[Active-l] (NEWS) Today's Cultural Warfare Update (2/2)

[Dara (R'ykandar Korra'ti)]

Bay Area Reporter: "Anti-gay Democrat to lead DLC";

Faith and Freedom Network ACTION ITEM against Domestic Partnership  
bill in Olympia (Washington State);

FFN ACTION ITEM against DP bill, and against the longshot civil  
marriage bills; includes talking points;

Focus on the Family Canada condemns court ruling giving the  
biological father of a lesbian couple's child some parental rights as  
"redefining the Family;" as some sperm donors have found out in the  
past, this kind of ruling has a >30 year history, but they don't talk  
about that in their article. Note where they're quoting their own  
think tank (Institute for Marriage and Family Canada) as an outside  
source, to make themselves look bigger - tho' again, unlike in the  
US, they acknowledge the link later;

REAL Women of Canada (quoted on the Canada Family Action Coalition  
web page) start quoting anti-gay "statistics" (sourcelessly) that are  
part of the usual suite; queers can't have stable relationships,  
queers have short, diseased lives; etc;

Canada Family Action Coalition picks up on the "tolerance is  
intolerant" rhetoric;

CFAC and various others are picking up the US "liberal judicial  
activists" drumbeat, mostly to refer to decisions they dislike;

Catholic Organisation for Life and Family want marriage rights "public 
[ly] evaluated" again, and are very cranky about the Ontario Court of  
Appeals ruling; does anyone know whether any of these organisations  
had these kinds of issues when they were only applied to straight  
couples getting married/divorced/remarried, or where adoptions, or  
genetic material (sperm and egg donation) were involved? I'm not  
aware of any such complaints in the US when it was about straights,  
but you get queers involved and it's nothing but splody time;

Focus on the Family's Institute for Marriage and Family Canada gets  
an article redistributed by CFAC - they want marriage rights "re- 
evaluated" again, of course, saying children are harmed by GBLT  
parentage;

CFAC reprints Life Decisions International/LifeNews.com's boycott  
list for support of Planned Parenthood;

CFAC points to Ontario online petition to Premier McGuinty and Atty.  
General Bryant over the Ontario Appeals Court decision;

Institute for Canadian Values calls Ontario decision "naked judicial  
activism" while, interestingly, saying that the issues the court  
raised were "valid." So, um, what;

Okay, so: the Traditional Values Coalition is reporting that a  
therapist was fired by her employer when she refused to help a client  
(a lesbian) work out some issues to improve her relationship with her  
same-sex partner, on the basis that she had religious objections to  
GBLT people. The therapist filed a wrongful-termination suit, and  
lost. TVC calls this a "legal precedent against religious-oriented  
therapists" and "one more example of how homosexual activists and  
radical liberal judges are determined to undermine religious freedom  
in this country in favor of the homosexual agenda";

AFA ACTION ITEM against Fox Sports over the "Fuck Da Eagles" T-shirt  
worn by somebody in the crowd and seen on camera;

AFA founder and chairman Don Wildmon criticises fundamentalists for  
not doing enough to keep homosexuality illegal, abortion illegal, no- 
fault divorce off the books, and working against pr0n, and all that;

PFOX, the "ex-gay" group modeled after PFLAG, but, you know, anti-gay  
instead, gets a big article in the latest AFA Journal; PFOX does  
things like argue against anti-bullying policies that include GBLT  
kids, and spends a lot of time slagging PFLAG;

AFA promotes its "Origins" DVD series which claims to disprove  
evolutionary theory, mostly by saying, "it's just too complex!";

AFA promotes "Christian Heritage Tour" of Washington, DC - one of the  
many tools in the general theocon 'the founding fathers were  
fundamentalists' history retcon;

Family Research Council front page notes that Senator and  
Presidential Candidate Sam Brownback will be joining the "Blogs for  
Life" conference;

James Dobson tells John McCain to fuck off, demonstrating that  
attempting to suck up to the theocons can only go so far; this  
implies (to me, anyway) that Mitt Romney's attempt to convert from  
pro-GBLT-rights to bible-thumping Mormon anti-gay activist to get the  
GOP nod will fail spectacularly;

Family Research Council demands anti-gay legislation, an anti- 
marriage amendment to the Federal constitution, and anti-abortion  
law, from Nancy Pelosi, which you have to admit, is pretty funny;

FRC ACTION ITEM to suck up to Mr. Bush in thanks for his support  
against abortion rights, his support for the "gag rule," and so on.


----- 1 -----
Anti-gay Dem to head DLC
by Lisa Keen
Bay Area Reporter
Published 01/18/2007

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1489

A group that aspires to reform the Democratic Party to appeal to a  
greater number of voters has chosen a new chairman who is best known  
to LGBT activists for having abandoned support for equal rights for  
gays in order to pursue higher office.

Former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. is best known to the rest of the  
country for almost winning the U.S. Senate seat in Tennessee last  
November – a race closely watched not only because it was close but  
because the control of the Senate was teetering between Republicans  
and Democrats. Republican Bob Corker went on to win the Senate seat,  
although Democrats did win control of the Senate after wins in  
Montana and Virginia.

[More at URL]


----- 2 ------
"Domestic Partners" Bill to be Heard Next Thursday
Faith and Freedom Network
Friday, January 19, 2007

http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2007/01/domestic-partners-bill- 
to-be-heard.html

We learned yesterday afternoon that HB 5336 will be heard next  
Thursday, January 25th at 3:30 p.m. in Olympia.

We will be at the hearing.

Please do two things.

First, take a moment to write to your Washington State  
Representatives. Click here for contact information. You may use  
information from my blog yesterday if that is helpful -- but please  
write asking your representatives to oppose this bill. Then call of  
email them.

Secondly, spend time in prayer regarding this matter. It is more  
spiritual than political. I believe God will honor our prayers.

Thank you and God bless you.

________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom


----- 3 ------
Gay Marriage & Domestic Partnerships Are On WA Agenda
Faith and Freedom Network
Thursday, January 18, 2007

http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2007/01/gay-marriage-domestic- 
partnerships-are.html

As promised, gay activist legislators and a number of their  
supporters have introduced bills in both the House and Senate to  
advance the gay-rights agenda in Washington State.

The House bill, HB 1350, and the Senate, SB 5335 are both asking for  
“civil marriage equality” – gay marriage.

The House Bill, HB 1351 and Senate bill, SB 5336, are both asking for  
“Domestic Partnerships.”

All four of these bills must be defeated. Here’s why.

HB 1350 and SB 5335 is an attempt to revive gay marriage. We don’t  
think they have the votes to pass this legislation at this time. But  
we must communicate with our elected officials in the strongest  
possible way.

A part of this bill states that it is “to ensure that all persons in  
the state may enjoy the freedom to marry on equal terms.” That right  
is already provided. Both men and women are free to marry.

This is not about marriage equality, but rather redefining marriage.  
In fact, in the text of the bill they are replacing “male and female”  
with the word, “person” and “husband and wife” with the word “person”  
or “spouse.”

These bills must be defeated.

The “Domestic Partners” bills, HB 1351 and SB 5336 are probably their  
fall-back bills.

These bills sound sympathetic and “fair.” In fact, they have included  
a specific class, along with same-sex couples, of couples in which at  
least one is 62 years or older. The bills state that “social security  
and pension laws make it impractical for these couples to marry.”

I have no doubt that the gay activists will highlight the fact that  
they are trying to help the elderly. I suspect anyone who takes a  
position against these bills will be cast as insensitive, uncaring  
and prejudiced.

In fact, homosexual couples, as well as the elderly couples, already  
have access to contractual agreements that cover all the various  
needs they have outlined in their bill.

These bills must be defeated for three reasons.

1. They are fiscally irresponsible. They open up a new class of  
entitlements on a social security and welfare system that is already  
broken.

2. They are socially and spiritually irresponsible. These bills  
provide government incentive to live together as though married,  
without the commitments of marriage. They are also contrary to the  
spiritual and moral teaching of the Bible and the historic mores of  
American culture.

3. They are a “gateway” or incremental step toward gay marriage. Mr.  
Murray, Mr. Moeller and others have repeatedly told the press and the  
public that the prize is ultimately marriage for gays.

We are asking you to respond immediately to your elected Senator and  
Representative. You can find your elected official contact  
information on our website. Click here.

We are suggesting you write a letter. You may use some of the talking  
points I have included above if that is helpful. Be sure to mention  
the bills by number and be respectful but clear on your position.

We would also suggest that in addition to your mailed letter that you  
either call their office or email them as well.

Finally, and I know this isn’t for everyone, but if you would feel  
comfortable, we would like you to give testimony regarding these bills.

If you would consider this, please contact Jon Russell, FFN  
Washington Lobbyist, at j.russell at faithandfreedom.us and let him know  
you may be interested and able to speak at the appropriate time. He  
will work with you and let you know when testimony will be heard.

It is important to have strong convictions about issues such as  
these. However, conviction is different than action.

This is a time for action.

Thank you and God bless you.

________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom


----- 4 -----
Ontario court re-defines family
Focus on the Family Canada
January 10, 2007

http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/family/stories/2007/070110_01.html

Ontario’s highest court has seen fit to re-define the family in a  
highly controversial ruling that allows a child to have three legal  
parents.

In a judgment handed down January 2, the Ontario Court of Appeal  
declared that a five-year-old boy can have two mothers – his  
biological mother as well as her lesbian partner. His biological  
father is, according to the Toronto Star, a “friend” who “remains  
involved” in his son’s life “at the request of the two women.”

Under Ontario law, if the lesbian partner had adopted the boy, the  
father would have had to forfeit his parental rights.

In June 2003, the same court had declared that gay and lesbian  
couples in the province had the legal right to marry. Within months,  
courts or legislatures in most of the other provinces had followed suit.

In this case, as the National Post noted, the decision rewrites  
Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act, passed in the 1970s to protect  
the rights of children born out of wedlock. It also sets a legal  
precedent that other courts across Canada will have to take into  
consideration when adjudicating similar cases.

The three-member panel agreed unanimously that the Act  
unintentionally left a “legislative gap,” because at the time, no one  
could have foreseen that a child could have more than one father and  
one mother.

“The possibility of legally and socially recognized same-sex unions  
and the implications of advances in reproductive technology were not  
on the radar screen,” the judges stated.

Family advocates were quick to denounce the ruling. “It opens the  
door to complete social engineering that can only harm the  
institution of the family,” Dave Quist, executive director of the  
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC), told Today’s Family  
News.

[More at URL]


----- 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
Reprinted via Canada Family Action Coalition

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.

[...]

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. [Editor's note: I don't remember actually seeing a defined  
source for this - not even to a theocon source. It just seems to be  
taken as a given.]

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. [Editor's Note: these last two elements are  
part of the slew of anti-gay bullshit "studies" from sources such as,  
but by no means exclusive to, Paul Cameron and other anti-GBLT  
theoconservatives.]

A trend resulting from same-sex marriage is evident in the  
Netherlands, which has allowed homosexual couples to register their  
partnerships since 1997 and which legalized same-sex marriages in  
2000. Statistics show that the out-of-wedlock birthrate there has  
increased by an average of 2 per cent a year -- more than in any  
other country in western Europe. This indicates a marked decrease in  
a desire for legal marriage and an increase in cohabitation.  
[Editor's note: there has been no change in the rate of change before  
and after same-sex marriage. This is an example of context-removal in  
statistics quotation to change the data to indicate something other  
than it actually indicates.]

[More at URL]


----- 6 ------
An excellent column by the author of "Against Judicial Activism” –  
Rory Leishman. If you do not have this book you need to get it  
through McGill-Queen's University Press (click here for a direct link).

Legislators versus Judges?
The London Free Press - Jan 16, 2007
By Rory Leishman

http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/politics-law/courts/leg- 
vs-judges.htm

In a classic 18th-century text, The Spirit of the Laws, Charles de  
Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, pointed out that the separation of  
legislative and judicial powers is essential to freedom under law. He  
wrote: "Were (the judicial power) joined with the legislative, the  
life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary  
control; for the judge would then be the legislator."

Sir William Blackstone likewise warned in his magisterial  
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69): "Were (the judicial  
power) joined with the legislative, the life, liberty, and property  
of the subject would be in the hands of arbitrary judges, whose  
decisions would be then regulated only by their own opinions, and not  
by any fundamental principles of law; which, though legislators may  
depart from, yet judges are bound to observe."

Until recently, the great majority of Canadian judges agreed with  
Montesquieu and Blackstone. Instead of arbitrarily changing the law  
to conform with their ideas of what justice requires, they undertook  
to uphold the plain text of the laws and the Constitution of Canada  
as enacted and originally understood by elected representatives of  
the people in the legislative branch of government.

Judicial activists know no such restraint. They have no compunction  
about arbitrarily enacting their ideological preferences into law by  
unilaterally amending statute laws and the Constitution through  
judicial interpretation.

Consider in this respect the recent decision of the Ontario Court of  
Appeal in A.A. v B.B.. At issue in this case, were two lesbian  
partners - A.A. and C.C. - and a man - B.B. - who had donated sperm  
so C.C. could give birth to a child.

[More at URL]


----- 7 -----
Three parents for one child?
Time has come to pause and reflect
Catholic Organization for
Life and Family (COLF)
MEDIA RELEASE - January 8, 2007

http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/family/parenting/three- 
parents.htm

The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision of January 2, 2007 to allow  
three legal parents for the same child should sound the alarm for  
federal and provincial governments across Canada. It is necessary to  
slow the accelerated rate of change that has been transforming our  
most fundamental social institutions. Canadians urgently need to  
pause, reflect, study and debate where our changing standards of  
marriage and family are taking us.

Parenthood is a natural reality based on biological facts that are  
beyond redefinition by courts or legislatures. Every child  
genetically originates from one mother and one father, and has a  
right and a need to be raised by its biological parents to the extent  
possible. Where this is not possible, adoption is a commendable and  
important alternative to serve the best interests of the child.

The evolving desires of adults have not changed the needs of  
children. Research continues to confirm that children do best when  
raised by their own married mother and father. Intentionally steering  
our society away from this model provides grave cause for concern. We  
do not yet know the effects of three or more legal parents on our  
children, but our experience with divorce and its negative impact on  
children calls for caution. We can only imagine the extensive  
consequences that may result from radically redefining parenthood and  
family.

Children are the future of Canada. We owe it to them to make  
responsible, thoroughly studied decisions regarding the structure of  
the family, since it most profoundly affects their development and  
well-being. Children are vulnerable and have to be protected instead  
of subjected to another social experiment.

Rather than allowing courts to define social policies, governments  
need to ensure that their laws continue to promote the natural two- 
parent family model. Canadians also need a public commission to  
comprehensively evaluate the impact upon children and upon society  
itself of redefining parenthood and marriage. Finally, we invite all  
Canadian citizens to participate in a thorough social dialogue on  
these issues.

COLF is co-sponsored by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops  
and the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus. It promotes  
respect for human life and dignity, and the essential role of the  
family.

For more information:
Michèle Boulva, Director
Catholic Organization for Life and Family
Tel.: (613) 241-9461, ext. 141
E-mail: mboulva at colf.ca


----- 8 -----
The marriage debate: We’ve moved on.
But to what?
The same sex marriage debate is firmly behind us. We’ve all moved on…
to legally recognizing multiple parents.
By Andrea Mrozek
Manager of Research and Communications
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada

http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/family/parenting/moved-on- 
to-what.htm

Ah yes. The new year, a perfect time to move on from the divisive  
marriage debate of late 2006. And how. If the debate is over on same  
sex marriage; we must now welcome a new debate over the legal  
recognition of multiple parents. When the Ontario Court of Appeal  
granted three adults legal parent status on January 2, 2007 it was  
not social conservative activists who opened up the marriage debate-- 
it was the judges at the Ontario Court of Appeal. And why? They did  
so for the benefit of the adults involved.

There is evidence to suggest the best child outcomes occur in low  
conflict, biological married parent settings. [1] But there is no  
research to show that three parents, or even that same sex parents  
are good, bad, or irrelevant for child outcomes. [2] There is a  
definitive need for better comparative studies. In spite of what  
Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public  
Policy, calls an emerging consensus on the success of traditional  
family structure, there are related but competing fields of study,  
which challenge those assertions, without offering direct  
comparisons. “Thus the powerful new consensus on family structure is  
on a collision course with a separate emerging consensus from a  
related field: the social science literature on sexual orientation  
and parenting,” writes Gallagher. [3]

[More at URL]


----- 9 -----
Canadians need to know and take actions also. See who all connects  
with and supports the actions of an anti-life organization.
Newly Identified Corporate Supporters of Planned Parenthood Named
LifeSiteNews.com
As reposted on Canada Family Action Coalition website
January 11, 2007 - Original article

http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/life/corp-supporters.htm

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Life Decisions International (LDI) has released a  
revised edition of The Boycott List, which identifies corporations  
that are boycott targets due to their support of Planned Parenthood,  
the world's primary abortion-advocacy group.

"As a direct result of the commitment, action and prayers of pro- 
family people, at least 137 corporations have stopped funding Planned  
Parenthood," said LDI President Douglas R. Scott, Jr. It is estimated  
that the boycott has cost Planned Parenthood more than $35 million  
since the Corporate Funding Project (CFP) began some 15 years ago.  
"This should be a testament to those who believe it is impossible to  
change corporate philanthropic behavior," Scott said.

Corporations appearing on The Boycott List for the first time include  
AlphaGraphics (graphics/printing), Arizona Lotus (radio/television  
broadcasting), Blackjack Pizza (restaurants), BolchalkFReY Marketing  
(advertising/public relations), Kara-Line (Wild Carrots apparel),  
Lowe Enterprises (hotels/resorts/financing), Pizza Pizza  
(restaurants), Scolari's Food & Drug, and Tiffany & Company, among  
others.

Corporations continuing as boycott targets from the previously  
released Boycott List include high-end retailer Neiman Marcus, Basics  
Office Products, Adobe (software), Wachovia (finance), Golub (Price  
Chopper supermarkets), Nike (shoes/apparel, etc.), Time Warner  
(Cinemax, HBO, AOL, etc.), Unilever (Q-Tips, Lipton, Best Foods,  
Birds Eye, CountryCrock, Wish-Bone, Ben & Jerry's, Axe, Finesse,  
Salon Selectives, Suave, etc.), Bank of America, the Dallas Cowboys,  
CIGNA (insurance), Walt Disney, Cost Plus World Market, Johnson &  
Johnson, Lost Arrow (Patagonia, etc.), Wells Fargo, Whole Foods  
Market, and Nationwide (insurance), among others.

[More at URL]


----- 10 -----
To:  Premier Dalton McGuinty and Attorney General Michael Bryant
Pointed to by Canada Family Action Coalition website
Online as of 20 January 2007

http://www.petitiononline.com/3parents/

As Canadian citizens and residents of Ontario, we the undersigned  
urge you to appeal the Ontario Appeal Court decision on January 2,  
2007, which allowed a 5-year-old boy to have three parents. Such  
appeal would allow the public and various levels of government to  
thoroughly study the possible personal, societal, and legal imparts  
of allowing more than 2 parents for a child. This would be in the  
best interest of all children and families in Ontario.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned


----- 11 -----
Institute calls Ontario Court of Appeal three parent decision act of  
"naked judicial activism"
Date: Jan 03, 2007
Institute for Canadian Values

http://canadianvalues.ca/news.aspx?aid=249

OTTAWA - The Institute for Canadian Values is calling a ruling by the  
Ontario Court of Appeal that a child can have three parents  
"unnecessary" and an act of "naked judicial activism" not unlike the  
same Court's 2003 ruling redefining marriage.

"Yesterday's decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal that a child can  
have three parents was an act of naked judicial activism," said  
Joseph C. Ben-Ami, Executive Director and Director of Policy  
Development for the ICV.

The case involved an Application by the lesbian partner of a child's  
mother to be recognized as a legal parent despite the fact that the  
child's father still actively participates in the child's life. Her  
argument was that, although she is a de facto parent, she had no  
legal right to make parenting decisions on behalf of the child and  
may be prevented from exercising her authority should the child's  
biological mother die or become unable to make decisions on behalf of  
the child.

The case was originally dismissed in 2003.

Although he acknowledged the validity of the concerns raised, Ben-Ami  
dismissed them as justification for the Court's Ruling.

"Disputes regarding who makes legal decisions on behalf of minor  
children, including disputes between children's actual parents, are  
adjudicated every day in Canada on a case by case basis in the best  
interest of the children without the need to change the definition of  
family," observed Ben-Ami. "The unlikely possibility of such a  
dispute arising at some time in the future between these adults is no  
justification for this sweeping Ruling. The only explanation is that  
the Court saw this case as an opportunity to entrench so-called  
alternative family structures in law without submitting the idea to  
the rigours of the legislative process."


----- 12 -----
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
(A Focus on the Family project)
For Immediate Release
January 2, 2007

http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/Three-Parent_Case_Jan_2_2007.pdf
ARE THREE PARENTS REALLY
IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST?
(Ottawa)  A decision brought down on January 2, 2007, by the Court of  
Appeal for Ontario allows for the legal recognition of three  
parents.  “Today’s ruling in favour of the so-called Three Parent  
Case sends an ominous message regarding the foundation of family,”  
stated Dave Quist, Executive Director of the Institute of Marriage  
and Family Canada.
There are significant short-term and long-term outcomes that follow  
this decision.  “This ruling leaves a number of unanswered questions  
hanging over our heads. In the event of adversarial applications for  
parental recognition, who decides?  How does custody work in three  
parent divorces? How many parents can a child have?  How do  
grandparent rights apply?” asked Quist.

“Unfortunately, once again we see judicial activism creating public  
policy that will affect all of us.  Any gaps in existing legislation  
should not be filled solely by one court, rather it needs to be  
debated in the appropriate public forum – our legislatures and  
parliament,” continued Quist.

“Although this is a provincial ruling, this lends support to our call  
for a Royal Commission on the Future of the Family,” concluded  
Quist.  “The societal implications for this ruling have consequences  
that should not be decided solely by one court.  Social engineering  
is not the purview of the court, nor should it be.  Surely the needs  
and best interests of children have not been protected under this  
ruling.”
The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada is an initiative of Focus  
on the Family (Canada) and participated as an intervener in the Three  
Parent Case (AA v BB) case as a member of the Alliance for Marriage  
and the Family.
– 30 –

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

2001-130 rue Albert Street Ottawa Ontario Canada K1P 5G4
t 613.565.3832 f/t 613.565.3803 1.866.373.4632
www.imfcanada.org


----- 13 -----
Legal Case May Set Precedent Against Religious-Oriented Therapists
Traditional Values Coalition

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2975

January 11, 2007 – Dr. Chris Rosik, a leader in the National  
Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has  
published a review of a legal case from 2001 that may be used to  
stifle the religious beliefs of therapists who refuse to provide pro- 
homosexual counseling services in their practices.

Rosik reviewed an article from the Journal of Counseling &  
Development by M.A. Herman and B.R. Herilhy. The authors reviewed a  
legal case from the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2001 that ruled against  
a Christian therapist who refused to provide positive counseling for  
a homosexual (identified only as Jane Doe) seeking a better  
relationship with her partner.

The therapist was eventually terminated by her counseling service and  
then filed a wrongful termination lawsuit. She lost.

Herman and Herilhy believe that religiously-oriented therapists  
should be willing to provide positive counseling for homosexuals even  
if they personally oppose the lifestyle.

[...]

“This case is simply one more example of how homosexual activists and  
radical liberal judges are determined to undermine religious freedom  
in this country in favor of the homosexual agenda,”said TVC Executive  
Director Andrea Lafferty. “This is why our effort to reform the  
federal court system is so important.”

[More at URL]


----- 14 -----
Fox Deliberately Displays the F-Word During Prime Time Football
Your complaint will be sent to and filed with the Federal  
Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau. NOTE: To speed the  
process of your complaint, please include your local Fox station call  
letters (ex. WLOV) where indicated on the complaint letter text box  
below.
American Family Association
ACTION ALERT
Online as of 20 January 2007

http://www.afa.net/petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=230

It used to be that you could sit down and watch an evening football  
game with your children without fear of them being exposed to  
inappropriate material. Sadly, that's no longer the case as was  
proven Saturday night during the Fox broadcast of the NFL playoff  
game between the New Orleans Saints and the Philadelphia Eagles.

During a cutaway shot to the stadium spectators, the camera focused  
directly on a woman wearing a t-shirt clearly inscribed with the  
words "F--k Da Eagles" (without the dashes). The shot stayed focused  
on the woman and her shirt for several seconds. There can be no doubt  
that this was an intentional airing of patently offensive language on  
the public airwaves, as the person wearing the profane t-shirt was  
culled by Fox Network's broadcast crew from more than 70,000  
spectators in the stadium. The camera operator selected that  
particular woman and the director and/or producers of the event made  
an affirmative and conscious decision to air the shot from that  
particular camera, forcing the f-word into millions of homes.  
Furthermore, the v-chip would not and could not have protected  
children and families from the type of content evidenced here.

To view the offensive scene, click here ( http://www.afa.net/images/ 
eagles.gif ). WARNING – GRAPHIC CONTENT

Fans on the East Coast saw this obscenity televised during the Family  
Hour (8:30 p.m. ET) -- but it aired at 5:30 p.m. in the evening on  
the West Coast.

Send Your Letter Now!


----- 15 -----
That’s what Christians do
By Don WILDMON | AFA founder/chairman
Online (and pointed to) as of 20 January 2007
Originally published August, 1999

http://www.afajournal.org/2006/nov-dec/1206don.asp

In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court said it was OK to kill unborn babies.  
Since then, we have killed more than the entire population of Canada.  
And it continues. A woman’s choice? Half of those who have died in  
their mothers’ wombs have been women. They didn’t have a choice. It  
is called abortion.

Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what  
Christians do now.

First it was in dingy, dirty theaters. Then, convenience stores.  
Then, grocery stores. Then on television. Now it is in the homes of  
millions via the Internet. It is called pornography.

Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what  
Christians do now.

They called it no-fault. Why should we blame anyone when something so  
tragic happens? Haven’t they already suffered enough? Half of the  
marriages in America end this way. The children suffer. The family  
breaks down. It is called divorce.

Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what  
Christians do now.

At one time it was a perversion. We kept it secret. We offered help  
and hope for those who practised it. Now it is praised. We have  
parades celebrating it, and elected officials give it their  
blessings. Now it is endowed with special privileges and protected by  
special laws. Even some Christian leaders and denominations praise  
it. It is called homosexuality.

Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what  
Christians do now.

[More at URL]


----- 16 -----
Struggling Gays and Lesbians Welcomed
PFOX REACHES OUT WITH MESSAGE OF HOPE
By Ed Vitagliano | AFA Journal news editor
American Family Association Journal

http://www.afajournal.org/2006/september/0906PFOX.asp

Homosexuality is a flashpoint in the culture wars, but that lifestyle  
is more than simply a political issue for gays and lesbians who  
struggle with it. For those who want to change, there are a number of  
organizations which are willing to help them find freedom.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) is one of them. It was  
founded in 1998 by families who had homosexual children, and by  
friends of the ex-gay community.

“PFOX was started because there were no organizations supporting  
parents in loving their homosexual children unconditionally,” said  
Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX, in an interview with AFA  
Journal. At the time, she added, the secular-minded organizations  
dealing with homosexuality insisted “that parents love their children  
only if they affirm the child’s homosexual behavior.”

[...]

Following the PTA-PFOX dust-up concerning the 2005 convention, AFA  
Journal (11-12/05) interviewed Weselak to allow her to explain PTA’s  
position. She said PFLAG was only present “to help educate and inform  
parents on the topic of bullying in order to help make their children  
more safe in schools. And that’s what their invitation was based upon.”

However, psychology professor Dr. Warren Throckmorton, director of  
the college counseling service at Grove City College in Pennsylvania  
and a spokesman for PFOX, said Weselak’s explanation wasn’t the whole  
story.

“In fact, [PFLAG] had an article that was distributed to all the  
attendees criticizing my work in sexual identity therapy [that helps  
homosexuals leave that lifestyle],” he said. “Now what does that have  
to do with bullying?”

Furthermore, he said, PFLAG used its workshop in 2005 to stress the  
need to raise more “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” issues in  
the shaping of public school policies and curricula. Once again,  
Throckmorton noted, such matters fall far outside a simple message  
about bullying.

What also troubles PFOX officials is the fact that PFLAG is a  
political advocacy group that promotes homosexual political causes  
like same-sex marriage, hate-crime laws, and gay adoption. Griggs,  
for example,  believes that giving PFLAG a forum at the PTA  
convention is nothing short of an implicit endorsement of the  
homosexual advocacy group’s radical agenda.

[More at URL]


----- 17 -----
Nature has its say
DVD SERIES LETS ANIMAL BEHAVIOR, DESIGN UNDERMINE EVOLUTION
By Ed Vitagliano | AFA Journal news editor
American Family Association Journal

http://www.afajournal.org/2006/september/0906origines.asp

What do giraffes, woodpeckers, beavers, spiders and geckos all have  
in common? According to one video series, they all clearly  
demonstrate the variety and creative brilliance of nature’s God – and  
in the process undermine the theory of evolution.

Titled Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution, the series from  
Exploration Films (www.explorationfilms.com) drives a stake through  
the heart of the evolution monster by arguing that the complexity of  
animal design and behavior cannot be the result of chance and random  
mutations. Instead, it is proof of  creationism, which states that  
the God of the Bible is the Creator – and the mind behind the natural  
world and the universe. This view takes the Bible’s Genesis account  
of creation literally.

The video series features Dr. Jobe Martin, founder of Biblical  
Discipleship Ministries, who has an enthusiastic delivery as he  
explains the arguments of creationism to viewers. He has spent the  
last 20 years exploring the differences between evolution and  
creationism.

[More at URL]


----- 18 -----
FOR MORAL ISSUES TO PREVAIL
America's historic sites reveal her Christian foundation
American Family Association Journal
by Stephen McDowell

http://www.afajournal.org/2006/october/1006mcdowell.asp

Throughout history, nations have built monuments, usually to record  
victories in battle or to honor their gods. Every nation’s monuments  
and national symbols reflect the heart of the people and identify  
what they believe is the source of their nation’s greatness and  
achievements.

However, America’s monuments were not built to record countries  
conquered or battles won. Our memorials contain the declaration that  
the source of our birth, liberty, and greatness is God.

A tour of our historic sites reveals that America was a nation  
birthed by men who had a firm reliance upon Almighty God and His Son  
Jesus Christ.

[More at URL]


----- 19 -----
Brownback, Hunter to Join Blogs For Life Conference
Family Research Council
Online as of 20 January 2007

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=HOME

On Monday, January 22nd at 9:00 am, Family Research Council will host  
Blogs for Life, the second annual conference of pro-life bloggers.

Blogs for Life is scheduled to take place the day of the 34th annual  
March for Life, during which thousands of pro-life advocates gather  
in the Nation's capitol to celebrate life and demand the reversal of  
the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

The conference will feature Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and  
Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA). Other featured speakers include  
Bobby Schindler, the brother of Terri Schindler Schiavo and Ramesh  
Ponnuru, noted author of The Party of Death and senior editor at  
National Review. Blogs for Life is an excellent opportunity for  
individuals and organizations to network with pro-life bloggers and  
develop an understanding of how weblog technology can be used to  
strategically promote life and transform ideas into action as we move  
toward a post-Roe America.

For more information or to register for this free event visit the  
Blogs for Life website.


----- 20 -----
Brownback joins race seeking to conservatives' choice
JOHN HANNA
Associated Press
20 January 2007

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/ 
16508409.htm

TOPEKA, Kan. - Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback jumped into the 2008  
presidential race Saturday, a favorite of religious conservatives in  
an uphill battle against better-known rivals for the Republican  
nomination.

"I am a conservative and I'm proud of being a conservative," he  
proclaimed to hundreds of supporters.

The 50-year-old Brownback, serving his second term in the Senate,  
considers himself a "full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative." In his  
remarks, he pledged to fight on behalf of the nation's cultural  
values and to focus on rebuilding families.

"Search the record of history. To walk away from the Almighty is to  
embrace decline for a nation," Brownback said. "To embrace him leads  
to renewal, for individuals and for nations."

Brownback entered a Republican field with as many as 10 potential  
candidates, including Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts  
Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

"My positions are at the heart of where the Republican Party is,"  
Brownback told reporters after his speech. "I'm willing to take those  
positions with all comers."

[...]

This week, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson said he wouldn't  
vote for McCain "under any circumstances," adding, "I pray that we  
will not get stuck with him."

Duke University's Rohde said Brownback is in a relatively good  
position as a dark-horse candidate because among the big names,  
"There is no representative of the conservative wing of the party, so  
somebody's going to have to come forward to claim that mantle."

[More at URL]


----- 21 -----
Clock Runs Out on the Family
January 18, 2007 - Thursday
Family Research Council

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 18, 2007 CONTACT: J.P. Duffy, (866)  
FRC-NEWS

Will Speaker Pelosi Schedule a Family Hour?

Washington, D.C. - As Congress finishes the first '100 Hours,' Family  
Research Council President Tony Perkins asks "when will Speaker  
Pelosi schedule a family hour?" FRC is also releasing an overview of  
the best and worst legislation that can be expected in a media  
environment of great expectations.

"Hard working families across this country will be watching to see if  
all the pro-family sentiments expressed during the campaign become  
real policies that help and protect our children and our most sacred  
institutions. Is there a part two to the '100 hours' or is this all  
we get? We will remain vigilant to protect our families from liberal  
extremism and heavy-handed social engineering."

Worst of Legislation:
Legislation that establishes "hate crimes," funds abortion, regulates  
grassroots efforts to contact Congress, raises taxes on families,  
ends abstinence programs, allows human cloning, and protects groups  
that support sex-trafficking and prostitution.

Best of Legislation:
The priority list includes twenty five legislative items such as the  
Marriage Protection Amendment, child tax credit, Informed Choice Act,  
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, and the Public Expression  
of Religion Act.

"Speaker Pelosi claims to seek common ground on social issues,"  
Perkins said. "Once she concludes the first '100 hours,' we urge her  
to schedule at least an hour on pro-family legislation. Judging from  
the first '100 hours,' it appears that we must be ready to counter a  
slew of legislation that will fail to live up to pre-election hype.  
It won't be policy to reach out to the majority of Americans, but pay  
back for liberal and cultural activists."

To Obtain a Complete Copy of FRC's List of Priorities, please visit  
www.frc.org.


----- 22 -----
Stand for Life: Tell President Bush to Defend the Unborn from New  
Attacks
Family Research Council
Online as of 20 January 2007

https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PT06L01&f=AL07A04&track=0

Please sign the following petition to President Bush requesting a  
veto of any anti-life or anti-abstinence bills.

Dear President Bush:

Thank you for strongly supporting the dignity of human life. I wish  
to especially thank you for the steps you have taken to protect the  
sanctity of human life, which have included reinstating the Mexico  
City Policy, vetoing a bill that would have required U.S. taxpayers  
to fund research requiring the killing of human embryos, and  
supporting pro-life legislation such as the Partial Birth Abortion  
Ban Act.

I am also encouraged by your strong support of abstinence-until- 
marriage programs. These programs convey to adolescents a commonsense  
message that is critical for preventing teen pregnancy and the  
transmission of STDs. I respectfully ask that you veto any bill that  
would weaken or eliminate current pro-life policies, or any bill that  
would undermine abstinence-until-marriage programs.

Your leadership has been an encouragement to a growing pro-life  
community.

[More at URL]