2016-07-27
GARY BAUER
Campaign for Working Families, June 18, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, June 26, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, June 27, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, July 1, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, July 2, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, July 3, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, July 7, 2003

CHUCK COLSON
Prison Fellowship Ministries, June 30, 2003

KEN CONNOR
Family Research Council, June 19, 2003
Family Policy Network, June 20, 2003
Family Research Council, June 23, 2003
Family Research Council, June 26
Family Research Council, June 30, 2003
Family Research Council, July 1, 2003
Family Research Council, July 9, 2003

DAVID CROWE
Restore America, July 3, 2003

JERRY FALWELL
Old-Time Gospel Hour, June 26, 2003

ROBERT KNIGHT
Culture and Family Institute, July 2, 2003


Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, June 18

The Northern Front
A new front has opened in the culture war. For years our northern neighbor, Canada, has been experimenting with social radicalism. But for the first time the effects will be felt here in the United States. We have been warning for months that the battle over marriage is about to "go nuclear." For thousands of years everyone knew what was meant by the word "marriage." Now that too is open for debate in our relativistic society.

Last week Canadian courts legalized homosexual marriages, and now the liberal Canadian parliament is working on legislation to validate that ruling. According to today's New York Times, the United States recognizes legal Canadian marriages. Moreover, Canada does not have any residency requirements to obtain a legal marriage there. You can see where this is leading.

Homosexual advocates will point to Canada as an example the United States should emulate. The Canadian example is bad enough, but the issue of homosexual marriage is currently pending before the Massachusetts Supreme Court. We have all the makings of a constitutional and societal crisis over the very definition of marriage and family, yet most of our political leaders are silent! I believe the White House must be proactive. It must speak up now and it must speak boldly in defense of traditional marriage. It must send strong signals to Capitol Hill that a constitutional amendment must pass to ensure that marriage in this country remains the union of one man and one woman.

Ken Connor, Family Research Council, June 19

Hockey Players, Cold Fronts and Now Gay Marriage
Canada soon will be sending us "married" homosexuals. The decision of the government not to appeal the Ontario court ruling--and Prime Minister Chretien's pledge to quickly pass a gay marriage bill in Parliament--makes this a done deal. What does this mean for the United States? Countries recognize each other's marriage contracts. Homosexuals in the U.S. already are traveling north to get "married" and returning to demand their states recognize these Canadian contracts. And "married" homosexual Canadians moving south also are likely to demand legal recognition of their marital status. Yet 37 states have enacted defense of marriage (DOMA) laws defining marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman. And the federal DOMA law exempts states from having to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states. Consequently, this has all the makings of a diplomatic mess.

The assault on marriage from every quarter--the courts, legislatures, the cultural elite, and now Canada--is unprecedented in human history. Americans seeking to preserve marriage as the bedrock foundation of society must make their voices heard.

Family Policy Network, June 20

JESUS CHRIST: WWW.HOPE FOR HOMOSEXUALS.COM
Christian activists in three states will work together this weekend to confront park-goers attending pro-homosexual events in Pennsylvania and Texas with the truth that Christ can set them free from the sin of homosexuality. Since the beginning of June, the Virginia-based Family Policy Network (FPN) has been contracting pilots to tow banners over pro-homosexual events in various states that read, "JESUS CHRIST: WWW.HOPE FOR HOMOSEXUALS.COM."

'Project Hope Days' received national attention earlier this month when a controversy over free speech rights erupted after FPN sought a temporary restraining order in a federal court to lift the 'no-fly zone' over Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida. FPN had wanted to fly the 'Hope' banner over Disney's 'Gay Day' on June 7, but the attempt to lift the prohibition against Disney flyovers failed. The banner was flown anyway - legally criss-crossing the highway leading to the Magic Kingdom.

FPN established the "Hope for Homosexuals" web site (www.hopeforhomosexuals.com) to encourage practicing homosexuals to "come out" of that destructive lifestyle, and home to the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ.

Ken Connor, Family Research Council, June 23

Election 2004: Bush Will Have to Defend Marriage
Marriage will be a major issue in next year's presidential election. Howard Dean, former Vermont governor and Democratic presidential hopeful, said yesterday he supports so-called same-sex marriage. Vermont was the first state to enact "civil unions" for homosexual and lesbian couples. Dean praised the legalization of gay marriage in Canada and said he would urge all states to recognize the legality of same-sex unions. Other Democratic candidates, pandering to the politically powerful homosexual lobby, have endorsed domestic partner benefits and civil union schemes.

Marriage is under attack across the board. The California Assembly passed a bill, pending in the state Senate, to legalize gay marriage. Gay Americans are flocking to Canada to get "married" in hopes of forcing states in the U.S. to recognize their marital contracts. Major American corporations are undermining marriage by offering spousal benefits to cohabiting gays and heterosexuals. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is expected to rule any day on a gay marriage case.

And the U.S. Supreme Court most likely will rule this week on the constitutionality of Texas' anti-sodomy law. Should the court strike down the Texas law, overturning the 1986 precedent Bowers v. Hardwick, a major obstacle to the legal recognition of gay marriage will have been swept away. As Sen. Rick Santorum accurately noted in his widely criticized remarks last month, if the Texas law is overturned, then little stands in the way of the legalization of same-sex marriage, polygamy, plural and group marriage, and consensual incest.

So marriage is emerging as a major issue in the 2004 campaign. With the Democrats lining up to support various counterfeits, it will fall to President Bush to offer a spirited, unequivocal defense of marriage--with no waffling, no spinning or clever parsing of this issue. Too much is at stake.

Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, June 26

Losing the Culture War
Today's Supreme Court decision striking down the Texas law banning sodomy is a disaster for the pro-family side of America's culture war. The Texas legislature passed the law in order to promote the institution of marriage and the family and argued that communities have a right to choose their own standards. Six Supreme Court Justices said that a "right to privacy" in the Constitution is grounds to overrule Texas and 13 other states with similar laws.

Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, brought cheer to the radical homosexual rights movement by saying that men engaging in sodomy "are entitled to respect for their private lives." He added, "The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." Really?

Consider the precedent the Court has now set. Every argument can be applied with equal force to strike down state laws against prostitution, bestiality, and every other form of adult sexual activity. Once the highest court of the land says that "privacy" outweighs the compelling interest a society has in promoting family, and reliable standards of right and wrong, there is no place to draw a line.

Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Thomas and Rehnquist. He could barely contain his outrage and chose to take the unusual step of reading the dissent out loud from the bench. He mocked the majority, accusing them of taking sides in America's culture war and wondering why the majority was too cowardly to declare "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy," since that is what the decision guarantees.

Of the six Justice majority, four of the Justices--O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy and Stevens were appointed by Republican Presidents! The White House did not even bother to file a brief in the case, even though it was the President's own home State of Texas that was under attack.

So let's review the country that our federal courts have been constructing for us. It is a place where unborn children can be destroyed on a whim, a nation that requires parental permission for a tattoo, but not an abortion. It is a country where a copy of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn is a threat to our liberty and the words "Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance is a violation of the separation of Church and state. And soon it may be a place that allows men to marry men, effectively destroying 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition on the meaning of marriage.

For all of these reasons, and more, we cannot afford one more mistake in a Supreme Court appointment. The President, if there is a vacancy, must appoint a Scalia or a Thomas type of candidate. We must fight back, and the politicians we are electing must have the courage to help us.

Ken Connor, Family Research Council, June 26

Muddled Court Decision Undermines Marriage
The Supreme Court's decision is a direct attack on the sanctity of marriage. By extending legal protections to homosexual behavior, the court also demolished the legal foundation of marriage. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his scathing opinion in dissent, "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of ... laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision."

Rather than root its opinions in the text of the Constitution and the intent of the Framers, the majority simply raises a dampened finger to see which way the cultural breezes are blowing. Justice Kennedy, for example, referred to an "emerging awareness" regarding sexual morality. But isn't this what legislatures are for in a republican form of government? It's the role of the people's elected representatives, not unelected and unaccountable judges, to address emerging issues. This ruling is an example of breathtaking judicial activism. The majority simply imposed its own private opinions and political desires on the law.

Nothing less than the people's right to self-government is at stake. Will we rule ourselves, or be ruled by black-robed oligarchs who disregard the law and the Constitution to impose their own political agenda on the country?

GARY BAUER
Campaign for Working Families, June 18, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, June 26, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, June 27, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, July 1, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, July 2, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, July 3, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, July 7, 2003

CHUCK COLSON
Prison Fellowship Ministries, June 30, 2003

KEN CONNOR
Family Research Council, June 19, 2003
Family Policy Network, June 20, 2003
Family Research Council, June 23, 2003
Family Research Council, June 26
Family Research Council, June 30, 2003
Family Research Council, July 1, 2003
Family Research Council, July 9, 2003

DAVID CROWE
Restore America, July 3, 2003

JERRY FALWELL
Old-Time Gospel Hour, June 26, 2003

ROBERT KNIGHT
Culture and Family Institute, July 2, 2003




Jerry Falwell, Old-Time Gospel Hour, June 26

A Tragedy for America
Sadly, four of the six Justices voting for the majority ... O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy and Stevens ... were appointed by Republican presidents. Justice Scalia, who read his dissent aloud from the bench, said that the Court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."

Mathew Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty University, called the decision a "wakeup call" to the majority of Americans who believe in traditional marriage. "The goal of the radical homosexual agenda is to eliminate any and all laws regulating consensual sexual conduct," Staver said. "This would mean the elimination of laws banning polygamy as well as those that ban sex between adults and minors."

This week the Supreme Court sent mixed signals to a confused public. James 1:8 says "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." I would say that this biblical principle applies to governments as well.

Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, June 27

What Now?
Solid majorities in America oppose homosexual marriage. It has been voted down in every state that has taken it to the people, including socially liberal California. But it has taken less than 24 hours for the radical homosexual movement to insist that yesterday's Supreme Court decision striking down an anti-sodomy law in fact paves the way for a radical redefinition of marriage in our country. And that's not all. Look for a new court challenge to the military's ban on homosexuality. The Boy Scouts' moral standard rule, prohibiting openly homosexual scoutmasters, will also come under renewed attack.

There are things we can and must do to stop this onslaught against traditional values. Stay tuned.

Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship Ministries, June 30

'Majestic' Foolishness
The Supreme Court has passed another law, this one supplanting the law passed by Texas. But you say the Court doesn't pass laws. Well, as Justice Scalia in his angry dissent said, the Court has become a super-legislature overriding the decisions of the people. What a travesty.

Most Americans seem to be applauding the decision, and I guess there's a libertarian streak in all of us. We don't like the government in our bedrooms.

But if laws are unreasonable, we ought to change the law through our legislatures, not the courts. If the right to privacy protects adults engaged in private, consensual sex, how are we going to outlaw polygamy? The polygamist and all of his wives practice private, consensual sex. How are we going to maintain laws against incest? It's private, consensual sexual behavior in the security of one's own bedroom. One even has to raise the question of bestiality. Peter Singer, the eminent bioethicist at Princeton, argues that animals can consent since consent needn't be verbal.

The gay lobby immediately hailed the decision as the prelude to gay marriage. Of course! What we can hope and pray for is nothing less than a miracle--that two sensible judges will be appointed to join Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. Please, Lord, may it happen.

Ken Connor, Family Research Council, June 30

President Bush: The Ball's in Your Court
If there is one positive outcome of the Lawrence v. Texas case, it is that it has grabbed the public's attention. The democratic process is being usurped by the Court, and it's imperative that President Bush keep his commitment to appoint judges who will interpret the law, not make law from the bench.

There are two non-negotiable planks for pro-family conservatives: the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage. This Court has shown disdain for both. Rumors are that White House Counsel and former Texas Supreme Court Justice Al Gonzales is President Bush's top choice for the first vacancy on the Court. As with any nominee, conservatives should scrutinize Gonzales's judicial record rather than merely rely on the "good faith" recommendation of the White House.

In light of last week's ruling, pro-family conservatives must take a closer look at all nominees...including Alberto Gonzales.

Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, July 1

The Battle For The GOP
A battle is brewing inside the Republican Party. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg came out today with the astonishing advice that marriage shouldn't be in the Republican Party platform! I know Bloomberg is a RINO (Republican In Name Only), but this statement is laughable even by those standards. If the Republican leadership or the White House thinks they can be AWOL on the fundamental issue of marriage, then the cultural war is lost. Not because our troops quit fighting, but because our generals surrendered. But I refuse to believe that. The overwhelming majority of the Republican vote is made up of people who treasure traditional values. They expect the White House and the Republican Party to defend their values.

Ken Connor, Family Research Council,
July 1


Gay Marriage: The Choice of the Next Generation?
According to a new Gallop poll, 39 percent of Americans believe homosexual marriage should be recognized with the same rights and benefits as traditional marriage. Perhaps what is even more discouraging is the level of approval for homosexual marriage among members of "Generation Y," those Americans aged 18-29--61 percent said homosexual marriages should be valid.

Undoubtedly, today's young people are subjected to a skewed view: Hollywood, academia, and now the politicization of the courts. How many college freshmen know that over half of the AIDS cases in the U.S. are attributable to homosexual sodomy, and that only two percent of people--namely, men having sex with men--account for 60 percent of the AIDS cases in Texas? In the name of "equality," the country has wrongly shielded its youth from the devastating consequences of homosexuality.

GARY BAUER
Campaign for Working Families, June 18, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, June 26, 2003

Campaign for Working Families, June 27, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, July 1, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, July 2, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, July 3, 2003
Campaign for Working Families, July 7, 2003

CHUCK COLSON
Prison Fellowship Ministries, June 30, 2003

KEN CONNOR
Family Research Council, June 19, 2003
Family Policy Network, June 20, 2003
Family Research Council, June 23, 2003
Family Research Council, June 26
Family Research Council, June 30, 2003
Family Research Council, July 1, 2003
Family Research Council, July 9, 2003

DAVID CROWE
Restore America, July 3, 2003

JERRY FALWELL
Old-Time Gospel Hour, June 26, 2003

ROBERT KNIGHT
Culture and Family Institute, July 2, 2003




Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, July 2

Halfway There
The President today, when pressed for his view on an amendment to the Constitution banning same-sex marriages, had this to say: "I don't know if it's necessary yet." Unless the President's lawyers are from Mars he will likely be told that the Supremes' decision was so sweeping that it imperils the traditional definition of marriage. The President also said, "What I do support is a notion that marriage is between a man and a woman." Every legal scholar I have talked with believes that the Defense of Marriage Act will be ruled unconstitutional in light of last week's sweeping sodomy ruling. The only solution is a Constitutional Amendment now! The White House hopefully will be fully engaged in time.

Robert Knight, Culture and Family Institute, July 2

Bad Law, Bad `Science' Produce a Very Bad Decision
How bad was this decision? It was the most destructive federal power grab since Roe vs. Wade. The damage goes far beyond the question of sodomy laws. Here is some perspective:

First, the court struck down Texas' sodomy law not on constitutional grounds but on the idea of "privacy rights" established in Roe and expanded here.

Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, cites the Model Penal Code, which the American Law Institute concocted in 1955, and which is based on the "sex science" of Alfred C. Kinsey. Kinsey, who was unmasked as a fraud and a homosexual masochist, worked with Harvard law professor Herbert Weschler to produce the code. The idea was to overhaul and weaken America's sex laws.

Over the years, legal activists used the code to reduce penalties against sex offenders, thus putting more women and children at risk. In 1961, as Kennedy notes, the code was instrumental in Illinois' becoming the first state to strike down a sodomy law.

One of the most shocking elements of the decision is Kennedy's invoking the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. Since when is an American Supreme Court decision subordinate to anything European?

In saying the Texas statute lacked any "rational basis," the majority ignored the moral right of the people of Texas to govern their own communities, and put all criminal laws against sexual misbehavior, such as bigamy, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity at risk.

The court also ignored voluminous medical evidence in amicae briefs documenting the harm that sodomy wreaks among homosexuals, men in particular.

Civil libertarians, who are tone deaf when it comes to the importance of family and faith to the preservation of freedom, may celebrate. But they are guaranteeing more government, not less, as judicial activists sweep aside the protective influence of families and communities.

David Crowe, Restore America, July 3
The U.S. Supreme Court, under the deception of the spirit of this age, has ruled that the state no longer has a compelling interest in upholding moral behaviour. It prefers to provide privileges based on sexual behaviour, and morally bankrupt rather than honor the Laws of God, the Constitution and the will of the people.

Restore America is preparing to launch a national campaign to register and turnout the Christian vote in 2004. It is called the "America Under God." As you celebrate July 4th, take a few minutes to ponder these matters, and ask yourself if there needs to be another Independence Day, a day in which we celebrate our freedom from tyrants from within...and from without. That 'day' should be the day we cast our ballots, and vote our values and Christian world view, all 52 million of us!

Help bring us back from the precipice. God has called us to "occupy til He comes."

Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, July 3

White House Dilemma
The President's ambivalence yesterday about the need for a Constitutional Amendment to preserve marriage led to a page two story in the Washington Post this morning. Headline: "Bush Unsure Ban on Gay Unions Is Needed." Even more disturbing were the quotes by GOP strategists.

A GOP leader said, "The president does not want to go back to the culture wars of the 1980s and early 1990s. He remembers what happened to his father in 1992." A longtime friend of the President added this, "This is just not an issue we want to talk about. It plays to a negative stereotype of Republicans as sex-obsessed and narrow-minded. Swing voters--and the libertarian elements in the Republican Party--will not enjoy a debate about a constitutional amendment on gay marriage."

I hope and pray these are not the voices the President is listening to. Preserving the institution of marriage as it has been defined for centuries in the Judeo-Christian tradition is the right thing to do, morally and politically.

Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, July 3

Who Rules America?
The Texas sodomy case has caused a firestorm among conservatives who see it as one more example of un-elected Judges taking over the authority that elected officials are supposed to exercise. Unfortunately it is even worse than that.

Justice Kennedy in his majority decision referred to a legal brief filed by Mary Robinson the former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. In the brief, Robinson cites pro-gay rights developments in "other nations with similar histories, legal systems and political cultures" and insists that "This Court should pay due respect to these opinions of humankind."

The implications of this case grow in seriousness the more we examine it. Are we still a self-governing people?

Ken Connor, Family Research Council,
July 9


Will Gay Marriage Start Its Pilgrimage in Massachusetts?
In a decision expected either Friday or next Monday, the Massachusetts Supreme Court will decide whether to create a "right" to same-sex marriage, possibly becoming the first state in the nation to do so. Should the court rule in favor of same-sex marriage, pro-homosexual activists will undoubtedly resort to lawsuits based on the Constitution's "Full Faith & Credit Clause" to push for marital rights in every other state.

Marriage is an institution which no court has the authority to redefine. Its existence transcends cultures and precedes the laws and Constitution of the United States. Its definition has been recognized throughout history. Any attempt to stray from its fundamental meaning will not only make marriage meaningless, but likely extinct. Marriage is the foundation of civilization and of the family. Weaken marriage, and families and societies become imperiled. You simply cannot build a strong society on the backs of weak families

more from beliefnet and our partners