Ban on 'mom' and 'dad' considered – again

[Soldier4Christ]

'Gay' rights group to Supremes: Don't let people vote
Lawyers try to cut California marriage amendment from ballot

Homosexual-rights advocates have asked California's Supreme Court to block citizens from voting this fall on a measure voters originally brought to the ballot: Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act.

Proposition 8, so labeled when Secretary of State Debra Bowen certified it earlier this month for placement on the Nov. 4 ballot, is a constitutional amendment that states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The amendment was created by voter initiative with the signatures of 1.1 million voters, more than the required 694,354 needed to place an issue on the ballot.

Lawyers representing the ACLU and the homosexual-rights group Equality California, however, filed a petition earlier this month in the state's highest court to strike Proposition 8 from the ballot. The opponents claimed the measure is not merely an amendment, but a revision, which a lawyer told WND is defined as a radical rewrite of the Constitution that would drastically upset the social fabric of California and require convening a constitutional convention to approve.

Liberty Counsel founder Mathew Staver told WND that if there was any radical reconstruction of California's social fabric, it was done last month when the state Supreme Court ignored over a century of precedent in the its definition of marriage with a 4-3 ruling that deemed a law defining marriage between one man and one woman unconstitutional.

"They're suggesting the Supreme Court can rewrite the entire institution of marriage, but people can't amend the Constitution to go back to its historical definition," Staver said. "It's absolutely ridiculous to argue that courts can turn society upside down in 30 days, but the people have no right to define it."

Criticizing homosexual marriage's legal advocates, Staver said, "Their agenda is to trample the will of the people and elevate by force the will of four individuals on the Supreme Court over the will of millions of voters."

Today Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit litigation organization dedicated to religious freedom and the traditional family, filed a motion in the state's Supreme Court to intervene in the case, allowing Randy Thomasson of Campaign for California Families and former California Assemblyman Larry Bowler to defend Proposition 8.

Stating that the state's current attorney general has never effectively defended traditional marriage, Staver told WND, "It's prudent to have a rigorous defense of Proposition 8. These two guys have been involved in the 'gay' marriage issue for years, and they would be disenfranchised if same-sex groups succeed at blocking them from voting."

California voters first sought to protect the traditional definition of marriage when in 2000 a ballot initiative called Proposition 22 was passed with 61.4 percent, or roughly 4.6 million people, voting in favor of it.

Last month, however, the state's Supreme Court ruled Proposition 22 unconstitutional, opening the doors for same-sex marriages in California, which began earlier this month.

Even before the landmark case, aware that Proposition 22 might be overturned, many of the state's citizens began work on collecting signatures for initiating a constitutional amendment that would define marriage between one man and one woman. Now that their initiative, Proposition 8, has been certified for the Nov. 4 general election, only a court order can prevent the people from voting on it.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen "has a ministerial duty to certify any initiative when they qualify through the petition process," a spokesman for the secretary told the Associated Press. "She can't remove an initiative without a judge's order."

The Associated Press also reports that two ballot propositions were challenged in 2005, but that the state Supreme Court overruled lower courts on both cases and allowed the propositions to remain on the ballot.

Staver told WND that the attempt to manipulate the courts to trump the will of the people is an elitist approach to social change.

"Same-sex marriage advocates think that voters are ignorant and backwards because they support traditional marriage," he said.

Therefore, he said, they use courts in an "absolute dictator approach to force 'gay' marriage down the throats of California citizens."

Further, Staver warned, if judges disarm people from voting, effectively rendering their political voice impotent, "the people will not sit back and allow courts to suppress their freedom to vote."

Ron Prentice, chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com Executive Committee, previously told WND, "The people's overwhelming support to protect the longstanding meaning of marriage as between a man and a woman has been staggering. The California Marriage Amendment will allow the people of California, not politicians or judges, to reaffirm the definition of marriage by placing it in the Constitution."

Of 28 states where such an amendment has been considered, voters in 27 states – all but Arizona – have passed the amendment. A Los Angeles Times poll last month reported 54 percent of Californians polled supported the amendment, while 35 percent opposed it. A simple majority of the vote is needed to add Proposition 8 to the California Constitution.

[nChrist]

It appears that the people of California are about to find out whether they still live in a free country or not. Denial of voting would be a clear indication that they are living in mini-dictatorships. It is far past time for the people to DEMAND - not just ask. If the people find out that someone has taken away their rights - they have to TAKE THOSE RIGHTS BACK.


Favorite Bible Quotes 336 - Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren,
whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever
things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are
lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue,
and if there be any praise, think on these things.

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge dismisses juvenile case prompting homeschool ban
Advocate calls decision 'significant favorable development' for families

A judge in California has ended juvenile court jurisdiction over two children in a family case that prompted an appeals court at one point to declare that parents had no right to homeschool their children in the state.

The opinion in the Rachel L. case when WND broke the story in February rocked the foundations of homeschooling in the state and across the nation, because of its implications that without such rights, parents could be liable for civil and criminal penalties simply for teaching their own children at home.

It especially outraged those who opposed California's mandated advocacy for homosexual and other alternative lifestyles in public schools.

The court's effectual ban on homeschooling in California later was dropped when the same panel agreed to rehear the case, and oral arguments on those issues were held last month, with parties ranging from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to the state's fire marshals and superintendent of public instruction supporting homeschooling parents.

Now, however, the underlying juvenile court case that prompted the higher court ruling has been dismissed.

A statement from the Home School Legal Defense Association today confirmed, "the juvenile court judge terminated jurisdiction over the two young L. children in a hearing held on July 10, 2008."

It was that family's case that in February attracted the infamous order from the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles that was seen as banning homschooling. The family's disputes had been elevated to that level by lawyers pursuing their plan of protections for the children, and they wanted the children ordered into a public school, to which the court agreed.

The juvenile case ruling yesterday doesn't directly make moot the ruling from the appeals court, which is expected at any time, because it comes from an original case filed with the appeals judges

But HSLDA officials told WND they will provide the information about the end of the juvenile case to the appeals court.

"Mr. L.'s appellate attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund will be making the appellate court aware of this new development immediately. They will move to dismiss the petition pending in the court of appeal on the ground that the petition is now moot," the organization said in a statement. "In other words, the children are no longer under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Therefore, any decision by the appellate court based on the two-year-old petition could not be enforced against the L. children."

"This is a significant favorable development toward preserving homeschooling freedom in California," said Mike Farris, chairman and founder of HSLDA.

The lead attorney on the appeal, as a representative for the father in the L. case, is Gary Kreep, of the United States Justice Foundation. He was unable to comment on the case directly because of the juvenile proceedings that are involved.

But the HSLDA officials said a petition to the appeals court describing the lower court's actions will be delivered as soon as possible.

A spokesman for HSLDA said the county in the L. family case does have the option of appealing the juvenile court ruling, too.

It was late last month when the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles listened to oral arguments in the case.

At issue was the court's decision from four months earlier, on which WND reported, that would have compelled the two children into a public or qualifying private school.

Farris was one of the lawyers appearing at the hearing, and he said the judges specifically asked about the legal support for homeschooling rights, which have been publicly supported in the United States by both members of Congress and President Bush.

Attorneys advocating homeschooling argued that when California in 1967 added the singular word "person" to the list of those that can operate a legitimate private school, it opened the door for homeschooling. "If a person can provide education, if one person can operate a school," argued the attorneys, "then why not a parent?"

Farris said then he urged the judges to take into account the thousands of people who have implied from the 1967 law that homeschooling is permissible "and not willy-nilly overturn that practice."

An estimated 166,000 children are being homeschooled in California, and their parents and advocates have expressed concern that the court's original ruling would leave parents who educate their children at home open to criminal truancy charges and civil charges for child neglect.

Some grounds for that concern may come from the appeal court's first ruling, where it said the trial court had found that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, which has been representing Sunland Christian School, with whom the L. children were working, was pleased.

"We are still digesting the full impact of this ruling, but it is a major development which should, for all practical purposes, end this case," he said. "Again and again, the court-appointed attorneys for the L. children have relied on the oversight of the juvenile court as the basis for seeking a ruling that this family cannot homeschool. By terminating its jurisdiction, the court has severely undercut this position and yanked the rug out from all who have sought to use this case to criminalize homeschooling. We are hopeful that the Court of Appeal will follow suit and recognize that there is no longer any basis to rule against this family or our clients, Sunland Christian School."

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

I would hope that the people do more with this case and nail this issue down for the future. If they don't, activist judges who think they can make law will simply find another case to attack homeschooling. Decent people have already expended considerable effort and resources in this case, so I would hope they are not willing to leave the future of homeschooling "IFY". This would be a great second issue to put on the November Ballot with gay marriage. Their State Constitution would address these issues in a more permanent way. In fact, a LIST of State Constitutional issues could be put on the same ballot. Other states could take the hint and do the same thing. Otherwise, the perverse things happening in California and Colorado are just the beginning. The devil's wiggle room needs to be removed.

[Soldier4Christ]

Lawsuit to seek halt in 'gay' lobbying inside voting booth
California officials change reference to marriage protection amendment

Pro-family leaders in California who organized a drive for more than a million signatures to put a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage on this fall's election ballot say they will seek a court ruling to prevent pro-homosexual lobbying inside the actual voting booths in November.

Attorney General Jerry Brown has announced he's changing the official state language describing Proposition 8, which would limit marriage in California to one man and one woman.

He now wants voters to read when they're voting on the issue that it would "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

"This is an extremely biased description designed to defeat Proposition 8," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

"The 'right' of homosexuals to marry was created out of thin air just three months ago by an activist court. In that unjust ruling, not only was the people's right to pass laws such as Poposition 22 overturned, the justices arrogantly imposed their radical social agenda on our state," she said.

"Now the Democrat elected officials such as Attorney General Jerry Brown are siding with the anti-Prop 8 campaign and using their power to place every obstacle they can before this crucial proposition. Despite the unscrupulous tactics of our opposition, Californians are committed to restoring the definition of marriage ... and we will certainly reject judicial activism," she said.

The campaign has been organized by a group called ProtectMarriage.com, and officials there told the Los Angeles Times they plan to seek a court order against such voting-booth lobbying.

Protect Marriage spokeswoman Jennifer Kerns said the language is "inherently argumentative" and that it could "prejudice" voters.

Originally the amendment read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown changed the ballot description to reference the "elimination" of homosexual "marriage" rights.

State officials say they changed it because of the state Supreme Court's ruling on May 15 through which the justices said homosexuals couldn't constitutionally be denied the right to "marry."

Brown also inserted language alleging the state would lose millions of dollars if homosexual "marriage" is banned.

"Both the summary change and inserting the claim that California will lose millions of dollars if homosexual marriage is banned proves that even our supposedly unbiased elected officials have no desire to protect traditional marriage," said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Family Impact.

"Over one million Californians signed a petition to place on the ballot a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman," Turney said. "This new, biased language does not reflect the Protect Marriage Initiative's intent, and is clearly meant to sway voters' decisions – even in the ballot box."

Homosexual advocates told the Times they applauded the change.

And political analysts told the newspaper they expected the language change alone could impact the results of the statewide vote.

As WND reported earlier, supporters of homosexual marriage earlier sued to block Proposition 8 from being on the ballot at all, but were defeated.

Proposition 8, if passed, effectively would overturn the May 15 California Supreme Court decision striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage by adding the words "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the state's constitution.

[Soldier4Christ]

Legislators tell school kids to celebrate homosexuality
Plan requires 'suitable commemorative exercises' honoring 'gay' Harvey Milk

Only a year after banning all negative messages about homosexuality in public schools throughout the state, the California Legislature now is ordering school children to celebrate "gay" lifestyle choices.

"If signed into law, AB 2567 will mean an official day commemorating homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in California government schools," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families.

"This will harm children as young as kindergarten," he said. "Every May 22, AB 2567 will positively portray to children homosexual experimentation, homosexual 'marriages,' sex-change operations, and anything else that's 'in the closet.' Gov. Schwarzenegger should say no to this very inappropriate bill, which has nothing to do with academic excellences."

He said the passage by lawmakers of AB 2567 will require all California public schools to "conduct suitable commemorative exercises" in honor of the anti-religious, sexual-anarchy agenda of Milk, the late San Francisco supervisor who was a homosexual activist.

The California Assembly approved the plan 43-26 and the Senate 22-13, with both votes along party lines of Democrats supporting the homosexual agenda.

The plan comes on the heels of last year's school sexual indoctrination laws, Thomasson said. "When fully implemented, SB 777 and AB 394 will teach children in California government schools to support homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality via instructional materials, programs and activities, and school 'safety' guidelines," he said. "In addition, the California State School Board this year implemented SB 71 requiring public schools that provide sex education to promote unmarried sexual activity with no restraints other than mutual consent."

State lawmakers in California this week also voted to allow members of the Communist Party to not only rent school facilities for their meetings but also to teach in the state's public schools. Republicans proposed banning terrorists from those activities, but majority Democrats defeated the amendments.

The "gay" Milk Day plan should spur parents into action, Thomasson said.

"AB 2567 will further motivate parents to remove their children from the immoral public school system," he said. "We're encouraging parents to visit RescueYourChild.org to learn how to save their children while they still can.

"With public schools becoming sexual indoctrination centers, homeschooling and church schools are no longer parental options, they're parental imperatives," he said.

"This is yet another example of the campaign to normalize homosexual behavior not just in schools, but in our culture," stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "Young children will be forced to celebrate the life of a man whose claim to fame is his sexual orientation."

"Parents should be outraged that California's lawmakers want their children to spend a whole day celebrating homosexuality instead of studying important subjects like math or science," stated Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Family Impact. "Every parent and student should call Governor Schwarzenegger and tell him to veto AB 2567."

The Senate floor analysis of the new plan says it would require the governor to proclaim May 22 as Harvey Milk Day and that triggers statutory encouragement for observations and commemorations.

"On Harvey Milk Day, exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk and recognizing his accomplishments as well as the contributions he made to this state" should be held at "all public schools and educational institutions," the plan says.

The CCF announcement noted some of Milk's statements included a blanket condemnation of religion, which he described as "true perversion;" a mandate to "declare yourself gay or lesbian," and promotion of same-sex marriages, which were created by the California Supreme Court in May, but are being challenged in the November election.

"This bad bill will teach impressionable schoolchildren the anti-religious, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda of Harvey Milk," said Thomasson. "For the love of God, parents and their children, we implore Gov. Schwarzenegger to veto AB 2567."

[nChrist]

It would appear that the decent people of California have difficult choices to make, and those choices MUST be made:

1) Recall their rogue representatives and replace them;

2) Remove the legislative process from their elected representatives;

3) Put all matters of importance on public ballots and let the people decide;

4) Leave California.

Other decent people around the country should help them with everything in their financial arsenal. Boycotts are more than possible on trade and tourism. However, many of the decent people would also be hurt in boycotts. This garbage is already spreading to other states like Colorado, so a time for sending hard messages has already come. Decent people are already being hurt in both states in many ways, so I think that Boycotts and other harsh actions would be a kindness extended to decent people who have been fighting this battle for a long time. I plan to encourage a BOYCOTT, and mine has already started. I will try to prevent a single penny of mine ending up in California - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

[Soldier4Christ]

Homeschooling gets green light from court
Reverses ruling that parents had no right to teach children

An appeals court in California has ruled that state law does permit homeschooling "as a species of private school education" but that statutory permission for parents to teach their own children could be "overridden in order to protect the safety of a child who has been declared dependent."

The long-awaited case resolves many of the questions that had developed in homeschooling circles across the nation when the same court earlier found that parents had no such rights – statutorily or constitutionally – in California.

The ruling released this morning by the 2nd Appellate District in Los Angeles said the dispute came out of juvenile court proceedings in which court-appointed lawyers for two children demanded "an order that they be sent to private or public school, rather than educated at home by their mother."

The dependency court did not agree, "primarily based on its view that parents have an absolute constitutional right to homeschool their children," the appeals court said. The lawyers then advanced their case to the appeals level, which earlier granted the order.

"We filed our original opinion on Feb. 28, 2008, granting the petition on the bases that: (1) California statutory law does not permit homeschooling; and (2) this prohibition does not violate the U.S. Constitution," the opinion said.

WND broke the story then when the judges literally ordered the homeschoolers into a government-approved education program.

But the judges granted a request for rehearing "in order to provide an opportunity for further argument on the multiple complex issues involved in this case, including, but not limited to: (1) additional California statutes that might bear upon the issue; and (2) potentially applicable provisions of the California Constitution."

"This is a great victory for homeschool freedom," said Micheal Farris, who is chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and was one of the attorneys who had argued the case. "I have never seen such an impressive array of people and organizations coming to the defense of homeschooling."

"Tens of thousands of California parents teaching over 166,000 homeschooled children are now breathing easier," he said.

The opinion said the judges were not deciding whether homeschool should be allowed. "That job is for the Legislature," they said.

"Homeschooling was initially expressly permitted in California, when the compulsory education law was enacted in 1903," the court said. "In 1929, however, homeschool was amended out of the law, and children who were not educated in public or private schools could be taught privately only by a credentialed tutor."

However, since then, "subsequent developments in the law call this conclusion into question. Although the Legislature did not amend the statutory scheme so as to expressly permit homeschooling, more recent enactments demonstrate an apparent acceptance by the Legislature of the proposition that homeschooling is taking place in California, with homeschools allowed as private schools," the court ruling said.

"Recent statutes indicate that the Legislature is aware that some parents in California homeschool their children by declaring their homes to be private schools. Moreover, several statutory enactments indicate a legislative approval of homeschooling, by exempting homeschools from requirements otherwise applicable to private schools."

The court said, "it is our view that the proper course of action is to interpret the earlier statutes in light of the later ones, and to recognize, as controlling, the Legislature's apparent acceptance of the proposition that homeschools are permissible in California when conducted as a private school."

The opinion was authored by H. Walter Croskey, who had written the earlier opinion as well. He was joined by Joan Klein and Patti Kitching.

The case had been brought to the appeals court by the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, and the father's request for rehearing had been handled by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, lawyers with the Alliance Defense Fund and others.

Participating on behalf of Sunland Christian School, which oversaw the children's home education, were officials with the Pacific Justice Institute.

Others participating in the briefs included the Pacific Legal Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice and the Western Center for Law and Policy.

The case also attracted comments from the American Civil Liberties Union, Jewish Homeschoolers of Napa and Sonoma counties, the California Homeschool Network, the Homeschool Association of California, the Christian Home Educators Association of California, the Gifted Homeschoolers Forum, Grace Christian Academy, the Northern California African American Homeschoolers Association, the Home School Legal Defense Association, Focus on the Family and Liberty Counsel.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Also commenting were the California Teachers Association, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr., the state superintendent of public instruction and the California Department of Education

The court found multiple specific provisions in state law, including one that exempts "a parent or guardian working exclusively with his or her children" from fingerprinting requirements, that support the legitimacy of homeschooling.

"We therefore conclude that home schools may constitute private schools," the opinion said.

In the specific case that prompted the questions, however, the court said state law permits a dependency court "to issue any reasonable orders for the care of a dependent child, including orders limiting the right of the parents to make educational decisions for the child."

"Because the United States Supreme Court has held that parents possess a constitutional right to direct the education of their children, it is argued that any restriction on homeschooling is a violation of this constitutional right. We disagree. We conclude that an order requiring a dependent child to attend school outside the home in order to protect that child’s safety is not an unconstitutional violation of the parents' right to direct the education of their children," the judges wrote.

"Parents possess a constitutional liberty interest in directing the education of their children, but the right must yield to state interests in certain circumstances," the court said.

"In this case, the restriction on homeschooling would arise in a proceeding in which the children have already been found dependent due to abuse and neglect of a sibling," the court said. "Should a dependency court conclude, in the proper exercise of its discretion, that due to the history of abuse and neglect in the family, requiring a dependent child to have regular contact with mandated reporters is necessary to guarantee the child's safety, that order would satisfy strict scrutiny. There can be no dispute that the child's safety is a compelling governmental interest. Restricting homeschooling also appears to be narrowly tailored to achieving that goal. Without contact with mandated reporters, it may well be that the child's safety cannot be guaranteed without removing the child from the parents' custody. As such, the restriction on homeschooling would be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of protecting the children; they would be permitted to continue to live at home with their parents, but their educators would change in order to provide them an extra layer of protection."

The judges' earlier opinion had ruled in the case the family failed to demonstrate "that mother has a teaching credential such that the children can be said to be receiving an education from a credentialed tutor," and that their involvement and supervision by Sunland Christian School's independent study programs was of no value.

Nor did the family's religious beliefs matter to the court.

Their "sincerely held religious beliefs" are "not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights."

"Such sparse representations are too easily asserted by any parent who wishes to homeschool his or her child," the court concluded.

The parents of the children talked with WND as the case developed about the situation over the education being provided to two of their eight children.

The father said the family objects to public school because of the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools, on which WND previously has reported. Just yesterday, California lawmakers decided to mandate a day of celebration and honor for Harvey Milk, the late San Francisco supervisor who was an activist for homosexuality.

"We just don't want them teaching our children," he told WND. "They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe. They put questions in our children's minds we don't feel they're ready for.

"When they are much more mature, they can deal with these issues, alternative lifestyles, and such, or whether they came from primordial slop. At the present time it's my job to teach them the correct way of thinking," he said.

That was the court opinion, however, that was vacated by the appeals court prior to the newest ruling. And while today's decision was pending, a judge ended the juvenile court case that had established jurisdiction over the two children, opening the door for the demand for public school enrollment.

The Home School Legal Defense Association said, "the juvenile court judge terminated jurisdiction over the two young L. children in a hearing held on July 10, 2008."

An estimated 166,000 children are being homeschooled in California, and their parents and advocates had expressed concern that the court's original ruling would leave parents who educate their children at home open to criminal truancy charges and civil charges for child neglect.

A number of groups already have assembled in California under the Rescue Your Child slogan to encourage parents to withdraw their children from the state's public school system.

The Discover Christian Schools website reports getting thousands of hits daily from parents and others seeking information about alternatives to California's public schools.

WND reported leaders of the campaign called California Exodus say they hope to encourage parents of 600,000 children to withdraw them from the public districts.

[Soldier4Christ]

California court says no religious exemption for doctors

California's high court on Monday barred doctors from withholding medical care to homosexual men and women based on religious beliefs, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession. The ruling was unanimous, a contrast to the state Supreme Court's 4-3 schism in May legalizing homosexual "marriage."

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free-speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."

In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home -- but told her their beliefs prevented them from assisting her further.

The case drew numerous friends of the court briefs from a wide variety of religious organizations, medical groups and homosexual rights organizations. The American Civil Rights Union supported the Christian doctors, siding with the Islamic Medical Association of North America, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, and pro-life groups.

The California Medical Association reversed its early support of the Christian doctors after receiving a barrage of criticism from the homosexual rights community, joining healthcare provider Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose the Christian doctors.

The American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the National Health Law Program, and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association filed papers backing Benitez.

[nChrist]

California court says no religious exemption for doctors

California's high court on Monday barred doctors from withholding medical care to homosexual men and women based on religious beliefs, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession. The ruling was unanimous, a contrast to the state Supreme Court's 4-3 schism in May legalizing homosexual "marriage."

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free-speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."

In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home -- but told her their beliefs prevented them from assisting her further.

The case drew numerous friends of the court briefs from a wide variety of religious organizations, medical groups and homosexual rights organizations. The American Civil Rights Union supported the Christian doctors, siding with the Islamic Medical Association of North America, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, and pro-life groups.

The California Medical Association reversed its early support of the Christian doctors after receiving a barrage of criticism from the homosexual rights community, joining healthcare provider Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose the Christian doctors.

The American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the National Health Law Program, and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association filed papers backing Benitez.

This is just more rotten baloney that's illegal and Unconstitutional.

I'd like to see JUST the radical elements of California isolated on an island somewhere with nobody else to bother them. This would be for the purpose of an experiment to see if they could even STAND each other and keep from killing each other. Their politicians would most obviously be with them. I think the politicians would be in the most danger, but it would be from their own kind:  RADICAL - LOONY - LEFTIES! I don't think that I mentioned the living arrangements would be dormitory style where they would be forced to make contact with others of their kind every day. I think that a year would be more than adequate for this experiment. Those who survived might have a change of view. Their starting government would be their own "UTOPIAN" views all collected and put together in ONE GIANT MESS. This might even make great REALITY TV.   

[Soldier4Christ]

California bans 'brides,' 'grooms'
License rejected for couple seeking traditional marriage

"Brides" and "grooms" are no longer allowed to marry in the State of California.

That privilege is only extended to individuals who allow themselves to be called "Party A" and "Party B" on marriage licenses.

Pastor Doug Bird of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, Calif., was alarmed to find the state now rejects the traditional terms after he officiated his first marriage ceremony last week following the California Supreme Court decision to overturn Proposition 22.

The couple had written the words "bride" and "groom" next to "Party A" and "Party B" because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife.

However, the Placer County marriage license was denied.

"I received back the license and a letter from the Placer County Clerk/Recorder stating that the license 'does not comply with California State registration laws,'" Bird said in a statement from the Pacific Justice Institute.

It was an "unacceptable alteration," the County Recorder's Office claimed the State Office of Vital Records determined.

"What's next?" Bird wrote in a Sept. 4 letter. "Will the State of California force [ministers] to use the terms "Party A" and "Party B" in the ceremony itself?"

In a 4-3 decision, California's high court declared that legal definitions of marriage as a union between a man and a woman were unconstitutional. Since the ruling, the generic designations have been added to legal documents.

Pacific Justice Institute President Brad Dacus said voters must change the state constitution by voting on the marriage amendment in November if they wish to preserve the traditional meaning of marriage.

"Unless Proposition 8 is passed, heterosexual couples will be forced to wed out of the state if they wish to be officially identified as bride and groom or husband and wife." He said in a statement. "This is a major slap in the face for traditional marriage."

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

It appears that the devil is relentless and has chosen California for the first huge spreads of evil. This is not a slam against many decent people living in California. This appears to be just the facts. Christians and decent people should be just as determined as the devil is OR LEAVE. I would not accept a Marriage under these circumstances and would have to get married in another state. On another side of the coin, I know there are many people just like me in California, and I would like to encourage them to keep fighting and never give up. DO what you must do to honor GOD and HIS WORD! That will probably mean leaving California public schools RIGHT NOW! The devil wants our children, and he must NOT be allowed to have them.

Ephesians 6:11-20  Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  12  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  13  Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  14  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;  15  And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;  16  Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.  17  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:  18  Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;  19  And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,  20  For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Favorite Bible Quotes 153 - Galatians 4:4-6 But when the fulness of
the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under
the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might
receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent
forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

[nChrist]

2 Corinthians 1:1-11 NASB  Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth with all the saints who are throughout Achaia:  2  Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.  3  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,  4  who comforts us in all our affliction so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.  5  For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ.  6  But if we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; or if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which is effective in the patient enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer;  7  and our hope for you is firmly grounded, knowing that as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comfort.  8  For we do not want you to be unaware, brethren, of our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life;  9  indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead;  10  who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He on whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us,  11  you also joining in helping us through your prayers, so that thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf for the favor bestowed on us through the prayers of many.


Romans 8:16-28 NASB  The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,  17  and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.  18  For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.  19  For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.  20  For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope  21  that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.  22  For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.  23  And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.  24  For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?  25  But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.  26  In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;  27  and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.  28  And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.


2 Corinthians 5:1-21 NASB  For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.  2  For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven,  3  inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.  4  For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.  5  Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.  6  Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord--  7  for we walk by faith, not by sight--  8  we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.  9  Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him.  10  For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.  11  Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences.  12  We are not again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an occasion to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart.  13  For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you.  14  For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died;  15  and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.  16  Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.  17  Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.  18  Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,  19  namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.  20  Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.  21  He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

[Soldier4Christ]

Teachers union donates $1 million for 'gay'-marriage battle
'For us, it's a civil rights issue. We don't believe people should be treated differently'

The gift from the California Teachers Assn. comes as an internal poll by opponents of the initiative to ban gay marriage reveals that the campaign has not raised as much as supporters.


The California Teachers Assn. donated $1 million this week to defeat a ballot initiative seeking to ban same-sex marriage in California, joining the ranks of wealthy gay rights activists and Hollywood politicos as one of the major donors to the campaign.

"For us, it's a civil rights issue," said the association's President David Sanchez. "We don't believe people should be treated differently."

The teachers union also takes issue with advertisements by backers of Proposition 8 suggesting that the measure would stop children from being taught about gay marriage in schools. Union leaders echoed complaints by the No on 8 campaign that the ads are misleading because California law already prohibits teaching any child health issues without parental consent.

But the Yes on 8 campaign responded that the ads show what happened in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal and taught to second graders in public schools after a court battle in which parents lost the right to opt their children out of the lessons.

Until now, the largest donation the No on 8 campaign had received from a labor union was $500,000 from the Service Employees International Union.

"We're incredibly proud of the working men and women in California who are supporting the No on 8 campaign," said spokeswoman Ali Bay.

Supporters of the proposition said the teachers union did not speak for all of its members on the issue of gay marriage.

"I think the California Teachers Assn. is well-known to be a political group, and it's not the first time it has not represented the true voice of its members," said Sonja Eddings Brown, spokeswoman for Protect Marriage California, the measure's backer.

She said she agreed that the issue is civil rights -- not those of gay couples, but rather those of children to be raised by a mother and a father.

The $1-million donation comes on the heels of an internal poll by opponents of Proposition 8 showing that the campaign to defeat the measure was in trouble. The teachers union had already contributed $250,000 to the campaign this summer.

Sanchez said the donations were "a pittance" compared with what religious groups have donated to proponents of the initiative.

Yes on 8 reported it had raised $25.4 million as of two weeks ago, Eddings said, but contributions have continued rolling in since then. The group's major donors have been religious groups and their members. The Knights of Columbus, for instance, has donated $1 million.

The No on 8 campaign stepped up fundraising efforts after realizing that it was $10 million behind backers of the initiative, with only about $15 million in donations as of Sept. 30, Bay said. It has since raised an additional $5 million, she said.