-wing news site as a news provider - and not, as the article  
implies but does not say, from its search results;

The anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund is appealing their case supporting a  
student wearing an anti-gay T-shirt to school; school officials banned  
it from the grounds on the ground that it is disruptive and attacks  
other students; ADF calls it religious discrimination;

AFA/Agape press on Tim LaHaye's last prequel in the _Left Behind_  
series, which I include only because it's funny. Also, an  
anti-birth-control pharmacist loses his firing lawsuit against Wal*Mart  
- he was dismissed not just for refusing to prescribe, but for  
violating Wal*Mart policy requiring him to get another pharmacist to do  
it; instead, he would leave customers on hold indefinitely and ignore  
customers who appeared in person;

Traditional Values Coalition condemns MPA, claims it "promote[s] civil  
unions" by not banning them; they want a much more strongly anti-gay  
amendment;

TVC runs the "queers don't want marriage, they want to destroy  
everyone" tape again;

TVC "Special Report" on why civil unions are just as bad as marriage  
rights;

Faith and Freedom Network says, "We don't know how many signatures we  
have, Tim Eyman hasn't told us";

Tim Eyman misses Monday appointment for anti-gay referendum signatures,  
turns in latest anti-roads-repair ($30 tabs) initiative instead; says  
he'll be back Tuesday after he gets a final batch of signatures in from  
Spokane; several non-fundamentalist church groups pledge to campaign to  
retain the GBLT basic civil rights law;

Canada Family Action Coalition runs American Life League press release  
attacking Planned Parenthood as a news article;

Tory MP Garth Turner (Toronto) lets Canadian Theoconservatives have it  
in no uncertain terms; “I have no time for groups in our society who  
try to force their morals, or their culture, on the rest of us"; Canada  
Family Action Coalition calls him a racist and anti-religious bigot; I  
don't know much about this guy, but I am _sincerely_ enjoying how much  
he's making the theocons hate him. If only we had anyone down here with  
his spine.


----- 1 -----
President's Radio Address
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 3, 2006

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060603.html

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will  
begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the  
United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet  
with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family  
and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They're Republicans,  
Democrats, and independents who've come together to support this  
amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage  
Protection Amendment, and why I'm urging Congress to pass it and send  
it to the states for ratification.

Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored  
and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of  
experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife  
to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and  
the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural,  
religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on  
society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the  
interests of all.

In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live  
their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental  
social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by  
the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both  
through their representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress  
approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan  
majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed  
it into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approved  
amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional  
definition of marriage. And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a  
state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the  
union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad  
consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an  
aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years. Since 2004,  
state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have  
overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a  
federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning  
same-sex marriage.

These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The  
Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept  
another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by  
activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might  
have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean  
that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judges  
in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what  
their own laws or state constitutions say. This national question  
requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound  
importance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts.

An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts  
have left our Nation with no other choice. The constitutional amendment  
that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage  
from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make  
their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. A  
constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue,  
because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and  
then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.

As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American  
deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us  
have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward  
one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard. A  
constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to  
American families and American society in the hands of the American  
people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders,  
should decide the future of marriage in America.

Thank you for listening.

END


----- 2 -----
No such thing as 'Gay Polygamy' - It’s Biologically Impossible
Date: Jun 01, 2006
Word Count: 1000 words
Cross-Reference: The Advocate, "gay polygamy", supposed-to-be  
conservatives, American Family Association, WorldNetDaily.com
Pro-Polygamy.com
Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing
news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.

http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0043

As the homosexual magazine, The Advocate, published an article about  
“homosexual multiple partners,” supposed-to-be conservatives referenced  
the article to try to liberally re-define polygamy and marriage with an  
invented fiction called “homosexual polygamy.”

The established national polygamy rights movement has repeatedly  
declared that it will not be re-defined - neither by homosexuals nor by  
anti-polygamists.   Even so, supposed-to-be conservatives liberally  
“colluded” with a homosexual magazine, The Advocate, when that magazine  
published its June 6, 2006, edition.   Both used the magazine’s cover  
story, “Polygamy & Gay Men,” to liberally imply a re-definition of  
polygamy and marriage, as if the fiction of “gay polygamy” was even  
possible.

[More at URL]


----- 3 -----
Marriage Protection Amendment Action Alert
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006

[Received in email; no URL]

The U.S. Senate begins debate today on the Marriage Protection  
Amendment (MPA) -- and your senators need to hear from you right now  
about why it's important they vote for its approval.

At issue is nothing less than the future of the American family. If  
marriage is legally allowed to mean anything other than what it has  
meant for centuries -- the union of one man and one woman -- it will  
very quickly mean nothing at all. The MPA is the only way ensure that  
doesn't happen.

To help you make your views on this important issue known to your two  
senators, we've written a short, but direct message for you to send  
them via fax.  Even if you've already contacted your senators on this  
issue, we urge you to do it one more time.

When you send the message attached, it will be sent -- at no charge to  
you -- not to your senators' e-mail inboxes (which they can easily  
empty) but to their fax machines. When thousands of faxes begin to  
stack up in their offices, they will know without a doubt the will of  
the people on this important issue.

So please take a moment, right now, to click the "Take Action" button  
to the right and send your fax.

Thanks for doing your part to defend the family.

[Button link:  
http://vocusgr.vocus.com/GRSpace2/IMail.asp? 
Action=eAdvocacy+Invitation&OpportunityActionID=4856&RE=IN&RI=11468929&E 
ID=733&CID=312&LID=1033&Preview=False ]


----- 4 -----
Bush Throws Support to Marriage Amendment; Senate Debate Begins
President calls on Congress to place marriage out of the reach of  
activist judges.
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0040757.cfm

President Bush spoke today in support of the Marriage Protection  
Amendment (MPA) as debate began on the Senate floor for the second time  
in two years — with a vote to come this week.

In brief remarks at the White House this afternoon, the president  
endorsed the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would  
define marriage as between one man and one woman — and only between one  
man and one woman.

"I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states  
for ratification," Bush told a gathering of pro-family, religious and  
community leaders who had been invited to the White House.

"You are here because you strongly support the constitutional amendment  
that defines marriage as the union of man and a woman — and I am proud  
to stand with you."

[...]

After the ceremony, Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James  
Dobson praised the president for taking a stand once again — and took  
on those who have announced their opposition.

"What do we want, 50 different definitions of marriage? That's crazy,"  
Dobson said in a Focus on the Family broadcast taping session with  
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow to be aired Tuesday. "But that's  
what Democrats — and I'm sorry to say, some squishy Republicans — are  
saying."

[...]

TAKE ACTION/FOR MORE INFORMATION:
If you are a CitizenLink Daily Update subscriber, click on the blue  
"Take Action" button on the right side of the e-mail to be  
automatically logged in to the Action Center where you may fax you  
senators a pre-written note concerning the MPA. Even if you have  
already contacted them, we urge you to fax them again through our  
Action Center and let them know the nation supports marriage being  
defined as one man and one woman. Otherwise, click on this link. Be  
sure to either log in or enter your address information and hit "Go"  
before trying to send the fax.

Click here to view the president's speech via C-SPAN.

Click here to read the text of the president's speech.

To find a station that carries Focus on the Family or to hear the  
broadcast with Tony Snow online on Tuesday, click here.

[More at URL]


----- 5 -----
Answering the Skeptics
by Tom Hess
Focus on the Familiy
Citizen Magazine
June 2006

http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0040680.cfm

If you’ve followed the debate over same-sex marriage, you’ve probably  
seen liberal activists disparage the Marriage Protection Amendment. To  
people who don’t know much beyond what they’ve heard or read in the  
media, some of these criticisms can sound convincing. But in every  
case, there are good answers which reflect the values of most  
Americans.

Below are five of the more common criticisms. In each case, we offer  
responses that should give the skeptic you know reason to reconsider.  
What other responses can you think of? E-mail them to us at  
citizeneditor at fotf.org.

1. Discriminates against gays. The amendment violates the U.S.  
Constitution’s guarantee that every American be treated equally under  
the law.

Our response Marriage between two people of the same sex was not legal  
anywhere in America throughout or history until 2003. That’s the year  
when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court voted 4-3 to allow  
same-sex couples to wed. But society has long recognized many limits on  
who could marry. A man cannot legally marry more than one woman, nor  
can a parent marry his or her child. The institution of marriage has  
always, in every society, meant the union of one man and one woman.  
Marriage predates the ACLU, the U.S. Constitution, even the Bible  
itself.

2. Betrays family values. It’s hypocritical for the far right to talk  
about the importance of “family values” and withhold benefits and legal  
protection from loving, committed gay couples. Heterosexuals themselves  
ruined the “sanctity” of marriage with their high divorce rates.

[More at URL]


----- 6 -----
Alabama State Marriage Amendment Vote on Tuesday
Pro-family voters needed to speak out in the primary election.
by Mona Passignano, state issues analyst
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040751.cfm

Alabama voters will have the unique opportunity Tuesday to amend the  
state constitution to clearly define marriage as the union of one man  
and one woman. So far, 19 states have approved state constitutional  
marriage amendments, and the key to their success was the involvement  
of the church.

[...]

TAKE ACTION:
Vote to protect traditional marriage and the family by voting “Yes” on  
the state marriage amendment.

(Paid for by Focus on the Family Alabama Marriage Amendment Committee,  
8605 Explorer Dr., Colorado Springs, CO 80920.)

[More at URL]


----- 7 -----
Pennsylvania Legislature to Vote on State Marriage Amendment
Urge them to protect the institution from redefinition.
by Mona Passignano, state issues analyst
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040752.cfm

The Pennsylvania Legislature will vote on a state marriage amendment in  
the next few days.

[...]

If you are a Pennsylvania resident, please contact your state  
legislators and urge them to support the Pennsylvania Marriage  
Protection Amendment when it comes up for a vote.

TAKE ACTION:
To contact your state legislators, go to our Citizen Link Action  
Center. If you haven't already, make sure to click on "edit profile" to  
update your address information. That's how the Action Center  
determines your elected officials.

[More at URL]


----- 8 -----
Montana's Yellowstone County to Vote on Obscenity Ordinance
Action could stop dissemination of objectionable material.
by Mona Passignano, state issues analyst
Focus on the Family
June 5, 2006

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040750.cfm

In Tuesday's primary election, Yellowstone County, Mont., residents  
will have the opportunity to vote on an obscenity ordinance that will  
stop the dissemination of obscene material within the county.  
Ninety-eight percent of the U.S. population live in areas where obscene  
material is regulated, but Montana residents are among the 2 percent  
with no obscenity laws.

TAKE ACTION:
If you live in Yellowstone County, please visit the Montana Family  
Foundation for more information. And remember to vote.


----- 9 -----
Gay Activists Protest at Catholic Mass, Denied Communion
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
June 5, 2006

http://www.family.org/cforum/briefs/a0040753.cfm

Homosexual activists wearing rainbow-colored sashes were told they  
could not participate in Holy Communion at a St. Paul, Minn. Roman  
Catholic Cathedral, The Washington Post reported.

Wearing the sash on the day of Pentecost — a symbol of gay protest —  
began in 1997 in England and quickly moved overseas to the U.S.

[...]

Brian McNeill, an organizer of the protest, insisted that wearing the  
sash on the day of Pentecost is not a protest, but a celebration of gay  
sexuality.

"The premise of the sash is that gay people are part of the Catholic  
Community, part of the people of God," he said. "We are there proudly  
celebrating Mass."

Dennis McGrath, spokesman for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and  
Minneapolis, said each of the more than 50 people wearing sashes were  
turned away but one unidentified man who wasn't wearing a sash received  
a wafer and immediately broke it into pieces and handed it to sash  
wearers.

People were visibly disturbed by the defiant act — some calling it  
sacrilege.

"It was confrontational," McGrath said, "but we decided not to try to  
arrest the guy."

[More at URL]


----- 10 -----
Gay Marriage Amendment Getting a Presidential Push
Conservatives who think Bush has buried the issue denounce the planned  
event as a ruse.
By Maura Reynolds and Janet Hook, Times Staff Writers
June 3, 2006

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na- 
gay3jun03,1,5071907.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo

WASHINGTON — The campaign against gay marriage is scheduled to get the  
full White House treatment on Monday — words from President Bush in  
front of assembled VIPs and a bank of television cameras.

Such a carefully staged production aims to confer the grandeur of the  
office on the push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  
But even before administration officials announced the event, some  
invitees denounced it as a sham.

"I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a  
ruse," said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which  
opposes gay marriage. "We're not buying it. We're going to go and watch  
the dog-and-pony show, [but] it's too little, too late."

[More at URL]


----- 11 -----
Debating Marriage: Sacred or Sham?
Concerned Women for America
6/5/2006
By Janice Shaw Crouse

Homosexuals really want divine sanction, not merely legalization, for  
their behavior.

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10890/BLI/dotcommentary/index.htm

Last month while on vacation at the beach, we saw three ocean-side  
wedding ceremonies and heard about several others scheduled for the  
following week. How ironic, now that many heterosexual couples are  
forsaking the church for wedding ceremonies in diverse locations –– on  
water skis, in fire trucks, and equally weird locales –– homosexual  
couples are fighting to “marry” and they want all the attendant pomp  
and ceremony in a church.

Among those most prominent in supporting the “right” to same-sex  
“marriage” are the liberal churches –– who emphasize individual  
freedoms rather than the “boundaries” of Biblical Christianity. Their  
faith is based on personal and corporate interpretations rather than on  
Scriptural tenets –– no matter how historically authenticated or  
theologically authoritative.

[More at URL]


----- 12 -----
Tony Perkins Joins 100 Black Pastors on Marriage
Family Research Council
June 6, 2006
Online as of June 5, 2006

http://www.frc.org/

"A Marriage Protection Amendment is necessary.  Activist courts have  
left our nation with no other option. Marriage will either be defined  
by the courts or by the people. Now is the time for Congress to  
act!"~FRC President, Tony Perkins.

Washington, D.C. - Tomorrow Tony Perkins, President of Family Research  
Council, will join with religious and community leaders from across  
political party lines in a joint press conference to support the  
Marriage Protection Amendment.

Who:   Sen. Wayne Allard, Tony Perkins, Bishop Harry Jackson, Reverend  
William Owens, Star Parker, and Students from TeenPact

What: Joint press conference in support of the MPA

When: Tuesday, June 6th, 2006
10:30 a.m. EST

Where: Senate Swamp, Washington, DC, (At the corner of Constitution and  
Delaware Avenues, across from Russell Senate Office Building)


----- 13 -----
Senators McCain and Clinton Are Ignoring America On Gay Marriage Says  
FRC Action Ad
Family Research Council
June 5, 2006 - Monday
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 5, 2006
CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Bethanie Swendsen, (866) FRC-NEWS

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR06F01&f=PG03I03

"The record is clear. When allowed to speak, Americans speak up against  
activist judges in defense of marriage." - USA Today, FRC Action Ad

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In today's edition of USA Today, FRC Action - the  
legislative action arm of the Family Research Council - and Focus on  
the Family Action launched an ad campaign urging Americans who support  
traditional marriage to contact their state's two Senators in support  
of the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA). The ad questions statements  
made by both Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in  
which they claim support for traditional marriage, while also opposing  
the MPA.

The ad lists all 19 states that have enacted marriage protection  
amendments by an average of 70% of the popular vote. The ad states,  
"It's abundantly clear that the American people are centered on the  
definition of marriage. They want it to stay right where it is, and  
they've been doing some straight talk of their own - every time the  
issue is on a ballot." However, the ad points out that "as impressive  
as these majorities are, they can still be overruled with the stroke of  
a pen by an activist judge."

The ad concludes, "If you're content to leave the future of marriage in  
the hands of activist judges, then both Senator McCain and Senator  
Clinton speak for you. But if you're like millions of other Americans  
who want to protect marriage from redefinition, then call your state's  
two Senators today at 202-224-3121 and ask them to vote this week for  
the Marriage Protection Amendment."


----- 14 -----
As Senate Takes Up Marriage Debate, Religious Leaders Urge Support for  
MPA
By Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
American Family Association/Agape Press
June 5, 2006

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/52006a.asp

(AgapePress) - The founder of the American Family Association (AFA)  
says U.S. Christians concerned about the influence of homosexual  
activists on their society need to contact their senators regarding the  
proposed federal marriage amendment.

Tomorrow (June 6) the U.S. Senate begins debate on the proposed  
constitutional amendment that would define marriage as valid only  
between a man and a woman. To become law, the amendment needs  
two-thirds support in the U.S. Senate and House and then would have to  
be ratified by 38 state legislatures. Senators are expected to vote on  
the proposal later this week.

[More at URL]


----- 15 -----
Judge Rules Christian Prison Program Unconstitutional; Appeal Planned
"The courts took God our of America's schools --
now they are on the path to take God out of America's prisons."
-- Mark Earley, Prison Fellowship President
By Jody Brown
American Family Association/Agape Press
June 5, 2006

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/52006b.asp

(AgapePress) - Evidently it matters not that a well-known and highly  
successful prison ministry believes one of its premier programs is  
constitutional and well within the guidelines of the First Amendment,  
or that statistics bear out the effectiveness of the program. A federal  
judge has ruled the program is unconstitutional -- and now the program  
that equips prisoners to successfully re-enter society is in jeopardy.

A federal judge has ruled that an Iowa prison program that involves  
inmates immersing themselves in evangelical Christianity is  
unconstitutional and must be shut down. Associated Press reports that  
Judge Robert Pratt, in a ruling expected to have national implications,  
said Prison Fellowship's InnerChange Freedom Initiative amounts to a  
government establishment of religion.

Pratt ruled that the Iowa Department of Corrections must close the  
program within 60 days and that $1.5 million in contract payments must  
be returned to state officials, but he suspended those orders while an  
appeal is pending.

[More at URL]


----- 15 -----
Marriage Amendment -- Baptists on Sunday, Bush on Monday
Family Advocate Highly Disappointed in White House Passivity Toward MPA
By Allie Martin, Jody Brown, and Rusty Pugh
American Family Association
June 2, 2006

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/22006a.asp

(AgapePress) - Southern Baptist pastors are being encouraged this  
weekend to preach about the necessity of a constitutional amendment to  
protect traditional marriage. The legislative matter is scheduled to  
come before the U.S. Senate for debate and a vote next week.

The Marriage Protection Amendment (S.J. Res. 1) has 32 co-sponsors, all  
Republicans. The amendment states, in part, that marriage in the U.S.  
"shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" and that neither  
the U.S. Constitution nor any state's constitution shall confer the  
legal incidents of marriage on any other type of union.

[...]

Pro-family and faith-based groups across the country have been urging  
their supporters to contact their senators and encourage them to vote  
for the MPA. Among those groups is the Southern Baptist Convention  
(SBC), which has dubbed June 4 as "Marriage Protection Sunday"  
throughout its churches in an effort to encourage Southern Baptists to  
learn more about the threat to biblical marriage posed by same-sex  
unions.

[More at URL]


----- 16 -----
Attorney Suggests Gov't Regulation of Google a Possibility
By Allie Martin
American Family Association
June 5, 2006

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/52006f.asp

(AgapePress) - An attorney with a prominent conservative Christian  
group says he is troubled by the recent announcement that the popular  
Internet search engine Google(tm) has dumped news sites criticizing  
radical Islam.

Last month Frank Salvato, owner of The New Media Journal, was informed  
by representatives of Google that his website's news page would be  
dropped as one of the search engine's news resources because of  
complaints regarding "hate speech." Google officials referenced three  
articles from the site that allegedly contained such speech directed at  
the Muslim religion. (See earlier article)

The chief counsel of the American Family Association Center for Law &  
Policy says Google's decision is troubling because of the company's  
influence on the Worldwide Web. Steve Crampton explains that the whole  
concept behind a search engine is that users are just looking for  
information -- and that the users will then take it from there.

"[Users are essentially saying] 'I'll do the decision-making -- the  
discriminating, if you will -- as to which articles I want to read and  
which ones I don't,'" says Crampton. "But when you retrieve only  
left-leaning articles or only articles that are favorable to the  
religion of Islam, you're not really providing news. You're providing a  
slanted view of the world."

And evidently Google provides its view to a major portion of American  
Internet users. According to the Nielsen/NetRatings report [PDF], half  
(50 percent) of all the Internet searches -- or approximately 2.65  
billion searches -- conducted in the U.S. in April 2006 were carried  
out on Google. Yahoo! search and MSN search followed with 22 and 11  
percent respectively. That makes Google, a private entity, one with  
vast influence -- and consequently, an argument might be made for  
government regulation, Crampton says.

[More at URL]


----- 17 -----
ADF Appeals Liberal Judges' Ruling in Christian Student's Censorship  
Case
By Jim Brown
American Family Association/Agape Press
June 2, 2006

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/22006b.asp

(AgapePress) - A pro-family attorney says a San Diego school district  
violated the free-speech rights of a California high school student by  
prohibiting him from expressing his Christian viewpoint against  
homosexuality.

In 2004, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed a lawsuit challenging  
the Poway School District's decision to suspend student Chase Harper  
for wearing a Christian T-shirt. Harper's shirt bore the phrases  
"Homosexuality is shameful" and "Our school embraced what God has  
condemned."

Recently, two judges with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled  
the U.S. Constitution does not permit Harper to wear the shirt. ADF, a  
pro-family legal defense organization, is appealing the ruling.

[More at URL]


----- 18 -----
Commentary & News Briefs
June 5, 2006
American Family Association/Agape Press
Compiled by Jody Brown

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/52006h.asp

[...]

...On Tuesday, when the date will be 6-6-06, fans of the "Left Behind"  
novels can enjoy The Rapture. That's the title of the last prequel to  
the apocalyptic series about the biblical end times. Author Tim LaHaye  
says this new book describes what it will feel like for Christians to  
be part of the Rapture. "They'll all be taken up to be with Christ and  
then into Heaven, that place that He said He'd prepare for us -- and  
then the judgment seat of Christ, the marriage supper of the Lamb," he  
explains. "There are plenty of activities." LaHaye does not expect  
Christians to really be "raptured" -- or caught up from Earth to Heaven  
-- on June 6, 2006, since Jesus said no one knows the day that will  
happen. And he says he is sure the mark of the beast -- 666 -- will not  
be introduced on Tuesday. LaHaye understands scripture to teach that  
that will not happen until three-and-a-half years after the Rapture.  
[AP]

[...]

...A judge has rejected a Wisconsin pharmacist's claim that his  
religious rights were violated when Wal-Mart fired him for refusing to  
fill birth-control prescriptions. The ruling said Wal-Mart had  
accommodated Neil Noesen's religious opposition to birth control by  
having other pharmacists fill prescriptions. But federal Judge John  
Shabaz said Noesen went too far by putting customers who called about  
birth control on hold indefinitely and by refusing to get service for  
those who showed up in person. The 32-year-old Noesen, a Roman  
Catholic, also was sanctioned by the state Pharmacy Examining Board for  
refusing to fill a contraceptive prescription or transfer it while  
working at another store in 2002. The board reprimanded him and forced  
him to attend ethics classes. [AP]

[More at URL]


----- 19 -----
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT DOES MORE TO PROMOTE CIVIL UNIONS THAN PROTECT  
MARRIAGE
Traditional Values Coalition
White House & Religious Conservatives mislead American people on effect  
of MPA

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2743

June 5, 2006 - Washington, DC – The Traditional Values Coalition will  
not attend the White House ceremony today to promote the Marriage  
Protection Amendment because it puts in the U.S. Constitution the right  
to civil unions and other forms of counterfeit marriage, which are one  
small step from full marriage rights for homosexuals.

“This amendment is a hollow gesture when it comes to protecting  
marriage,” said TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon. “It does not ‘fully  
protect marriage’ but it amends the Constitution to allow civil unions  
and other forms of counterfeit marriage in all 50 states.”

“I am disappointed in the White House, but I am even more disappointed  
in those social conservative leaders who have misled the American  
people into believing that the Marriage Protection Amendment will stop  
homosexual marriage. Promoting a civil unions amendment disguised as a  
marriage protection amendment is shameful.

“No reasonable person will deny marriage to homosexuals once a  
Constitutional right to a ‘civil union’ is established. And this  
amendment is not compassionate conservatism, this is unprincipled  
relativism.

[More at URL]


----- 20 -----
Do Homosexuals Really Want The Right To Marry?
In their own words: Homosexual activists reveal their real agenda.
Traditional Values Coalition
Online as of June 5, 2006

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1150

Homosexuals claim they want the "right" to get married and live normal  
lives just like heterosexual married couples.

The truth is, however, that the drive to gain legalization of so-called  
"gay" or "same-sex" marriage is part of a larger sexual agenda.  
Homosexual activists are now beginning to openly admit that they don't  
want to marry just to have a normal home life. They want same-sex  
marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and  
of introducing polygamy and polyamory (group sex) as "families."

[More at URL]


----- 21 -----
Homosexual Civil Unions
Homosexual activists explain why ‘civil unions’ are just as good as  
‘same-sex  marriage’ in the battle to undermine the traditional family.
Traditional Values Coalition
January 2005
Online (and relinked) as of June 5, 2006

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/CivilUnions.pdf

January, 2005 — Homosexual activists are openly strategizing on  how to  
gain all of the legal benefits  of marriage under state-passed  “civil  
union” legislation.

Dale Carpenter, a homosexual  writer for the Independent Gay  Forum  
(11/25/2004), for example,  has described the “California  Model” to  
gain the legal status of  marriage—without calling it marriage under  
state laws. The objective is to gain marriage  status through  
incrementalism. This is the strategy followed  in California.

[More at URL]


----- 22 -----
Last Weekend for Referendum 65
Faith and Freedom Network
Saturday, June 03, 2006

http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2006/06/last-weekend-for- 
referendum-65.html

As many of you know, this is the last week-end to circulate Referendum  
65 petitions. Please do so. If you have any petition forms, gather as  
many last minute signatures as possible and mail them in. Please follow  
the mailing instructions on our website. Click here for instructions.

Many are calling to ask where we are in regard to the number of names  
collected. We don’t know because Tim Eyman has not disclosed the  
numbers.

For the latest news source on the Referendum, click here to view the  
news link on our home page.

[More at URL]


----- 23 -----
Monday, June 5, 2006 · Last updated 5:07 p.m. PT
Several high-profile church leaders ready to rally support gay rights

By ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

SEATTLE -- Several high-profile church leaders said Monday they're  
poised to rally voters to uphold a measure adding sexual orientation to  
a state law that bans discrimination in housing, employment, insurance  
and credit.

"Discrimination against any human being on the basis of race, religion,  
color, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, or sexual  
orientation is a moral wrong," Rev. Jon M. Luopa, senior minister of  
University Unitarian Church, told a news conference at Seattle's  
Episcopalian Diocesan House. "It is the duty of a democratic government  
to protect us from such wrong. It is our duty as citizens to hold the  
government accountable for such protection."

[...]

Eyman made an appointment to turn in signatures Monday at the secretary  
of state's office in Olympia, but instead he showed up dressed up as  
Darth Vader, carting boxes of petition signatures for another  
initiative he's sponsoring for $30 car tabs.

He refused to say how many Referendum 65 signatures his team had  
gathered so far, only that he was awaiting a final batch from Spokane  
and that he would turn them all in Tuesday afternoon.

[...]

In the past few weeks, some churches have been running a "Referendum  
Sunday" campaign to gather signatures for the measure, after Eyman sent  
out an e-mail saying he had received less than 10,000 signatures.

[...]

The Right Rev. Vincent Warner, bishop of the Episcopal Church in  
Western Washington, said church leaders who support gay rights need to  
be more vocal about their beliefs.

"I think we're too quiet about it," Warner said. "I think we really  
need to let people know that respecting the dignity of every human  
being is very, very important."

[More at URL]


----- 24 -----
Planned Parenthood makes money off sexually active children
Canada Family Action Coalition
June 5, 2006

http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/sexuality/planned- 
parenthood-record-profits.htm

Is it any wonder Planned Parenthood supports homosexual activists here  
in Canada opposing raising the age of consent. It would likely reduce  
their profits here even in this nation. I think it very apparent that  
this organization has no concern nor compassion for humans. And it  
wants taxpayers money to do it's deeds.

We need to ask every level of government to cut ALL funding of this  
organization as it does no "charitable" work.

READ US stats - but beware this outfit operates in Canada ands has  
access to students in many schools also.

-- CFAC

Planned Parenthood swimming in record profits while tax dollars  
siphoned from worthy programs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Amber Dolle
June 5, 2006
WASHINGTON, D.C. - "Planned Parenthood must assume that elected  
officials can't read a simple annual report," said American Life League  
vice president Jim Sedlak. "While Planned Parenthood is begging for  
increased government funding, it's also admitting that it racked up  
record operating profits in its most recent fiscal year."

Newly released data reveals that for the 2004-2005 fiscal year, Planned  
Parenthood had a record income of $882 million dollars and a profit of  
$63 million, the second highest the organization has ever reported in a  
single year. Planned Parenthood also set new standards for the number  
of abortions in a single year (255,015) and for its ratio of abortions  
to adoption referrals (180 to 1).

[More at URL]


----- 25 -----
Renegade Conservative MP Garth Turner Calls Ethnic and Religious People  
Evil Flowers and Taliban
By Dr. Charles McVety, Canada
Christian College, Toronto
(President, Canada Family Action Coalition)

http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/politics-law/government/ 
renegade-MP.htm

Since elected on January 23rd MP Garth Turner has frequently attacked  
Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Now he has turned his sights on ethnic  
and religious people. On television and then his website, under the  
title “Agenda of Hate” Turner blasted us saying “Call it Defend  
Marriage Canada. Call it the Taliban, Fleurs du mal (flowers of evil)”.

After a spirited televised debate with me on Friday, May 26th, Garth  
Turner lost it as he ranted and raved on his website www.garth.ca.  
During the interview Mr. Turner made the argument that busloads of  
ethnic and religious people take over nomination meetings and elect  
candidates that do not reflect society. I protested, “Are you saying  
ethnic and religious people are not Canadians and cannot participate in  
democracy? That only the ”elites” should elect our candidates?”

This was enough to trigger a caustic response from Turner, revealing an  
underlying hatred for people who do not share his religious views or  
culture. In his writings, paragraph after paragraph Turner castigates  
anyone who dares challenge his entitlement as a Member of Parliament.  
“I have no time for groups in our society who try to force their  
morals, or their culture, on the rest of us.”

[More at URL]


--
Please do not add this email address to any mailing
lists, or give it to any company or web site. Thanks!