Print Page - Ban on 'mom' and 'dad' considered

Ban on 'mom' and 'dad' considered – again
California agenda would require K-12 'gay' indoctrination

A plan that has been launched in the California state Assembly – again – could be used to ban references to "mom" and "dad" in public schools statewide by prohibiting anything that would "reflect adversely" on the homosexual lifestyle choice.

It's similar to a plan WND reported was approved by lawmakers last year, but fell by the wayside when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

"SB 777 forcibly thrusts young school children into dealing with sexual issues, requiring that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality be taught in a favorable light," according to an alert issued by the Capitol Resource Institute.

"Not only does SB 777 require that classroom instruction and materials promote and embrace controversial sexual practices, it also bans school-sponsored activities from 'reflecting adversely' on homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals," the group said.

"Pushing this radical homosexual agenda in California schools will stifle the truth in favor of political correctness and will inevitably conflict with the religious and moral convictions of both students and parents," said CRI Executive Director Karen England. "The full ramifications of this sweeping legislation could affect the entire nation as most textbook companies tailor their material to their number one purchaser: California."

She noted that Los Angeles schools already have implemented most of the proposals now pending for districts across the state, and among the changes are:

* "Mom" and "dad" and "husband" and "wife" would have to be edited from all texts.

* Cheerleading and sports teams would have to be gender-neutral.

* Prom kings and queens would be banned, or if featured, would have to be gender neutral so that the king could be female and the queen male.

* Gender-neutral bathrooms could be required for those confused about their gender identity.

* A male who believes he really is female would be allowed into the women's restroom, and a woman believing herself a male would be allowed into a men's room.

* Even scientific information, such has statistics showing AIDS rates in the homosexual community, could be banned.

"It's embarrassing that we've got kids who can't pass their exit exams, but we add all sorts of complications [to school]," she told WND.

She cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center.

"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you."

Randy Thomasson, of the Campaign for Children and Families, noted that the proposal was made by 'lesbian state senator Sheila James Kuehl, D-Santa Monica."

"Schools need to do a much better job teaching kids reading, writing and arithmetic, not a better job advertising controversial sexual lifestyles to captive six-year-olds," he said.

He also noted that, just as last year, two other bills also are pending: AB 394 by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, would demand that schools distribute to students "anti-harassment" education programs, and AB 675 by Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park, would give $1 million to pay for homosexual, bisexual and transsexual activists to turn 10 public schools into "sexual indoctrination centers."

Last year three similar bills were approved by California lawmakers, but were vetoed by the governor.

Many groups, including several national outreaches such as the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, had lobbied for the veto.

One of last year's plans would have required the State Board of Education to increase sensitivity to so-called "discrimination." Under the plan the state Superintendent of Public Instruction would have had unlimited discretion to withhold state funds from schools that did not comply with that individual's interpretation of the law.

A second would have "integrated tolerance training" into history and social science curriculum and started a pilot program that would have forced students to learn a "new definition" of tolerance, one that would require them to not only accept but advocate for homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism, according to the CRI.

The third would have banned anything that "reflected adversely" on homosexuals, bisexuals or transgenders.

Former Assemblyman Larry Bowler, R-Elk Grove, described them as no more or less than "indoctrination, designed to inculcate our children and our grandchildren."

As WND has reported, California lawmakers also are considering a plan to make it a criminal offense to spank children with a spoon or similar instrument.

Ban on 'mom' and 'dad' considered – again
California agenda would require K-12 'gay' indoctrination
Posted: April 27, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A plan that has been launched in the California state Assembly – again – could be used to ban references to "mom" and "dad" in public schools statewide by prohibiting anything that would "reflect adversely" on the homosexual lifestyle choice.

It's similar to a plan WND reported was approved by lawmakers last year, but fell by the wayside when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

"SB 777 forcibly thrusts young school children into dealing with sexual issues, requiring that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality be taught in a favorable light," according to an alert issued by the Capitol Resource Institute.

"Not only does SB 777 require that classroom instruction and materials promote and embrace controversial sexual practices, it also bans school-sponsored activities from 'reflecting adversely' on homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals," the group said.

"Pushing this radical homosexual agenda in California schools will stifle the truth in favor of political correctness and will inevitably conflict with the religious and moral convictions of both students and parents," said CRI Executive Director Karen England. "The full ramifications of this sweeping legislation could affect the entire nation as most textbook companies tailor their material to their number one purchaser: California."

She noted that Los Angeles schools already have implemented most of the proposals now pending for districts across the state, and among the changes are:

* "Mom" and "dad" and "husband" and "wife" would have to be edited from all texts.

* Cheerleading and sports teams would have to be gender-neutral.

* Prom kings and queens would be banned, or if featured, would have to be gender neutral so that the king could be female and the queen male.

* Gender-neutral bathrooms could be required for those confused about their gender identity.

* A male who believes he really is female would be allowed into the women's restroom, and a woman believing herself a male would be allowed into a men's room.

* Even scientific information, such has statistics showing AIDS rates in the homosexual community, could be banned.

"It's embarrassing that we've got kids who can't pass their exit exams, but we add all sorts of complications [to school]," she told WND.

She cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center.

"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you."

Randy Thomasson, of the Campaign for Children and Families, noted that the proposal was made by 'lesbian state senator Sheila James Kuehl, D-Santa Monica."

"Schools need to do a much better job teaching kids reading, writing and arithmetic, not a better job advertising controversial sexual lifestyles to captive six-year-olds," he said.

He also noted that, just as last year, two other bills also are pending: AB 394 by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, would demand that schools distribute to students "anti-harassment" education programs, and AB 675 by Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park, would give $1 million to pay for homosexual, bisexual and transsexual activists to turn 10 public schools into "sexual indoctrination centers."

Last year three similar bills were approved by California lawmakers, but were vetoed by the governor.

Many groups, including several national outreaches such as the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, had lobbied for the veto.

One of last year's plans would have required the State Board of Education to increase sensitivity to so-called "discrimination." Under the plan the state Superintendent of Public Instruction would have had unlimited discretion to withhold state funds from schools that did not comply with that individual's interpretation of the law.

A second would have "integrated tolerance training" into history and social science curriculum and started a pilot program that would have forced students to learn a "new definition" of tolerance, one that would require them to not only accept but advocate for homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism, according to the CRI.

The third would have banned anything that "reflected adversely" on homosexuals, bisexuals or transgenders.

Former Assemblyman Larry Bowler, R-Elk Grove, described them as no more or less than "indoctrination, designed to inculcate our children and our grandchildren."

'Gay' activist says 'We will BURY you'
Threats made against Christian workers opposing homosexual agenda

A board member for Equality California has come out swinging at the Bible-based Capitol Resource Institute, which works on behalf of family and biblical values in California, especially among its lawmakers.

"If you continue your efforts, we will BURY you," said an e-mail from Ben Patrick Johnson, to his "colleagues" at the CRI, according to a statement from the Christian organization.

"For a group that purports to expand tolerance and civil rights, Equality California is not practicing what it preaches," CRI said.

"This type of language evokes images of Communist leader Nikita Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the podium of the United Nations when he declared that Communism would bury America," said CRI. "The irony is not lost on us – Communists squelch all opposing speech, just as the modern 'intolerance' movement seeks to silence all opposing viewpoints.

"Johnson then threatens 'we have every intention of yours [group] going down, as have others who oppose decency and human rights.' It is shameful that a group that represents itself as promoting tolerance and civil rights would stoop to the very tactics it accuses CRI of using. Not once has CRI personally attacked opponents in such a degrading and vicious manner," said the organization.

"In a video diatribe against CRI posted on his website, Johnson declares that CRI and its supporters are 'hate peddlers' and 'conservative, religious prejudice peddlers.' He further declares that we are 'smirky, self-righteous folks' who have 'launched an aggressive campaign against legislation to protect gay youth in California's and ultimately America's schools.' This statement reveals not only the vitriolic language this supposed 'tolerance' group uses, but also the true agenda behind such legislation as SB 777. The radical homosexual agenda intends on sweeping the nation. California is merely the first step in the campaign to stifle free speech and stamp out opposition to 'alternative lifestyles,'" CRI said.

As WND has reported, SB 777 is a plan that would require all public schools in California to eliminate anything that could reflect "adversely" on the homosexual lifestyle choice.

It could mean the words "mom" and "dad" would be banned. It's a plan the California Assembly approved a year ago, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

CRI said Johnson's attack included the e-mail and his webcast.

"After showing graphic images of a young man being beaten in Jamaica, purportedly for being a homosexual, Johnson ends his invective by proclaiming that it 'disgusts' him that 'the people behind CRI are so stuck in their fear and bigotry' that they would allow homosexual youth to be assaulted in such a manner," CRI said.

Officials at the organization attributed the invective to an appearance by CRI officials on Fox News Channel, when the biblical perspective on homosexuality was presented.

"As you can see, CRI is up against radical, aggressive individuals. To be spewing such hateful, inflammatory rhetoric indicates that they are fearful of the truth CRI communicates to the people of California and the rest of America. We should be crystal clear in response to the outrageous accusation that we want homosexual youth to be 'abused and degraded.' CRI believes that all children should be protected from violence in their schools. That is why it is essential to restore discipline and order in our classrooms. Pushing radical social experimentation will not stop intolerance or violence."

The e-mail from Johnson, according to CRI, said:

"Dear colleagues at the Capitol Resource Institute,

"I am a firm supporter of freedom of speech, and therefore I support yours, even if it in direct contrast with my own. However, we all use the media and the internet to spread our message: and with no hubris intended, I advise you -- if you continue your efforts, we will BURY you ... with public opinion, with media, and ultimately with legislation. EQCA passed NINE bills last year to protect basic dignities and we have every intention of yours going down, as have others who oppose decency and human rights.

"Today, over 150,000 Californians will receive the following message via email blast, MySpace, YouTube, and iTunes -- in other words, we're everywhere. I invite you to subscribe to my daily webcast, not because you agree with what I/we have to say, but for your own information ... so you can see what thousands of Californians are hearing and seeing about you."

An earlier description of SB 777 from CRI noted that it "forcibly thrusts young school children into dealing with sexual issues, requiring that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality be taught in a favorable light."

"Pushing this radical homosexual agenda in California schools will stifle the truth in favor of political correctness and will inevitably conflict with the religious and moral convictions of both students and parents," said CRI Executive Director Karen England. "The full ramifications of this sweeping legislation could affect the entire nation as most textbook companies tailor their material to their number one purchaser: California."

Lawmakers pass redefinition of 'sex'
Bill threatens references to 'mom,' 'dad' at school

In a move with national implications, California's state Senate passed a bill today that establishes a new definition for "sex," threatens references to "mom" and "dad" and could restrict the presentation of scientific evidence to students.

The plan, SB 777, which actually would turn the state into a promoter for the homosexual lifestyle, is much like a bill approved by lawmakers last year but vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said adequate legal protections against discrimination already existed.

The new measure passed on a 23-13 vote.

For more than a year, advocates for the homosexual lifestyle repeatedly have pressed lawmakers in California – which wields national influence as the biggest purchaser of curriculum – to adopt their agenda. The new plan now goes to the state Assembly, which approved a similar plan in 2006.

The newest legislation, sponsored by state Sen. Sheila James Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, a lesbian, would ban textbooks, references, teaching aids, activities, events, discussions, posters, announcements, workbooks and anything else within the public school system from anything that "reflects or promotes bias against" homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals or those with "perceived" gender issues.

"SB 777 is designed to transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit," said Karen England, executive director of the Capitol Resource Institute. "This reverse discrimination is an outright attack on the religious and moral beliefs of California citizens."

References to a "mother" and "father" in any school text appear to be threatened, because they could be interpreted as "reflecting" a bias against the "Partner 1" and "Partner 2" of same-sex lifestyles.

Randy Thomasson, of the Campaign for Children and Families, said it's just wrong.

"SB 777 requires textbooks, instructional materials and school-sponsored activities to positively portray cross-dressing, sex-change operations, homosexual 'marriages' and all aspects of homosexuality and bisexuality, including so-called 'gay history,'" he said. "Silence on these sexual lifestyles will not be allowed."

Thomasson said the notion "of forcing children to support controversial sexual lifestyles is shocking and appalling to millions of fathers and mothers."

"Parents don't want their children taught to become homosexual or bisexual or to wonder whether they need a sex-change operation. SB 777 will shatter the academic purpose of education by turning every government school into a sexual indoctrination center," he said.

The current education code's definition of "sex," which reads, "'Sex' means the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being," is eliminated. The new "gender" definition considers "a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth."

The new mandate would be enforced by the attorneys of the California Department of Education, which would sue school districts that don't comply, Thomasson noted.

England earlier warned of the ramifications nationwide, including a tailoring of textbooks by publishers to meet new censorship requirements in California, the largest purchaser of textbooks in the nation.

No matter how traditional a community may be, school officials would find themselves faced with the same religious, moral and social biases instituted in California reflected in their textbooks, she warned.

The Los Angeles district already has implemented many of the proposals in the legislation. Among the most obvious changes:

* Words such as "mom" and "dad" and "husband" and "wife" would have to be edited from all texts.

* Cheerleading and sports teams would have to be gender-neutral.

* Prom kings and queens would be banned, or if featured, would have to be gender neutral so that the king could be female and the queen male.

* Gender-neutral bathrooms could be required for those confused about their gender identity.

* A male who believes he really is female would be allowed into the women's restroom, and a woman believing herself a male would be allowed into a men's room.

* Even scientific information, such has statistics showing AIDS rates in the homosexual community or statistics relating to births or deaths among various cultural groups, could be banned.

Opponents say the attacks they have received make clear the priority homosexual advocacy groups have given the proposal.

As WND reported, a board member for the homosexual advocacy group Equality California verbally attacked and threatened CRI for its opposition to the bill.

The board member sent an e-mail and video to CRI threatening the group would be buried if it continued efforts opposing the homosexual advocacy.

"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," said England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."

She said SB 777 would have a wide range of impacts on all students in kindergarten through grade 12.

In Los Angeles already, she said, "boys who perceive themselves as girls may enter the girls' locker room and restroom. Teachers and school officials are required to hide the gender identity of a transgender student if the parents are unaware of what's taking place at school."

England earlier told WND that pushing such a radical homosexual agenda would stifle the truth in favor of "political correctness" and create untold numbers of conflicts with the religious and moral convictions of teachers and parents.

She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.

"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you."

Thomasson said schools shouldn't be tools for activists with a moral agenda.

"Schools need to do a much better job teaching kids reading, writing and arithmetic, not a better job advertising controversial sexual lifestyles to captive 6-year-olds," he said.

He also noted that, just as last year, two other bills also are pending: AB 394 by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, would demand that schools distribute to students "anti-harassment" education programs, and AB 675 by Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park, would give $1 million to pay for homosexual, bisexual and transsexual activists to turn 10 public schools into "sexual indoctrination centers."

Last year, three similar bills were approved by California lawmakers, but all were vetoed by the governor.

Many groups, including several national outreaches such as the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, had lobbied for those vetoes.

One of last year's plans would have required the State Board of Education to increase sensitivity to so-called "discrimination." Under the plan, the state Superintendent of Public Instruction would have had unlimited discretion to withhold state funds from schools that did not comply with an individual's interpretation of the law.

A second would have "integrated tolerance training" into history and social science curriculum and started a pilot program that would have forced students to learn a "new definition" of tolerance, one that would require them to not only accept but advocate for homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism, according to CRI.

The third would have banned anything that "reflected adversely" on homosexuals, bisexuals or transgenders.

Former Assemblyman Larry Bowler, R-Elk Grove, has described the plans as "indoctrination, designed to inculcate our children and our grandchildren."

'Mom,' 'dad,' targeted by California bias ban
'Parents want fundamentals, not indoctrination about sex'

A new plan approved by the California Legislature could be used to ban the words "dad" or "mom" in all public schools as being discriminatory against "partner 1"' and "partner 2" in same-sex relationships, according to critics.

The legislation, in fact, seeks to impose a "radical homosexual indoctrination" on the young children in the state, according to Karen England, the executive director of Capitol Resource Family Impact, a new affiliate of Capitol Resource Institute.

"It is simply outrageous that the California legislature continues to ignore the values and beliefs of citizens by forcing this radical homosexual indoctrination on our young children," England said.

The plan, SB777, has passed the state Assembly on a 43-23 vote and it now moves forward to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who previously vetoed another similar plan, SB1437 from 2006.

At that time, Schwarzenegger said adequate legal protections against discrimination already existed.

It bans any teaching or activities in schools that "promotes a discriminatory bias against" homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, and those with gender (perceived or actual) issues. England said the essence of SB 777 is that it seeks to normalize alternative lifestyles in California schools with special recognition for homosexuality, bisexuality, and transexuality.

Meredith Turney, the legislative liaison for the CRFI, said a clear picture of what will be demanded of schools in the state can be obtained by looking at the Los Angeles Unified School District, which already has adopted many of the requirements being set up for statewide use now.

"LAUSD policy instructs schools to provided access to restroom and locker room facilities that 'corresponds to the gender identity that the student consistently asserts at school.' If a male student 'consistently asserts' himself as a female at school, he will be granted access to female restrooms and locker rooms. This poses a serious danger to the safety of young female students," Turney said.

"SB 777 will implement statewide the shocking policies LAUSD already enforces. Concerned parents do not want such radical, perplexing policies in their local schools. Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic-not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles," she said.

"SB 777 also will do away with such 'arcane' terms as 'mom and dad' and 'husband and wife,'" stated England. "'Promoting a discriminatory bias' is so vague that it could be interpreted to mean that any reference to traditional families is discriminatory and requires equal time for radical sexual behavior."

The Los Angeles District policy notes under its "Issues of Privacy" requirements "school personnel should not disclose a student's transgender status to others, including parents, and/or other school personnel, unless there is a specific 'need to know.'"

"Whenever discussing a particular issue such as conduct, discipline, grades, attendance, or health with a transgender or gender nonconforming student, focus on the conduct or particular issue, and not on any assumptions regarding the student's actual or perceived gender identity," the rules require. "When school personnel must contact the parents of a transgender or gender nonconforming student, 'best practice' would dictate that the student should be consulted first to determine an appropriate way to reference the student's gender identity."

Students also should be asked how they want to be addressed.

"In cases where students and parents may be in disagreement about the name and pronoun to be used at school, school officials may refer families to appropriate outside counseling services," the rules require.

CRFI noted three members of the assembly stood in opposition to the plan: Ted Gaines, Bob Huff and Chuck DeVore.

"Assemblyman Gaines expressed his concern that the bill would silence students with traditional values while Assemblyman Huff explained that the education code already protects all students – including homosexuals – from discrimination and 'harassment,'" the organization said. "Assemblyman DeVore inquired of the bill's floor manager, Assemblyman John Laird, why the bill was necessary. When Laird declared that homosexual students are discriminated against, DeVore asked for specific examples. … Laird could not share any."

"We hope that Gov. Schwarzenegger will … [veto] this legislation that pushes a radical social agenda."

Randy Thomasson, of the Campaign for Children and Families, said the idea is just wrong.

"SB 777 requires textbooks, instructional materials and school-sponsored activities to positively portray cross-dressing, sex-change operations, homosexual 'marriages' and all aspects of homosexuality and bisexuality, including so-called 'gay history,'" he said. "Silence on these sexual lifestyles will not be allowed."

Thomasson said the notion "of forcing children to support controversial sexual lifestyles is shocking and appalling to millions of fathers and mothers."

"Parents don't want their children taught to become homosexual or bisexual or to wonder whether they need a sex-change operation. SB 777 will shatter the academic purpose of education by turning every government school into a sexual indoctrination center," he said.

The current education code's definition of "sex," which reads, "'Sex' means the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being," is eliminated. The new "gender" definition considers "a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth."

The new mandate would be enforced by the attorneys of the California Department of Education, which would sue school districts that don't comply, Thomasson noted.

England earlier warned of the ramifications nationwide, including a tailoring of textbooks by publishers to meet new censorship requirements in California, the largest purchaser of textbooks in the nation.

No matter how traditional a community may be, school officials would find themselves faced with the same religious, moral and social biases instituted in California reflected in their textbooks, she warned.

As WND reported, a board member for the homosexual advocacy group Equality California verbally attacked and threatened CRI for its opposition to the bill earlier.

The board member sent an e-mail and video to CRI threatening the group would be buried if it continued efforts opposing the homosexual advocacy.

"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," said England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."

She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.

"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you."

WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators, including leaders in California, have taken it upon themselves to promote a homosexual lifestyle to children under their charge.

WND reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a "gay" pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.

That drew vehement objections from several educators, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.

"I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities," she said.

WND also covered the issue when officials in Boulder, Colo., held a seminar for students in which they were told to "have sex," including same-sex experiences, and "take drugs."

Another school event promoted homosexuality to students while banning parents, and at still another, WND reported school officials ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

Calif. school gender-training mandate rockets toward governor

A marathon legislative session on Tuesday resulted in the passage of two companion bills out of the California Legislature that a pro-family lobbyist says will turn the state's public schools into "social and sexual indoctrination centers." The two bills, which will force homosexual education and promotion in schools and monitor against any alleged harassment of homosexuality, are now on their way to the governor's desk.

SB 777, sponsored by State Senator Sheila Kuhl, makes provision for including positive portrayal of homosexuality, bi-sexuality, transgenderism and all related lifestyles, practices, and actions into textbooks, instructional materials, and school-sponsored activities. AB 394, sponsored by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, provides educational materials to teachers, students, and parents, and monitors possible "harassment" of homosexuality in the schools.

Karen England of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI) says the legislative push on these measures was expected from liberal Democrats this session, but not to the extent of suspending procedural rules and avoiding public debate -- including the normal three days in each legislative chamber.

"They did away with the three days in the Senate, the three days in the Assembly," England explains. "It was heard one day, then heard the next day, and then it's to the governor's desk. They forced them through ... before people really had any sort of full debate on them. That is how desperate they are to force this on the people of California."

Yet England sees a bit of a silver lining in that tactic. "It's a little disappointing [how it was done]," she laments, "but maybe that's a good sign [that] they felt like they wouldn't have had the votes if they'd had the people actually hear about it and debate about it."

The CRI spokeswoman is urging Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to stand up for all California school children and veto the two bills that she contends are trying to change the purpose of the public school system.

"It is absolutely ridiculous that we have turned our education centers into social, sexual indoctrination centers -- and that is what's going on," says England. "I mean, this is for our kindergartners through twelfth graders."

'Mom' and 'Dad'
banished in class
Schwarzenegger signs new law banning terms
perceived as negative to 'gays' in California

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which worked to defeat the plans. "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms.

"Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center," he said.

Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.

The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.

There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values," said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

Also signed was AB394, which targets parents and teachers for such indoctrination through "anti-harassment" training, CCF said.

Schwarzenegger had vetoed almost identical provisions a year ago, saying existing state law already provided for penalties for discrimination.

"We had hoped that the governor would once again veto this outrageous legislation but he obviously decided to side with the out-of-touch extremists that control the legislature. This law does not reflect the true values of the average Californian," said England. "True leadership means standing up for what is true and right."

Thomasson said SB777 prohibits any "instruction" or school-sponsored "activity" that "promotes a discriminatory bias" against "gender" – the bill's definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes – as well as "sexual orientation."

"Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school," CCF noted.

Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

CCF noted that now on a banned list will be any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.

Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female – as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.

AB394 promotes the same issues through state-funded publications, postings, curricula and handouts to students, parents and teachers.

It also creates the circumstances where a parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be convicted of "harassment," and a student who believes people are born either male or female could be reported as a "harasser" by a male teacher who wears women's clothes, CCF said.

Thomasson said Schwarzenegger also signed AB14, which prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches.

Affected will be day cares, preschool or after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, jobs programs and others.

Thomasson said it also forces every hospital in California – even private, religious hospitals – to adopt policies in support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality and opens up nonprofit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members that engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual conduct.

"It's the height of intolerance to punish individuals, organizations, businesses, and churches that have moral standards on sexual conduct and sexual lifestyles," said Thomasson, in response to the signing of AB14. "This is another insensitive law that violates people's moral boundaries."

The vitriol over the issue rose to new levels in its latest campaign.

As WND reported, a board member for the homosexual advocacy group Equality California verbally attacked and threatened CRI for its opposition to the bill earlier.

The board member sent an e-mail and video to CRI threatening the group would be buried if it continued efforts opposing the homosexual advocacy.

"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," said England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."

She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.

"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you." The advocacy group also warns schools against bringing parents into any such discussion with students.

WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators, including leaders in California, have taken it upon themselves to promote a homosexual lifestyle to children under their charge.

WND reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a "gay" pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.

That drew vehement objections from several educators, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.

"I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities," she said.

Ban on 'Mom' and 'Dad'
sparks call for exodus
'Public districts are no longer
safe environment for children'

A call is being issued to Christians who have been engaged in the culture wars in California's schools to abandon the system, after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a ban on "discriminatory bias" against homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyles.

"We're calling upon every California parent to pull their child out of California's public school system," Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, told WND.

"The so-called 'public schools' are no longer a safe emotional environment for children. Under the new law, schoolchildren as young as kindergarten will be sexually indoctrinated and introduced to homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality, over the protests of parents, teachers and even school districts," he said.

The law at issue went through the California legislature as SB 777, and now bans in school texts and activities any discriminatory bias against those who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute, said.

There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however. Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values. These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.

(Story continues below)

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB 777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

Karen England, chief of CRI, told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

"There will be no exemptions to this indoctrination," Thomasson told WND. "Private schools and homeschool will be the only sanctuary left for parents in California who love their children and want to protect their sexual innocence."

He posted on his website examples of situations he expects to see developing in California schools, under the new requirements:

* "Please turn to Chapter 10, entitled Famous Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people. History tells us that great Americans such as Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln were gay and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was lesbian. It's likely that even prominent biblical personas were gay, such as King David of Israel and the Apostle Paul. Until this year, the sexual identities of these and other historical figures have been denied by discriminatory textbooks that reflected adversely on LGBT people by ignoring their existence."

* "Children, our new picture book has arrived. This is a fantastic story called Daddy's Wedding. It teaches us that no relationship is bad. See the two men dressed in tuxedos, like they're at a wedding? Daddy's Wedding tells us that two men can love each other and even get married…"

* "Class, for our contemporary social studies' new No-Discriminatory-Bias component, we have a special speaker this afternoon. He will share his amazing story of growing up as a male trapped in a female's body."

* "Here in our boys' sex education assembly, you need to know that puberty means growing facial hair, a deeper voice and a growth spurt when you're in junior high. If you're comfortable with those changes, great. But we're required by law to tell you some of you may have a different future. Some of you may feel more comfortable with girls and feel like a girl inside…"

Ray Moore, a spokesman for Exodus Mandate, which advocates Christians give up on public schools and either school their children at home or send them to Christian schools, agreed with Thomasson, and went further.

"This really is a call to conservative and Christian pro-family groups to give up this absurd idea of public school reform," he told WND. "It can't be done. The longer they talk about saving public schools, the longer they prolong this agony, when they could be setting up new schools."

He said such plans to indoctrinate children in sexual alternatives is not a surprise at all. "The pagans are simply obeying their god," he said.

But he said how Christians educate their children is part of their walk of faith and obedience to God.

"You are being irresponsible as a parent to put your child in a public school," Moore said. "There's no stopping this movement. I think they're going to take over the entire system in the next two to five years.

"I can't predict how fast the virus will run throughout the public school system, but I think it cannot be stopped," he said.

cont'd

"If traditional minded people abandon that system in enough numbers, it will implode. By leaving your children there as a Christian you're exposing them to extreme moral danger. You can't immunize them with a few hours of Bible study during the week," he said.

And he warned that the rest of the nation could feel the impact of the decision, because California is known as a trend-setter in educational practice and policy.

"California always has been on the cutting edge of trends, sometimes good and sometimes bad," Moore said. "What happens in California sometimes can spread nationwide.

"I do know textbook publishers blow with the wind," Thomasson added, "whether they blow from Texas or California, because those are the biggest states. That's how they sell books."

He said textbook editors now have a new agenda to satisfy if they want to sell their products in California. "We could see those [new] books within a year or two."

The result, he said, probably will look like good texts. But they will be just like "cultic translations" of the Bible, which have "bitten" people who get them.

Capitol Resource announced it still holds hope for schools. England announced a referendum intended to take the issue to the people of California, and bypass the "extremist legislators" who approved the plan, has been filed.

"Parents from all across California and the nation have been flooding our office with calls and e-mails, completely stunned that Gov. Schwarzenegger would sign this unbelievable attack on their families," England said. "Now that we have filed this referendum, we need every single parents and concerned citizen to join us in the battle to defeat SB 777's shocking policies."

"This referendum allows the people – especially those concerned about the well-being of California's children – to make this crucial policy decision for themselves," added Turney. "It is simply unconscionable to force young children to deal with such confusing matters as transgender, bisexual and homosexual lifestyles in their classrooms. This referendum gives parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts – all members of the family – the chance to voice their adamant opposition to such appalling policies."

England said the referendum work will be neither cheap nor easy. "But we are called to defend California families and this is our only chance at protecting our future in this state," she said.

The plan was filed with Attorney General Jerry Brown yesterday, and once it is given a title and documentation, supporters will have only 90 days to collect enough signatures – an estimated 434,000 – to qualify the referendum for an election ballot.

"We have this legal avenue and we should use it," she told WND.

The needs will be for volunteers to coordinate and funding to hire paid signature collectors.

"It's realistic if we raise the money," she said. "From where I sit, a lot of parents are going to be paying hundred of dollars a month in private school tuition. Why not pay some now to stop this."

Schwarzenegger had vetoed a similar proposal a year ago, saying existing laws already covered the issue. The vitriol over the issue rose to new levels in its latest campaign.

As WND reported, a board member for the homosexual advocacy group Equality California verbally attacked and threatened CRI for its opposition to the bill earlier.

The board member sent an e-mail and video to CRI threatening the group would be buried if it continued efforts opposing the homosexual advocacy.

"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," said England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."

She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.

"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you." The advocacy group also warns schools against bringing parents into any such discussion with students.

WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators, including leaders in California, have taken it upon themselves to promote a homosexual lifestyle to children under their charge.

WND reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a "gay" pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.

That drew vehement objections from several educators, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.

"I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities," she said.

California 'Mom,' 'Dad' ban garners international scorn
World Congress of Families condemns promotion of 'polymorphous perversion'

An international organization promoting families says California families have no choice but to abandon the public school system after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a new "anti-discrimination" bill into law, effectively making terms like "mom" and dad" obsolete.

As WND has reported, some family advocates in California already had come to the same conclusion as that reached now by the World Congress of Families.

World Congress of Families Global Coordinator Allan Carlson said the measure, SB 777, is "a blatant attack on the natural family orchestrated by the alternative-lifestyles lobby."

The exodus call had been issued just one day earlier by Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. "We're calling upon every California parent to pull their child out of California's public school system," he told WND.

"The so-called 'public schools' are no longer a safe emotional environment for children. Under the new law, schoolchildren as young as kindergarten will be sexually indoctrinated and introduced to homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality, over the protests of parents, teachers and even school districts," he said.

The law at issue went through the California legislature as SB 777, and now bans in school texts and activities any discriminatory bias against those who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute, said.

The World Congress noted the law prohibits "instruction" or "activity" that is perceived to "promote a discriminatory bias" against "gender," including cross-dressing and sex-change operations as well as "so-called sexual orientation."

It will prohibit anything that suggests that the natural family – a man and a woman, married, with children – is normal or typical," said Carlson. "Thus, under this latest advance toward a Brave New World of polymorphous perversion, California textbooks will no longer be able to use words like 'mother and father' and 'husband and wife,' because they suggest that heterosexuality is the norm – even though that is manifestly the case, even in California."

The organization's statement called it "unbelievable" that teachers and students who oppose same-sex marriage and suggest homosexuality isn't innate, or disapprove of cross-dressing and sex-change operations, could be disciplined as "harassers," and students may use the restrooms designated for the gender with which they identify.

"California parents who don't want to see their children subjected to gender indoctrination will now have no alternative but to withdraw from the public education system – which they will be required to fund, nonetheless," Carlson said.

Carlson co-authored with Paul Mero "The Natural Family: A Manifesto," and the World Congress is in the forefront of the international pro-family movement today. Its most recent congress was in Warsaw in May, and drew delegates from 62 nations.

While SB 777 provides protections for those promoting alternative lifestyle choices, there are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs. Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values. These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," said Turney.

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB 777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

Karen England, chief of CRI, told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

Her organization immediately filed with the state a plan to take the issue to the state's voters in a referendum as early as 2008. Yesterday, the institute issued a list of advisories because officials have been "overwhelmed" by those who are outraged by the state's actions.

"By filing the SB 777 referendum with the attorney general, CRFI seeks to bring SB 777 before the people of California for vote," the advisory said. "The vast majority of Californians are shocked when they learn of SB 777's purpose. We believe that if it is brought before the people, it will be overturned."

England's organization said SB 777, by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, "is the most blatant and egregious assault on traditional family values that CRI has witnessed in our 20 years of serving families in the capitol … SB 777 actually advances a radical sexual agenda on children as young as five years old."

"The vague language of this bill could be interpreted to mean that instruction that only features a mom and dad or traditional family would be 'promoting a discriminatory bias' against homosexual couples. It would promote 'heterosexism' to only show male and female couples, without equal time for homosexual, transsexual and transgender 'families,'" she said.

She said while supporters of the activist plan argue those conclusions are absurd, the organization actually "is merely publicizing policies that have already been implemented in Los Angeles Unified School District regarding transgender students."

England noted that the district website confirms if a male perceives himself as a female, "he must be granted access to female locker rooms and restrooms. He must be allowed to participate in female sports activities.

"If the student wishes to keep his sexual status from his parents, the teachers and administration must refer to the masculine pronoun (him/he) when talking to his parents and use the feminine pronoun (she/her) at school," the Capitol Resource analysis concluded.

"This shocking policy treats parents as the enemy of the transgender student…" the analysis said.

Thomasson had posted on his website examples of situations he said he expects to see develop:

* "Please turn to Chapter 10, entitled Famous Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people. History tells us that great Americans such as Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln were gay and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was lesbian. It's likely that even prominent biblical personas were gay, such as King David of Israel and the Apostle Paul. Until this year, the sexual identities of these and other historical figures have been denied by discriminatory textbooks that reflected adversely on LGBT people by ignoring their existence."

* "Children, our new picture book has arrived. This is a fantastic story called Daddy's Wedding. It teaches us that no relationship is bad. See the two men dressed in tuxedos, like they're at a wedding? Daddy's Wedding tells us that two men can love each other and even get married…"

Ray Moore, a spokesman for Exodus Mandate, which advocates Christians give up on public schools and either school their children at home or send them to Christian schools, agreed with Thomasson, and went further.

"This really is a call to conservative and Christian pro-family groups to give up this absurd idea of public school reform," he told WND. "It can't be done. The longer they talk about saving public schools, the longer they prolong this agony, when they could be setting up new schools."

He said such plans to indoctrinate children in sexual alternatives is not a surprise at all. "The pagans are simply obeying their god," he said.

He also warned that the rest of the nation could feel the impact of the decision, because California is known as a trend-setter in educational practice and policy.

"California always has been on the cutting edge of trends, sometimes good and sometimes bad," Moore said. "What happens in California sometimes can spread nationwide.

"I do know textbook publishers blow with the wind," Thomasson added, "whether they blow from Texas or California, because those are the biggest states. That's how they sell books."

He said textbook editors now have a new agenda to satisfy if they want to sell their products in California. "We could see those [new] books within a year or two."

Brothers and Sisters,

Attempted things like this used to be rare and they were shut down in a heartbeat as if those pushing for the change were insane and/or evil. It's only been a few years ago that behavior associated with alternative lifestyles were felonies in all states.

The evil and the insane is common now, and it's seen almost every day. YES - I would say this earth is just about ripe for the RIGHTEOUS WRATH OF GOD. However, men want more evil, and they will get more evil than they can handle before the SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. YES, I think that the time for Tribulation Period is almost here. Mankind richly deserves judgment, and that will most certainly happen at GOD'S Appointed Time.

Until then, the gutters of filth will overflow, and it will be impossible to escape the stench of mankind's making. If that time is near, we've only seen the beginning. Things are going to get much worse. As Christians, we can and should continue to share the GOSPEL of GOD'S GRACE until JESUS comes to take us home. The time has already come when many men will mock us and the GOSPEL - just as Bible Prophecy states. We will simply pity them and continue our work. I say "Pity" in a most genuine and serious way because I know where the path of the lost leads. The laughter and mockery of GOD will end one day, and it will be too late.

Love In Christ,
Tom

2 Peter 3:3-13 NASB
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

Constitutional change would fix 'Mom,' 'Dad' ban
Pro-family group says that's only way to overcome radical indoctrination bill

A California pro-family organization has concluded the only way to overturn the radical pro-homosexual indoctrination agenda imposed on public schools when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 – which could end up banning "Mom and Dad" references in schools – is through a state constitutional amendment.

"A detailed, well-crafted constitutional amendment would wipe out SB 777 and prevent it from ever coming back again, no matter what the politicians or judges desired," said an analysis by Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families.

He also warned it would be best if parents would simply withdraw their children from public schools. "When you can no longer protect your children, you must remove them from a threatening environment," he said. "Because the equivalent of mental molestation is coming to California public schools, CCF is recommending that California parents who love their children flee to home schools or church-operated private schools."

The legislative plan sponsored by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a Democrat who has brought forward similar proposals for several years, also could be overridden with a referendum, as has been proposed by Capitol Resource Institute, he noted, but anything won there would be a temporary victory.

"While the voters could reject and stop SB 777, a successful ballot referendum is a one-time deal. It only stops SB 777, but doesn't stop one or more school sexual indoctrination bills from coming back under a different bill number. Despite good intentions, a referendum – 'the power of the electors to approve or reject statutes' – simply does not prohibit the California Legislature from passing the same school sexual indoctrination bill next year, the year after, or whenever," he said.

"Of course, pro-family Californians would feel good if a pro-family issue passed on the ballot. But that good feeling would quickly sour if the Legislature, despite the people's vote, re-passed the same bad bill or multiple sexual indoctrination bills within one or two years. This is a very likely scenario, given the anti-family Democrat politicians who have tight control of the California Legislature," Thomasson said.

(Story continues below)

"While a ballot referendum is definitely a rebuke to the California Legislature, it seems to have worked best in the past when state legislators saw themselves as true representatives of the people. But nowadays, many politicians – especially the ruling Democrats who control both houses of the Legislature – have a very high commitment to the homosexuality-bisexuality-transsexuality agenda, as well as to their 'sacred cows' of abortion, environmentalism, and unionism," he said.

He said a statutory initiative also could work, if it was carefully written with specific detail.

Then, he said, "its language would go into the California Education Code. SB 777 would be effectively stopped. So would the Legislature, which would be prohibited from passing the same or similar bills again," he said.

But he said even that would not stop the state Supreme Court from "interpreting" the state constitution to require "equality" for homosexual, bisexual and transsexual lifestyles in public school instruction and activities.

A recall election "is a high-profile way for voters to express outrage," but wouldn't solve the problem, and while the experts still are evaluating the possibility of lawsuit, Thomasson said it doesn't appear to be the most likely option.

A constitutional amendment, however, could wipe out SB 777 and prevent it from coming back, he said.

"If written correctly, this constitutional amendment would also wipe out AB 394, the second school indoctrination bill pushing alternative sexual lifestyles on students, teachers, and parents through 'anti-harassment' training," Thomasson said. "When voters pass a well-written constitutional amendment, they achieve the greatest security for their goal.

"Essentially, the voters are establishing and 'interpreting' the state constitution ... so that the judges can't," he said.

He said it would cost about $2.5 million to gather signatures for any of the petitioning procedures.

"Therefore, if a generous soul who wanted to stop sexual indoctrination in the government school system donated $2.5 million to a campaign committee for this project, a constitutional amendment or statutory initiative would go on the 2008 ballot for the protection of six million California schoolchildren and for children not yet born. Once qualified for the ballot, additional millions would be needed to campaign to pass it, against the millions guaranteed to be spent by the liberal teachers union," he said.

In support of his call for parents to withdraw their children from public schools, he said there is no parental "opt out" provision in SB 777 about school instruction and activities, or AB 394, about "anti-harassment" policies.

"Realize that SB 777 affects all school 'instruction' (textbooks, classroom instruction, homework, videos, and other instructional materials) and every school-sponsored 'activity' (sex education classes, school assemblies, dramas, music, dances, proms, sports teams, homecoming games, etc.). To opt out of SB 777, you would have to opt out your child from the entire school day," he said.

He said the current opt-out provisions in California for parents worried about sexual indoctrination already require parents to watch their child's school "like a hawk" and request in writing their child be excused from the various classes, instruction and tests.

"Many parents don't know about a shocking ruling two years ago in California. Parents in Palmdale had objected to a sex survey given to their children in school without parental permission. In 2005, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that parents concerned about moral issues actually lose their parental rights once their child steps on school property," he said.

Already under a previous ban on discrimination in California schools, a Fresno school permitted a "confused girl" to run for prom king. And just last week in Davis, two teenage boys were made "prince and prince."

"Is this if happening under a 'no discrimination' law passed eight years ago, just think what the 'no discrimination' sledgehammer of SB 777 and AB 394 will do starting in January," Thomasson said.

He said there are a number of resources for parents who want to homeschool, including, Christian Home Educators of California, the Home School Legal Defense Association, California Homeschool Network and Home School Association of California.

Other resources are available at Alliance for Separation of School and State, Exodus Mandate, National Association of University-Model Schools, Alpha Omega Publications and Escondido Tutorials.

Capitol Resource said it has set up a website for volunteers or donations to its effort to battle SB 777.

Karen England, the chief of Capitol Resource, also said Assembly members Doug LaMalfa, R-Butte County, and Joel Anderson, R-San Diego, and agreed to serve as co-chairs.

"As a parent of four school age children, I'm completely dismayed that this destructive measure was allowed to become law," LaMalfa said.

cont'd

The legislation Schwarzenegger signed earlier earned the scorn of an international organization promoting families. World Congress of Families Global Coordinator Allan Carlson said the measure is "a blatant attack on the natural family orchestrated by the alternative-lifestyles lobby."

The World Congress noted the law prohibits "instruction" or "activity" that is perceived to "promote a discriminatory bias" against "gender," including cross-dressing and sex-change operations as well as "so-called sexual orientation."

"It will prohibit anything that suggests that the natural family – a man and a woman, married, with children – is normal or typical," said Carlson. "Thus, under this latest advance toward a Brave New World of polymorphous perversion, California textbooks will no longer be able to use words like 'mother and father' and 'husband and wife,' because they suggest that heterosexuality is the norm – even though that is manifestly the case, even in California."

The organization's statement called it "unbelievable" that teachers and students who oppose same-sex marriage and suggest homosexuality isn't innate, or disapprove of cross-dressing and sex-change operations, could be disciplined as "harassers," and students may use the restrooms designated for the gender with which they identify.

While SB 777 provides protections for those promoting alternative lifestyle choices, there are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs. Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

"The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," said Meredith Turney, the legislative liaison for Capitol Resource.

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB 777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

England told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

Ray Moore, a spokesman for Exodus Mandate, which advocates Christians give up on public schools and either school their children at home or send them to Christian schools, agreed with Thomasson, and went further.

"This really is a call to conservative and Christian pro-family groups to give up this absurd idea of public school reform," he told WND. "It can't be done. The longer they talk about saving public schools, the longer they prolong this agony, when they could be setting up new schools."

He said such plans to indoctrinate children in sexual alternatives is not a surprise at all. "The pagans are simply obeying their god," he said.

He also warned that the rest of the nation could feel the impact of the decision, because California is known as a trend-setter in educational practice and policy.

"California always has been on the cutting edge of trends, sometimes good and sometimes bad," Moore said. "What happens in California sometimes can spread nationwide.

"I do know textbook publishers blow with the wind," Thomasson added, "whether they blow from Texas or California, because those are the biggest states. That's how they sell books."

He said textbook editors now have a new agenda to satisfy if they want to sell their products in California. "We could see those [new] books within a year or two."

Brothers and Sisters,

Please don't take this information for granted. Like situations could be present in the schools your children attend any day now. Every parent needs to plan for options other than public schools. Homeschooling is a way that every family can afford and put some strength back in the Christian Family.

We should also be ready to support organizations that are fighting to keep the devil out of our schools. If I had my way, the law of just 20 years ago would go back on the books in full force. Behaviors associated with alternative lifestyles were a felony and rightfully in the same category as sex with animals. It was also a felony to present material involving these types of behavior to minors (under 18). It obviously was not part of any school curriculum, as that would have been insane and taboo. It's still insane, and it still needs to be taboo. It's filth designed to make our children think that is normal and accepted behavior. It's NOT and it NEVER will be. It even encourages the little ones to start experimenting with the weird abominations to GOD.

Many millions around the world are dying a slow and agonizing death that is a direct result of sexual abominations to GOD. BUT, they want more, and they want the victims to be younger. This is now a cruel and evil world. The schools can't teach children about GOD and the Bible, but they can teach children filthy sexual abominations to GOD. There is a reason why many dreaded diseases are directly associated with SEXUAL PERVERSIONS. They are not NATURAL as intended by GOD, and that's the reason why they were labeled as CRIMES AGAINST NATURE! GOD said NO to this behavior, and GOD prescribed a death sentence for it in the Old Testament. WHY DEATH SENTENCE: to end the evil and stop it from spreading like a plague. The same was true for sex with animals. GOD said NO - that it was an abomination - HE would not tolerate it. If you don't believe in GOD, maybe you will believe the millions of people dying from weird, unnatural, PERVERTED sexual acts.

Let's make this blunt and easy for everyone to understand. There will never be anything normal or acceptable about alternative lifestyles. Let's leave GOD out of the discussion once and bluntly state that alternative lifestyles involve filthy and PERVERTED acts that are likely to give the participants any number of DREADED DISEASES. It's just like sex with animals, and nobody knows which one is more PERVERTED, FILTHY, AND DANGEROUS! If they are determined to teach sex in school, THIS IS WHAT SHOULD BE TAUGHT!

Lawsuit challenges ban on 'mom' and 'dad'
'We wish we had some provision that you can't pass stupid laws'

Absent a provision in the California Constitution that would ban "stupid" laws, the non-profit Advocates for Faith and Freedom has filed a lawsuit challenging a new state law that would ban "mom" and "dad" from public schools.

WND has reported that experts fear the socially groundbreaking legislative plan, signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, will impose a radical pro-homosexual indoctrination agenda on all California public schools.

"Realize that SB 777 affects all school 'instruction' (textbooks, classroom instruction, homework, videos, and other instructional materials) and every school-sponsored 'activity' (sex education classes, school assemblies, dramas, music, dances, proms, sports teams, homecoming games, etc.). To opt out of SB 777, you would have to opt out your child from the entire school day," said Randy Thomasson, of the Campaign for Children and Families, a California-based pro-family group.

His organization has concluded a state constitutional amendment would be the best way to remove the objectionable requirements, while the Capitol Resource Institute is working on a separate effort to have voters overturn.

Robert Tyler, the general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, said the lawsuit his organization has filed challenges the law on the basis it is unconstitutionally vague and violates the privacy of all students, teachers and other people on school campuses.

SB 777 changed in state law the definition of gender to make it now mean "sex," including a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not associated with the person's "assigned' sex at birth.

"In short, you are what you think you are regardless of your anatomical makeup," the advocacy group said.

"This is such a free-flowing idea that every morning you might wake up and choose a gender," Tyler told WND. "What if a football player starts the game as a male, gets hit, walks off the field and says, 'I think I'm a female.'"

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the California Education Committee, a project of California Family Council, by the Advocates for Faith and Freedom as well as lawyers for the Alliance Defense Fund.

It names Schwarzenegger, state Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr., Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell and others as defendants.

The plan, which is set to take effect on Jan. 11, 2008, "recklessly abandons the traditional understanding of biological sex in favor of an elusive definition that is unconstitutionally vague," the lawsuit said.

"This lawsuit facially challenges the redefinition fo the term 'gender' as it will be impossible for school administrators and educators to know whether they themselves are violating the nondiscrimination provisions of the Education Code or the Penal Code," it said.

"Additionally, the special treatment intended for a select few students through the enforcement of Senate Bill 777 will result in the violation of the privacy rights of the remainder of students not targeted for special treatment under Senate Bill 777."

The new law demands, "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall any school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic [including perceived gender.]"

"The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," said Meredith Turney, the legislative liaison for Capitol Resource.

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB 777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

Karen England, chief of the CRI, told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

"This social experiment defies common sense," said Tyler. "We wish we had some sort of provision like that in the constitution, that you can't pass stupid laws."

"Parents sending their children to public schools are trusting that school officials will protect their children's safety," said Ron Prentice, chief executive officers of California Family Council. "It defies logic that schools will be required by law to ignore one's anatomy. The goal of SB 777 is not to create a gender neutral environment, but to disregard the traditional family, and its beliefs, and respect for a mom and dad raising the kids."

Thomasson believes a constitutional amendment is the only solution. "A detailed, well-crafted constitutional amendment would wipe out SB 777 and prevent it from ever coming back again, no matter what the politicians or judges desired," he said.

He also warned it would be best if parents would simply withdraw their children from public schools. "When you can no longer protect your children, you must remove them from a threatening environment," he said. "Because the equivalent of mental molestation is coming to California public schools, CCF is recommending that California parents who love their children flee to home schools or church-operated private schools."

The legislative plan had been carried by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a Democrat who has brought forward similar proposals for several years. Capitol Resource Institute believes it could be defeated by referendum, and that campaign already is well under way.

The legislation Schwarzenegger signed earlier earned the scorn of an international organization promoting families. World Congress of Families Global Coordinator Allan Carlson said the measure is "a blatant attack on the natural family orchestrated by the alternative-lifestyles lobby."

The World Congress noted the law prohibits "instruction" or "activity" that is perceived to "promote a discriminatory bias" against "gender," including cross-dressing and sex-change operations as well as "so-called sexual orientation."

"It will prohibit anything that suggests that the natural family – a man and a woman, married, with children – is normal or typical," said Carlson. "Thus, under this latest advance toward a Brave New World of polymorphous perversion, California textbooks will no longer be able to use words like 'mother and father' and 'husband and wife,' because they suggest that heterosexuality is the norm – even though that is manifestly the case, even in California."

The organization's statement called it "unbelievable" that teachers and students who oppose same-sex marriage and suggest homosexuality isn't innate, or disapprove of cross-dressing and sex-change operations, could be disciplined as "harassers," and students may use the restrooms designated for the gender with which they identify.

While SB 777 provides protections for those promoting alternative lifestyle choices, there are no similar protections for students with traditio nal or conservative lifestyles and beliefs. Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

Homosexodus! Students flee forced 'gay' agenda
California parents start reacting to new 'education' requirements

Parents in California have started reacting to the state's newly mandated homosexual indoctrination program by pulling their children out of classes, and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell is warning districts they'll lose money if that happens.

A spokeswoman for a ministry called Considering Homeschooling said she already has seen an overwhelming increase in requests for information about homeschooling.

As a result, spokeswoman Denise Kanter told WND that her group is sending out 5,000 DVD packages to churches around the state that include basic "how-to" information to provide parents a direction to turn when they choose to protect their children from the new school agenda.

The new law demands, "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall any school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic [including perceived gender.]"

"With the passing of SB 777, a Christian parent cannot, in good conscience, send their child to a public school where their child will be taught or coerced into a lifestyle or belief system that is contrary to the faith they hold dear," Kanter told WND.

"Fortunately, SB 777 has caught the attention of many churches and pastors here in California, and as they should, they are calling on their congregants to take their children out. To help in this endeavor, our ministry has sent and will continue to send out free packages directly to churches containing information on how they can encourage their congregants to homeschool their children, as well as how to create in-church parent led schools," she said.

"We hope our resources will encourage Christians to focus on the importance of not leaving Christ out of a child's education," she said.

WND columnist Olivia St. John reported California's "raging ideological" battle prompted students to pack up their backpacks and stage a two-day boycott to protest the plan that has the state "force-feeding children perverse material and videos vile enough to garner at R-rating in the local miltiplex."

"Evidently, some are beginning to wake up to the fact that their children are no longer receiving true education, but are being clandestinely recruited into sick social movements threatening to tear families apart at the seams," she wrote.

"When it comes to actively promoting sin to public school children, the homosexuals are light years ahead of adulterers, fornicators and substance abusers, who haven't yet implemented student-run organizations to convince children that such lifestyle choices are normal," she continued.

In California, parents told the Inland Valley Press Enterprise they were pulling their children from public school classrooms in protest of the law.

Donna Myers, whose three daughters were attending Norte Vista High in Riverside, said the new law has no application to reading, writing and arithmetic.

"We have rights, too. Enough is enough," she told the newspaper.

And Betty Voltz also told the newspaper her son and daughter were boycotting the public district.

"They don't allow religion in school but they're going to allow homosexuality in schools. That makes no sense," she said.

Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, said there is reason for alarm. He said the new law effectively requires school instruction and school activities to portray homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to the six million children in public schools in a positive light.

He said he's gotten hundreds of contacts from concerned parents, and is encouraging families to leave the public school system entirely.

All of this has O'Connell alarmed.

"We must encourage students to stay in school and resist calls for a protest and walkout over SB 777," he wrote in a notice to all "county and district superintendents."

"What I find most troubling is that possible student absences may lead to missed opportunities for them to learn and that this lost time may not be recaptured," he said.

"Additionally, there may be fiscal consequences to school districts for funds lost due to student absences," he threatened.

His also said the bill "simplifies and clarifies existing civil rights protections for California students."

Meredith Turney, the legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute, reacted to that in a column.

"Mr. O'Connell, the bill's author Sen. Sheila Kuehl and Gov. Schwarzenegger have all maintained the party line that SB 777 merely 'streamlines' existing anti-discrimination laws. However, these attempts to discredit the public outcry against SB 777's policies are disingenuous and misleading. In fact, SB 777 goes far beyond implementing anti-discrimination and harassment policies for public schools."

Turney said that already was accomplished by a 2000 plan by the same lawmaker.

"The new law states that 'No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of' … (homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexual or transgender status). Including instruction and activities in the anti-discrimination law goes much further than 'streamlining.' This incremental and deceitful approach to achieving their goals is a favorite and effective tactic of liberals. Expanding the law is not 'streamlining' the law," Turney wrote.

"Mr. O'Connell's doublespeak reveals his – and his peers' – arrogant attitude toward their 'gullible' constituents. In fact, parents are not stupid and they recognize that their authority is being undermined by such subversive school policies. This is nothing less than an attempt to confuse the public about the true intention of SB 777," she said.

"The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," said Turney.

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB 777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

Karen England, chief of the CRI, which has set up a separate website to organize opposition to SB 777, has told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

cont'd

Kuehl told the Inland newspaper such opposition from "right-wing groups' are publicity stunts. "They are essentially whipping up a phony crisis," the Santa Monica Democrat, who lives an openly homosexual lifestyle, said.

As WND has reported, the non-profit Advocates for Faith and Freedom has filed a lawsuit challenging a SB 777.

Robert Tyler, the general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, said the lawsuit his organization has filed challenges the law on the basis it is unconstitutionally vague and violates the privacy of all students, teachers and other people on school campuses.

SB 777 changed in state law the definition of gender to make it now mean "sex," including a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not associated with the person's "assigned' sex at birth.

"In short, you are what you think you are regardless of your anatomical makeup," the advocacy group said.

"This is such a free-flowing idea that every morning you might wake up and choose a gender," Tyler told WND. "What if a football player starts the game as a male, gets hit, walks off the field and says, 'I think I'm a female.'"

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the California Education Committee, a project of California Family Council, by the Advocates for Faith and Freedom as well as lawyers for the Alliance Defense Fund.

It names Schwarzenegger, state Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr., O'Connell and others as defendants.

The plan, which is set to take effect on Jan. 11, 2008, "recklessly abandons the traditional understanding of biological sex in favor of an elusive definition that is unconstitutionally vague," the lawsuit said.

"This lawsuit facially challenges the redefinition of the term 'gender' as it will be impossible for school administrators and educators to know whether they themselves are violating the nondiscrimination provisions of the Education Code or the Penal Code," it said.

Thomasson endorses the idea of pulling children out of public schools, and believes a constitutional amendment is the best solution. CRI is working on a referendum.

Stripped bare: 'Gay' school plot unveiled
'Infuse LGBTQ curriculum into history, social science, and literature classes'

On the heels of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature on S.B. 777, which opponents describe as a homosexual indoctrination plan for education districts, a pro-homosexual lobbying organization in California has launched its campaign to infuse a "gay" influence into public school curricula.

The Gay Straight Alliance recently forwarded an e-mail to its California chapters with information on how to make sure homosexuality is taught in the state's schools, and warned that having students and parents simply "tolerate" homosexuality simply is not enough.

"In many schools, learning about LGBTQ issues takes the form of very necessary tolerance education where students are educated about the importance of not discriminating against each other," according to GSA documents. "Tolerance education is an important first step, but we need to push further.

"Infuse LGBTQ curriculum into history, social science, and literature classes," is the organization's plan.

Karen England, a spokeswoman for Capital Resource Institute who publicized the GSA campaign and is a primary organizer behind the Save Our Kids plan to put the issue before voters and ask them to reject it, said this is exactly what she expected of those who wish to promote the homosexual lifestyle.

"The homosexual lobby is active and ambitious. They already have GSA units in many California schools that will oversee the implementation of SB 777," England said. "As evidenced in the GSA e-mail, their agenda is inclusion in school instruction and activities, regardless of their public assertions of 'streamlining' anti-discrimination policies in the law."

She said the GSA "guide" to be used tells students "that insisting on LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) history in school instruction 'helps to create schools where students feel safer and more supported.'"

"Utilizing the slogan 'Let's Set the Record Straight: History Isn't', students are given several action steps to take in accomplishing their 'curriculum campaign' goal. These include monitoring classroom instruction to see if LGBTQ individuals are discussed or 'made invisible'; taking over class to present LGBTQ history lessons and contacting textbook companies to change curriculum," England noted.

She said no child should be subjected to discrimination, "but incorporating discussions of an instruction about controversial lifestyles in the classroom does not accomplish this goal. Instead, it undermines parental authority over children's moral upbringing."

The documentation promotes a classroom discussion of Sylvia Rivera, a "Latina transwoman," and suggests, "It's time to take action!"

"Are your teachers teaching about the historical achievements of LGBTQ individuals? Are these issues included in your textbooks?..." the organization wrote. "Take over class! … Lead a discussion about LGBTQ history or present a lesson of your own."

England said with the pending implementation of S.B. 777, soon such messages will come not from independent advocacy groups such as GSA, but from the state's superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O'Connell.

"That will be the mandate if our referendum isn't successful," she told WND. "It won't be just some San Francisco school. It will be the San Francisco curriculum and values forced on school districts in California."

She called the agenda "highly offensive" to most Californians, in fact, "most Americans."

"Religious background or not, you don't want these controversial issues discussed in a classroom," she said.

She said the Save Our Kids campaign is on track, with more than enough petitions in circulation to collect the signatures needed to present the plan to voters.

But she said petition signature collectors now need to be getting the pages of signatures back to the campaign office to be processed and submitted to the state.

She described the citizen response so far as incredible.

"We have people who are saying, 'Not with my kids, not with my grandkids,'" she said. "Citizens who have never done anything [politically] are setting up tables outside of grocery stores."

The homosexual promotions suggested a "gay/lesbian teacher as role model," promoted the life stories of celebrity homosexuals, and suggests study of "The Kinsey Report," which in 1948 explored "same-sex sexual behavior."

It also advocates teaching "the truth about historical figures."

"We will never know how he (Abraham Lincoln) might identity his own sexual orientation if he were alive today…" the group states. "It is good for young people of all sexual orientations and gender identities to know that some of the legends in their history books were more complex than those books make them seem."

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said, "It is within our reach to defeat SB 777 – the most blatant attempt yet to mandate pro-homosexual and transgender propaganda in schools. We urge all friends of liberty to send CRFI their completed petitions as soon as possible."

WND previously has reported on an increasing number of students leaving public schools because of the planned agenda, and O'Connell has warned districts they'll lose money if that happens.

A spokeswoman for a ministry called Considering Homeschooling said she already has seen an overwhelming increase in requests for information about homeschooling.

As a result, spokeswoman Denise Kanter told WND that her group is sending out 5,000 DVD packages to churches around the state that include basic "how-to" information to provide parents a direction to turn when they choose to protect their children from the new school agenda.

The new law demands, "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall any school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic [including perceived gender.]"

"With the passing of SB 777, a Christian parent cannot, in good conscience, send their child to a public school where their child will be taught or coerced into a lifestyle or belief system that is contrary to the faith they hold dear," Kanter told WND.

In California, several parents told the Inland Valley Press Enterprise they were pulling their children from public school classrooms in protest of the law.

"We have rights, too. Enough is enough," Donna Myeres said.

Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, said there is reason for alarm. He said the new law effectively requires school instruction and school activities to portray homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to the six million children in public schools in a positive light.

He said he's gotten hundreds of contacts from concerned parents, and is encouraging families to leave the public school system entirely.

All of this has O'Connell alarmed.

In a notice to school superintendents, he said, "There may be fiscal consequences to school districts for funds lost due to student absences."

Meredith Turney, the legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute, reacted to that in a column.

"Mr. O'Connell, the bill's author Sen. Sheila Kuehl and Gov. Schwarzenegger have all maintained the party line that SB 777 merely 'streamlines' existing anti-discrimination laws. However, these attempts to discredit the public outcry against SB 777's policies are disingenuous and misleading. In fact, SB 777 goes far beyond implementing anti-discrimination and harassment policies for public schools."

"The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," said Turney.

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB 777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

As WND has reported, the non-profit Advocates for Faith and Freedom has filed a lawsuit challenging a SB 777.

Robert Tyler, the general counsel, said the lawsuit his organization has filed challenges the law on the basis it is unconstitutionally vague and violates the privacy of all students, teachers and other people on school campuses.

Revealed: 'Gay' plans
to target 2-year-olds
5th-grade students could be handed
'Coping With Sexual Orientation'

Children as young as two years of age are in the bull's-eye of coming changes in California's school curriculum, which "gay rights" advocates now admit will alter the very foundation of information presented to public school classrooms.

A list of school resources, sponsored by a homosexual-advocacy group called Safe Schools Coalition, suggests that for those who are only two years old, there's "Felicia's Favorite Story," which tells how she was "adopted by her two mothers."

The list also promotes a book called "Are You a Girl or a Boy?" by Karleen Jiminez, a resource for children ages 4-8 when advocating homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and other alternative lifestyle choices.

It's described as "A sweet book about a gender-different kid."

Other resources being promoted in light of California's adoption of SB 777 as state law include books authored by officials for Planned Parenthood and the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network.

One book, called "Tackling Gay Issues in School," is for kindergarten through grade 12, and offers a "rationale (for the inclusion of les/bi/gay/trans issues in school)." It features recommended "extracurricular" activities for classes.

The promotion of such materials has coincided with the recent admission by Equality California, a homosexual advocacy group that worked to have SB 777 passed by lawmakers and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, that the bill really does edit all school curricula in California.

For months while California lawmakers discussed Senate Bill 777, opponents worried about its usefulness in censoring public school curricula to include a pro-homosexual bias. Supporters, however, steadfastly maintained that it only clarified anti-discrimination laws already on the books. They still hold that stance, with statements this week from both Schwarzenegger's office and Equality California.

Sabrina Lockhart, a spokeswoman for the governor, insisted it is a "technical bill" intended to clarify anti-discriminations laws.

"It simply takes anti-discrimination language used in other areas of [state law] such as employment and puts that in the education code," she said.

And Ali Bay of Equality California told WND the new law "doesn't require that any specific curriculum be included in California's classrooms."

Technically it is correct that the law doesn't "require inclusion." But opponents say it does now ban anything that can be "perceived" as being discriminatory, up to and including references to "mom" and "dad" or "husband" and "wife."

"The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," said Meredith Turney, the legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute.

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB 777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

The new law demands, "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall any school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic [including perceived gender.]"

And Karen England, a spokeswoman for Capital Resource who is a primary organizer behind the Save Our Kids plan to put the issue before voters and ask them to reject it, noted that even Equality California's own materials are assuring constituents the law will ban curriculum that fails to meet the pro-homosexual standard cited.

"All along, Capitol Resource Family Impact has maintained that the true agenda behind SB 777 is to infuse school curriculum with pro-homosexual, and other controversial lifestyles, propaganda. The proponents of the bill countered that this was not true and the law would merely 'streamline' anti-discrimination laws for schools. Based on our 20-year experience with the homosexual lobby, we know that a common tactic is to maintain innocence and then utilize vague language to push a radical agenda. We expected the same of SB 777 and we are already witnessing the same pattern," England said.

"Last week the sponsor of SB 777, homosexual rights group Equality California, released their 2007 legislative scorecard. The scorecard featured a description of the each of the bills the group sponsored or considered homosexual-friendly," she said.

"For the first time, the group admitted that SB 777 'prohibits curriculum that is discriminatorily biased against LGBT people.' Understand that the entire time the group was pushing this bill through the legislature, they vehemently denied that it would affect curriculum. After the bill had passed, they now reveal their true agenda," England said.

The report card specifically said SB 777 "prohibits curriculum that is discriminatorily biased against LGBT people and other protected groups."

"In fact, SB 777 will affect curriculum and public education programs. The proponents lied to lawmakers and to the public," England said.

"One website features curriculum programs for teachers to use in introducing 'homosexual history' to their students as young as 5," she said.

Among titles now being recommended for use in public schools is "A Family Counting Book," intended specifically for those students in pre-kindergarten who are yet learning to count, she noted.

The recommended resources address "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender issues that schools are encouraged to have in their collection. All of these are suitable for classroom and library use to address the prescribed learning outcomes … or any effort to make your school a (sic) affirming space for all students, staff, and families," according to the website.

Another "resource" is about "A 10-year-old [who] asks her lesbian grandmother a heartwarming question," "What's a lesbian?"

Others feature stories about a boy who makes a card for his mother "and her partner" for Mother's Day, and another for "pre-kindergarten" is a coloring book called "Beach Party with Alexis" which is described as "a super story with people of color and gay/lesbian parents."

For older children, such as those in fifth grade, there's a book called "Coping With … Your Sexual Orientation" and it is "especially designed for the public school system."

For those as young as age 3, there's "The Different Dragon," which "shows how the wonderful curiosity and care of a little boy, along with some help from one of his moms, leads to magical and unexpected places …"

There also are offered several elementary school "lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender" lesson plans, produced by the Buena Vista Lesbian and Gay Parents Group, among others.

Rounding out the multimedia offerings are videos such as "Different and the Same," a series of nine videos which is described as good, but not great because none of the videos specifically condemns "homophobia."

GLSEN also has produced another resource, "Tackling Gay Issues in Schools," substantiating the "rationale" for including such teachings in California classrooms.

WND already has reported how the Gay Straight Alliance has forwarded instructions to its California chapters with information on how to make sure homosexuality is taught in public schools, and its warning having students and parents simply "tolerate" homosexuality is not enough.

"Tolerance education is an important first step, but we need to push further," the instructions said. "Infuse LGBTQ curriculum into history, social science, and literature classes," is the organization's plan.

WND also has reported how thousands of requests for information about homeschooling and Christian school are bombarding organizations that support those efforts.

A spokeswoman for a ministry called Considering Homeschooling said she already has seen an overwhelming increase in requests for information about homeschooling.

As a result, spokeswoman Denise Kanter told WND that her group is sending out 5,000 DVD packages to churches around the state that include basic "how-to" information to provide parents a direction to turn when they choose to protect their children from the new school agenda.

Another group's website, Discover Christian Schools, has been getting almost 4,000 visits per day as parents seek alternatives, co-founder Harold Naylor Jr. said.

Besides the referendum being pursued by England's organization, WND also has reported on work by the non-profit Advocates for Faith and Freedom to file a lawsuit challenging a SB 777.

Calif. conservatives: Fight against school indoctrination law not over yet

The coalition of parents and pro-family groups trying to fight California's SB 777 -- a law passed in 2007 that they say indoctrinates public school students to the homosexual agenda -- has regrouped, launching a new effort against it after falling short in a ballot referendum petition drive last week.

Save Our Kids Campaign announced they were more than 80,000 signatures short at the January 10 deadline, collecting only 350,000 after 70 days. Spokesperson Karen England says that meant the attempt to delay SB 777 with a referendum ballot drive had failed. But the group, she explains, decided to take a different tact for a public vote to nullify the new law -- called an initiative -- that will allow them more time than before to collect signatures.

"The clock starts once we get the information back from the [California] Attorney General, and we have 150 days to collect the necessary 434,000 signatures as opposed to the less than 70 days we had to collect that amount," she says. If they qualify, either a November ballot or special election will bring state citizens to vote on their initiative. "Basically what we've done is file language that if the people agree and vote on it, if we get enough signatures, it will [return] the education code that SB 777 changed ... back to the old code prior to SB 777," says the campaign spokesperson.

England says despite the setback, and even though many pro-family supporters have chosen to withdraw children from public schools rather than join Save Our Kids Campaign, many families are encouraging the leaders to continue. "We were able to collect the most [signatures] that any drive has ever done, volunteer only, so we are very encouraged ... which is why we're carrying on," says England. "Our people want us to carry on [in] this fight ... and stand up for families."

SB 777 went into effect the next day after the referendum count was announced.

Now Brits ban
'mum' and 'dad'
New rules demand
sensitivity for 'gays'

Only months after a plan generated by California's legislature created a ban on the use of "mom" and "dad" in public schools, the Brits have announced a similar move, with orders for teachers to be more sensitive to homosexuality and not use terms like "mum and dad."

According to a report in the Mail online, a guidance plan has been released to tackle "anti-gay bullying" in schools in Britain. Written by the homosexual activist group Stonewall and announced by government Schools Secretary Ed Balls, the plan tells teachers not to make assumptions about a "mum and dad," perhaps instead referring to "parents."

And it directs teachers to introduce to students as young as age four the idea of same-sex couples in order to battle "homophobic" attitudes.

The California plan, which now is being targeted by an initiative effort that aims to take the issue to voters to have them overturn it, mandates a positive – and no other – portrayal of bisexuals, homosexuals, transgenders and others choosing alternative sexual lifestyles in public schools

Officials with Save Our Kids are working on the initiative to recall the law, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The new California law demands, "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall any school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic [including perceived gender.]"

Opponents say it does now ban anything that can be "perceived" as being discriminatory, up to and including references to "mom" and "dad" or "husband" and "wife."

"The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," said Meredith Turney, the legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute.

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB 777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

In Britain, the advisory notes that teachers should educate students about civil partnerships and homosexual adoptions, and that students who call classmates "gay" should be treated just like they are racists.

Teachers also should avoid any references such as "be a man" or accusations students are acting like a "bunch of women."

The plan warns such words lead to bullying of those "who do not conform to fixed ideas about gender."

Instead, homosexual staff members should be encouraged to "discuss" their "private lives."

"It might be time-consuming at first, but a consistent 'zero-tolerance' approach to such language is central to achieving progress and an environment in which being gay is not thought of as being inferior," the government report warns.

"Schools need to make it clear to pupils that homophobic comments are as serious as racist comments, and homophobic incidents are as serious as other forms of bullying."

"I am proud the Government and the department are being robust about this," Balls said. "It is our view that every school should have a clear policy on tackling all forms of bullying, including homophobic bullying."

Less than a year earlier, the Scottish National Health Service decided to become "LGBT-friendly" by issuing directives to workers to halt any and all uses of "father," "mother," "husband," "wife" etc....

Police already are cracking down on such offenses in British schools. According to a Lifesite News report, in 2006, a 14-year-old school girl was arrested by police and detained in a cell for three hours after she asked to be moved into a group of students who spoke English in class. And in 2007, a 10-year-old boy was questioned after the boy sent an email calling another boy "gay."

While British plans are to reach out to teach homosexuality to students as young as four, WND has reported that the California plan to establish SB777 as state law was supported by organizations recommending homosexual literature to children as young as age two.

A list of school resources, sponsored by a homosexual-advocacy group called Safe Schools Coalition, suggests that for those who are only two years old, there's "Felicia's Favorite Story," which tells how she was "adopted by her two mothers."

Other resources being promoted in light of California's adoption of SB 777 as state law include books authored by officials for Planned Parenthood and the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network.

One book, called "Tackling Gay Issues in School," is for kindergarten through grade 12, and offers a "rationale (for the inclusion of les/bi/gay/trans issues in school)." It features recommended "extracurricular" activities for classes.

For months while California lawmakers discussed Senate Bill 777, opponents worried about its usefulness in censoring public school curricula to include a pro-homosexual bias. Supporters, however, steadfastly maintained that it only clarified anti-discrimination laws already on the books. They still hold that stance, with recent statements from both Schwarzenegger's office and Equality California.

Sabrina Lockhart, a spokeswoman for the governor, insisted it is a "technical bill" intended to clarify anti-discriminations laws.

"It simply takes anti-discrimination language used in other areas of [state law] such as employment and puts that in the education code," she said.

And Ali Bay of Equality California told WND the new law "doesn't require that any specific curriculum be included in California's classrooms."

"All along, Capitol Resource Family Impact has maintained that the true agenda behind SB 777 is to infuse school curriculum with pro-homosexual, and other controversial lifestyles, propaganda. The proponents of the bill countered that this was not true and the law would merely 'streamline' anti-discrimination laws for schools. Based on our 20-year experience with the homosexual lobby, we know that a common tactic is to maintain innocence and then utilize vague language to push a radical agenda. We expected the same of SB 777 and we are already witnessing the same pattern," said Karen England, chief of the CRI.

WND already has reported how the Gay Straight Alliance has forwarded instructions to its California chapters with information on how to make sure homosexuality is taught in public schools, and its warning having students and parents simply "tolerate" homosexuality is not enough.

"Tolerance education is an important first step, but we need to push further," the instructions said. "Infuse LGBTQ curriculum into history, social science, and literature classes," is the organization's plan.

The British advisory also noted that such homosexual teachings need to permeate the education system.

'Mom,' 'dad,' banned; now 600,000 students could go
Alternatives offered to parents worried about 'repudiation' of Christian morals

Only months after a new state law effectively banned "mom" and "dad" from California schools, 600,000 students soon could be following them out the door because of what has been described as the "repudiation" of 2,000 years of Christian morality, according to leaders of a new campaign assembling education alternatives.

The campaign is called California Exodus and is being headed by Ron Gleason, pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Yorba Linda, who said while the country excels in social, economic, scientific and political accomplishments, it "gets low grades on the education of its children."

The issue is the state legislature's adoption of Senate Bill 777, which requires only positive portrayals of homosexual, bisexual, transgender and other alternative lifestyle choices.

"First, the law allowed public schools to voluntarily promote homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality. Then, the law required public schools to accept homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual teachers as role models for impressionable children. Now, the law has been changed to effectively require the positive portrayal of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality to six million children in California government-controlled schools," said Randy Thomasson, chief of the Campaign for Children and Families and one of those who originally called for an abandonment of public schools.

"To rescue their children, loving parents need to find an alternative to government schools, and every church needs to make it a priority to help parents be in charge of their children's education again," he said.

He has condemned public school districts as "no longer a safe emotional environment for children" under the new law, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, that will introduce children as young as kindergarten to the homosexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.

The law itself technically bans in any school texts, events, class or activities any discriminatory bias against those who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute, said.

There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however. Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values. These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," she said.

Karen England, chief of CRI, told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

Thomasson told WND private schools and homeschools will be the only sanctuaries left for California parents who love their children and want to protect their sexual innocence."

Members of the coalition include the Exodus Mandate, which advocates Christian education for children, as well as Eagle Forum, whose president, Phyllis Schlafly, said there has been a great campaign to reform public schools, but it's been unsuccessful.

"SB777 and the related legislation represent a repudiation of 2,000 years of Christian moral teaching on human sexuality, marriage, and the family. The result is that California's schools are now promoting behaviors and lifestyles that are physically and spiritually dangerous for children," she said.

Other participating groups include Considering Homeschooling Ministry, whose founder, Denise Kanter, said its resources can provide encouragement for parents who want a "safe Biblical home education" for their children, and Robert Simonds, of Citizens for Excellence in Education, who said now is the time for pastors and churches to rescue children. Still other groups include Star Parker with the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education, The Association of Classical Christian Schools, DEXIOS, Mission America, Alliance for the Separation of School and State and the Nehemiah Institute.

Bruce Shortt, the author of "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools" and a board member for Exodus Mandate, said Christians already are "numb" to the moral relativism in public schools.

"Now children will be told that their sexual orientation and gender are relative, too. No longer will children raised in these schools understand that God made us male and female with different, but complementary roles. Instead, children will be taught that sexual orientation and gender are merely a matter of personal choice," he said.

"Thus, children will be told that because there are many sexual orientations and gender identities, they simply have to reach their own conclusions about which sexual orientation and gender 'possibilities' are 'right for them.' Along with this will come the message that you really can't tell whether you like something unless you have tried it. The likely consequences of this for children, the institution of the family, our churches, and our culture are horrendous," he said.

Chaplain E. Ray Moore Jr., chief of the Exodus Mandate, said the program's goal is the put into place programs and resources that will "successfully extract 600,000 students from public schools this year."

He said that's about 10 percent of the California public school student population, and that would align with the percentage of the population that claims an affiliation with evangelical Christianity.

"Obviously we would hope all the children would go," he said.

"This is such an egregious offense against a Holy God, if the believers will stand up and act boldly, perhaps in God's mercy, we're seeking and asking for a Jericho type moment, that there will be some sudden shifting away from reforming public schools toward a Christian education," he said.

Shortt said the campaign plans to enlist help from pastors and churches as well as parents, with explanations that there are a multitude of options that are not expensive. Those include homeschooling coops, Internet-based curriculums that offer churches turn-key academic programs and others. DVD-based programs also are available, as well as satellite programs.

In many such scenarios, he said, "churches need only provide a place, someone to be there and make sure the children are safe and on task."

Prices would range from $600 to $1,800 per student per year, depending on the options, he said, significantly less than the thousands that tuition to a private Christian school could cost.

Shortt, along with several others, have submitted resolutions to the Southern Baptist Convention several times recommending home- and church-based school options.

Said Pastor Wiley Drake, at the time second vice president of the SBC's executive Committee, "Christians generally need to plan a Christian educational future for our children. … Anyone who thinks that a few hours of youth group and church will have more influence on a child's faith and worldview than 40 to50 hours a week of public school classes, activities and homework is simply not being honest with himself.

"Second, the open collaboration between homosexual activists and many school districts, together with the overall level of crime and violence in the public schools, makes the public schools an unsafe place for our children," he said.

Moore told WND that advisers have warned him of the high danger from California's plan.

"They will take and expose little children down in first, second grade, down in kindergarten, images of homosexual behavior and this kind of conduct," the adviser warned. "This has the potential to thoroughly corrupt several million children in California schools."

Officials with the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center already have outlined what they believe to be nondiscriminatory treatment in the school system.

"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," the groups advise. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you." The advocacy group also warns schools against bringing parents into any such discussion with students.

The California plan still is facing a court challenge on its constitutionality and a possible vote of the people of California if an initiative effort succeeds.

Judge orders homeschoolers
into government education
Court: Family's religious beliefs 'no
evidence' of 1st Amendment violation

A California court has ruled that several children in one homeschool family must be enrolled in a public school or "legally qualified" private school, and must attend, sending ripples of shock into the nation's homeschooling advocates as the family reviews its options for appeal.

The ruling came in a case brought against Jonathan and Mary Long over the education being provided to two of their eight children. They are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court, because they have homeschooled all of their children, the oldest now 29, because of various anti-Christian influences in California's public schools.

The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates.

"We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence,'" the court said in the case. "We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

The words echo the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

Specifically, the appeals court 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."

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

The judges ruled in the case involving the Longs 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 father, Jonathan Long, said the family is working on ways to appeal to the state Supreme Court, because he won't allow the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools, on which WND previously has reported, to indoctrinate his children.

"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.

"We're going to appeal. We have to. I don't want to put my children in a public school system that teaches ideologies I don't believe in," he said.

A spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association, one of the world's premiere homeschooling advocacy organizations, said the group's experts were analyzing the impact of the decision.

"It's a very unfortunate decision," he said.

Randy Thomasson, of Campaign for Families and Children, said under California law parents have the legal right to create a private school in their home and enroll their own children.

"Children belong to the parents, not to the state," he said. But he acknowledged that there's a great deal of misinformation about the status of homeschooling in California.

"For years the government school establishment has been lying to parents about the law. Just this week, a Los Angeles Unified school district employee lied to a mother who wanted to homeschool, telling her you must have a license, you must be credentialed and you must follow all the state curriculum. That's three lies in one sentence."

"Now we have judges going crazy and actively separating children from their parents."

A legal outline for parents' homeschool rights in California, published by Family Protection Ministries, confirmed Thomasson's description.

The state's legal options for home educators include establishing a private school in their home by filing a private school affidavit with state regulators or enrolling in private school satellite instruction programs or independent study programs, it said.

The Long family had been involved in such a program with Sunland Christian School, but the appeals court took the extraordinary step of banning the family from being involved in that organization any longer, since it was "willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education."

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.

It's because the California Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger worked together to establish Senate Bill 777 and Assembly Bill 394 as law, plans that institutionalize the promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and other alternative lifestyle choices.

"First, [California] law allowed public schools to voluntarily promote homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. Then, the law required public schools to accept homosexual, bisexual and transsexual teachers as role models for impressionable children. Now, the law has been changed to effectively require the positive portrayal of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to 6 million children in California government-controlled schools," said Thomasson.

Even insiders joined in the call for an abandonment of California's public districts. Veteran public school teacher Nadine Williams of Torrance said the sexual indoctrination laws have motivated her to keep her grandchildren out of the very public schools she used to support.

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 this year.

The new law itself technically bans in any school texts, events, class or activities any discriminatory bias against those who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute.

There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however. Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values. These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," she said.

Karen England, chief of CRI, told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

The California plan still is facing a court challenge on its constitutionality and a possible vote of the people of California if an initiative effort succeeds.

Parents of 166,000 students
could face criminal charges
'Breathtaking' decision on homeschooling
now moving to California Supreme Court

A "breathtaking" ruling from a California appeals court that could subject the parents of 166,000 students in the state to criminal sanctions will be taken to the state Supreme Court.

The announcement comes today from the Pacific Justice Institute, whose president, Brad Dacus, described the impact of the decision as "stunning."

"The scope of this decision by the appellate court is breathtaking," he said. "It not only attacks traditional homeschooling, but also calls into question homeschooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private school."

"If not reversed, the parents of the more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal sanctions," he said.

WND broke the story of the ruling that came in a case involving the family of Phillip and Mary Long of Los Angeles.

The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates. The lawyers appointed by the state were unhappy with a lower court's ruling that allowed the family to continue homeschooling, and specifically challenged that on appeal.

Justice H. Walt Croskey, whose opinion was joined by two other judges, then ordered: "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

The determination reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who ruled "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was one of a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

Officials with the school said they asked Pacific Justice to work on the Supreme Court appeal because the organization "has been in full compliance with the requirements of the law for more than 23 years."

"We've never been given an opportunity to represent our case in the Court of Appeal," Terry Neven, the president of the school, said. "Consequently, we are excited that PJI will represent us before the California Supreme Court so that the rights of homeschooling families are preserved."

The ruling, on which WND reported earlier, also issued a further warning of potential penalties for parents, this time in civil court.

It said under a section titled "Consequences of Parental Denial of a Legal Education," that "parents are subject to being ordered to enroll their children in an appropriate school or education program and provide proof of enrollment to the court, and willful failure to comply with such an order may be punished by a fine for civil contempt."

The school's website notes it offers a homeschool/independent study program that is accredited. It began in Los Angeles in 1986 with 24 students and now serves more than 3,000 families.

"While SCS is a Christian program, we enroll any family desiring assistance in teaching their own children at home. All we ask is that each family respect our values," the school said.

"The future of homeschooling (both public and private) in California requires the reversal of this decision," Neven said.

WND also has reported on concerns expressed by Roy Hanson, chief of the Private and Home Educators of California, about the way the ruling was issued.

"Normally in a dependency court action, they simply make a ruling that will affect that family. It accomplishes the same thing, meaning they would force [the family] to place their minor children into school," he said.

Such rulings on a variety of issues always are "done in the best interests of the child" and are not unusual, he said.

But in this case, the court said went much further, essentially concluding that the state provided no circumstance that allowed parents to school their own children at home.

Specifically, the appeals court affirmed, 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."

Further, the appeals ruling said, California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions allowed only for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

For homeschoolers in California, Hanson said, "there may be everywhere from concern to panic, just based on not knowing what the [ultimate] results will be."

The Home School Legal Defense Association, the world's premiere international advocacy organization for homeschoolers, emphasized that the ruling made no changes in California law regarding homeschooling at this time.

While the decision from the appeals court "has caused much concern among California homeschoolers," the HSLDA said, there are no immediate changes any homeschoolers need to address.

The Longs earlier told WND they also are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court because of the impact of the order for their family, as well as the precedent that could be construed.

They have disputed with local officials over homeschooling and other issues for years, they said. In at least two previous decisions, courts affirmed their right to homeschool, they said.

The current case was brought by two attorneys who had been appointed by the state to represent the family's minor children in a dependency case stemming from accusations of abuse that resulted from the parents' decision to impose discipline on their children with spankings. The case actually had been closed out by the court as resolved when the lawyers filed their special appeal.

Phillip Long has told WND he objects to the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools, on which WND previously has reported.

"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.

Ruling threatens custody of homeschool kids
'We hope common sense prevails, people wait for Supreme Court'

An attorney working on an appeal to the California Supreme Court of a ruling declaring homeschooling by parents illegal says the threat to such families is serious and immediate, especially if there has been a contentious previous relationship with authorities.

Ultimately, Brad Dacus, chief of the Pacific Justice Institute, told WND the ruling involving a Los Angeles family might even be used by "overzealous" school district officials and social workers to try to remove a child from a family.

"We are hoping enough common sense prevails for everyone to wait and see how this plays out before the state Supreme Court," he said. But in California, such appellate level rulings are binding on lower courts when they are issued, he said.

The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates. The lawyers appointed by the state were unhappy with a lower court's ruling that allowed the family to continue homeschooling and challenged it on appeal.

Justice H. Walt Croskey, whose opinion was joined by two other judges, then ordered: "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

"The question [now] is whether it's going to be enforced," said Dacus, who is working on the state Supreme Court appeal on behalf of the school in which the Los Angeles family's children were registered. "It would be a criminal infraction less than a misdemeanor involving penalties of fines or community service."

But he said that's minor. In addition to the criminal penalties, the California legislature has adopted "education neglect" rules that could be used "as grounds for the removal of a child from a family." Such cases usually are handled in juvenile court and by social services agencies.

"We are advising our homeschoolers to continue, but to keep both eyes open," he told WND.

He said he doesn't expect an immediate massive filing of cases against homeschooling parents, but the danger remains.

"I've been in court representing homeschoolers on such charges," he said. "It's not abstract. There are school districts and social workers who are overzealous."

Should such cases start developing, he said, there are many families who simply will leave the state.

"I've talked to a number of families who say if this is enforced, they are going to another state where their freedom is respected," he said.

The estimate of 166,000 children in such homeschool situations that he provided earlier, he said, was a tabulation of those children only who are being homeschooled under state procedures.

"That's a conservative number. The actual number could be as high as a million. Many are completely under the radar for fear something like this could happen," he said.

He told WND he's assembling an e-mail list on his institute's website in order to provide immediate updates to those who may be affected.

WND broke the story of the ruling against Phillip and Mary Long of Los Angeles.

It reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who ruled "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

Officials with the school said they asked Pacific Justice to work on the Supreme Court appeal because the organization "has been in full compliance with the requirements of the law for more than 23 years."

"We've never been given an opportunity to represent our case in the Court of Appeal," Terry Neven, the president of the school, said. "Consequently, we are excited that PJI will represent us before the California Supreme Court so that the rights of homeschooling families are preserved."

The ruling itself raised warnings of the potential penalties, both criminal and civil, for parents. It said under a section titled "Consequences of Parental Denial of a Legal Education" that "parents are subject to being ordered to enroll their children in an appropriate school or education program and provide proof of enrollment to the court, and willful failure to comply with such an order may be punished by a fine for civil contempt."

The school's website notes it offers a homeschool/independent study program that is accredited. It began in Los Angeles in 1986 with 24 students and now serves more than 3,000 families.

"The future of homeschooling (both public and private) in California requires the reversal of this decision," Neven said.

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions allowed only for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught." Many homeschool families in California work either through a private school such as Sunland, or set up their own private school in their home, registering their children.

The Longs earlier told WND they also are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court because of the impact of the order for their family, as well as the precedent that could be construed.

Phillip Long has told WND he objects to the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools, on which WND previously has reported.

"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.

Calif. home schoolers advised to ignore court ruling ... for now

Conservative activist Randy Thomasson is urging a home-schooling family in California not to appeal a state appellate court ruling that declares home schooling illegal. At the same time, he is urging home-schooling families in the Golden State to ignore the ruling.

The controversial ruling held that parents who do not comply with school enrollment laws "may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program." The ruling overturns a lower-court decision that argued "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

The case involves a family that had their children enrolled in a private home-schooling program called Sunland Christian School. Randy Thomasson with the Campaign for California Families says although it is bad ruling that may encourage home-schooling families to leave the state, they should not do so.

"This is a fire-breathing dragon, a roaring lion -- but you know what? It doesn't have to be paid attention to," Thomasson remarks. "This has no statewide application. The state law still says that a child who is enrolled in a full-time private school with the teacher being capable of teaching is enough -- and that is the definition of home schooling."

Thomasson cautions the ruling pertains to only one family and is not an order for all home-schooling families to obey. But he has obvious concerns for the family involved.

"Appealing [the ruling] could produce a statewide ruling that has bad and stronger effect," the family advocate suggests. "Not appealing could mean that these parents are the sacrificial lamb, but everyone else is protected. So it's going to be a hard decision for the parents -- and I hope that they have much better legal counsel at this point than even before."

Thomasson says "whether homeschooling is done above ground or underground, it's still the best thing for children."

Arnold blasts homeschool ruling, says it punishes families

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today blasted a court ruling that endangered homeschooling and homeschoolers statewide.

"Every California child deserves a quality education and parents should have the right to decide what's best for their children," the governor said in a prepared statement. "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education."

The comments came after a state appellate court ruling essentially concluded California state law allows no option for parents to school their children at home. Homeschool and legal experts have expressed concern that the move puts all of the parents of the estimated 166,000 homeschooled children in the state at risk of both criminal and civil penalties.

"This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts and if the courts don't protect parents' rights then, as elected officials, we will," he said.

The governor's office said the ruling from the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles concluded "all children ages 6 to 18 must attend public or private school full-time until graduation from high school or be tutored at home by a credentialed teacher."

The ruling resulted from a case involving the family of Phillip and Mary Long, who earlier described for WND their concerns with the public school district's advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles and the promotion of a faith in evolution.

(Story continues below)

"The parent-child relationship existed long before any government and makes it the responsibility of the parent to educate the child," Long told California reporters today. He said the responsibility includes issues such as protecting children from things that are hazardous "emotionally" as well as physically.

But the court had concluded that state law doesn't allow children to be taught by their parents in their homes, a result achieved by many families by having the parents register as a private school, which exempts them from the requirement of having credentialed faculty.

WND earlier reported Brad Dacus, chief of the Pacific Justice Institute, is planning an appeal to the state Supreme Court on behalf of the school in which the Long children were enrolled.

He said his concern is that the ruling might be used by "overzealous" school district officials and social workers to try to remove a child from a family.

"We are hoping enough common sense prevails for everyone to wait and see how this plays out before the state Supreme Court," he said. But in California, such appellate level rulings are binding on lower courts when they are issued, he said.

The Los Angeles court decision granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates. The lawyers appointed by the state were unhappy with a lower court's ruling that allowed the family to continue homeschooling and challenged it on appeal.

Justice H. Walt Croskey, whose opinion was joined by two other judges, then ordered: "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

"The question [now] is whether it's going to be enforced," said Dacus. He said criminal infractions could involve fines or community service, and civil penalties could involve parental counseling.

But he said the California legislature has adopted "education neglect" rules that could be used "as grounds for the removal of a child from a family." Such cases usually are handled in juvenile court and by social services agencies.

"We are advising our homeschoolers to continue, but to keep both eyes open," he told WND.

The estimate of 166,000 children in such homeschool situations that he provided earlier, he said, was a tabulation of those children only who are being homeschooled under state procedures.

"That's a conservative number. The actual number could be as high as a million. Many are completely under the radar for fear something like this could happen," he said.

He told WND he's assembling an e-mail list on his institute's website in order to provide immediate updates to those who may be affected.

Others were joining in the criticism, too.

James Dobson, founder of the Focus on the Family powerhouse Christian publisher, called it "an imperious assault on the rights of parents."

"How dare these judges have the audacity to label tens of thousands of parents criminals – the equivalent of drug dealers or pickpockets – because they want to raise and educate their children according to their deeply held values?" he said.

"The case before them involved one couple – the ruling should have been confined to that one couple, not used to punish an entire class of people, the vast majority of them religious conservatives," he said.

The Home School Legal Defense Association said it was setting up a petition effort to have the case ruling modified or limited in its impact.

The organization warned California is set to become the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their children at home.

"This is an all-out assault on the family," Dobson continued, "and it must be met with a concerted effort to defend parents and their children."

Candi Cushman, an education analyst for Focus, said the timing was horrible, because of new statutes facing school children in California, an issue which WND previously has reported.

"This takes away recourse from thousands of parents in California who want to escape the government-enforced indoctrination in public schools," she said. "The Legislature recently passed a law that basically ensures that students get a one-sided, positive portrayal of homosexuality and same-sex 'marriage.'"

WND broke the story of the ruling, which reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who said "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

Officials with the school said they asked Pacific Justice to work on the Supreme Court appeal because the organization "has been in full compliance with the requirements of the law for more than 23 years."

"We've never been given an opportunity to represent our case in the Court of Appeal," Terry Neven, the president of the school, said. "Consequently, we are excited that PJI will represent us before the California Supreme Court so that the rights of homeschooling families are preserved."

The Longs earlier told WND they also are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court because of the impact of the order for their family, as well as the precedent that could be construed.

2nd petition opposes homeschooling ban
Legal team warns of possible fines, parenting classes, loss of custody

A second petition has been launched in opposition to a California appeals court's ruling that is being interpreted to ban homeschooling in the state, this one an appeal to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state legislature, who already have expressed concern over the court's activism.

The new petition was announced by the Pacific Justice Institute, which earlier said it would be working on an appeal of the Los Angeles ruling on behalf of the school that was involved in the case by supervising the family's independent study work.

PJI said its petition is being assembled at the website PetitionsToday.org to let state officials know of the disaster that could face homeschooling parents if nothing is changed.

This week WND reported on an announcement from Capitol Resource Institute that California Assemblyman Joel Anderson had introduced a resolution calling on the California Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's decision.

The proposal notes that homeschoolers in California now are now "responsible positions as parents, as students in and graduates of colleges and universities, in the workplace, and as citizens in society at large. …"

It also notes "the United States Supreme Court has ruled that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to direct the education and upbringing of their children. …"

"On Feb. 28, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Appellate District in Los Angeles issued an opinion in the case of In Re: Rachel L. holding that homeschooling without a teaching credential is not legal… [and that] denies California parents' primary responsibility and right to determine the best place and manner of their own children's education," the resolution says.

WND also reported when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger blasted the ruling.

"This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts, and if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then, as elected officials, we will," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education."

California state Supt. of Public Instruction O'Connell also added his voice to those concerned about the ruling.

"The California Department of Education policy will not change in any way as a result of this ruling," he said. "Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state."

The Home School Legal Defense Association earlier launched a petition seeking to have the legal opinion "de-published," which is a process that would prevent it from being used as a widespread precedent for other homeschooling families.

Pacific Justice is representing Sunland Christian School, which has been working with the family's children in a study program, on an appeal.

The school issued a statement today that when the appeal is filed formally, the move will put the court's ruling on a suspended status until the appeal process is finished.

"The family [in the case] faced juvenile court issues, which were resolved," the school said, "the DCS case was closed, and the judge resolved the family could continue to homeschool. However, the children's court appointed attorneys did not like the decision and appealed. … In the California Court of Appeals, SCS was never given an opportunity to represent itself and address who we are and how we function. Much of the information the court used to render this current decision was on incomplete and inaccurate information."

The school said it would continue to serve its families, and besides the PJI effort, other groups apparently are working on a rehearing at the appellate level, a hearing at the state Supreme court, and filing for the depublishing.

"Are you confused?" the school asked. "Let's look at the facts." It said:

* This ruling sets precedent and interprets the law for everyone in California in its current status. It is not a ruling just for the family involved.

* At this moment, there is no provision in the California Constitution to allow parents a constitutional right to direct their children’s education.

* California Educational statutes do not currently define homeschooling.

* California homeschoolers have been educating their children under the current laws for the past 27+ years without any major conflict.

* This ruling effects both private homeschoolers and public charter home school programs, distant learning and independent study programs.

* Filing for an appeal (which SCS’s legal team, Pacific Justice, will be doing) puts in suspension the ruling until the appeal is denied or heard (possible 4 months to 5 years). During this time no homeschool family will be challenged in a court of law with this ruling.

It is creating panic among homeschoolers because if left unchanged, it soon could be cited against other families, the school said.

"Don't panic," the school said. "Help those who feel distraught and afraid, to be at peace and have faith for a favorable outcome. While we are appealing this ruling, it won’t be used in court against homeschoolers. Continue to homeschool effectively, caring about your family, children, their growth and development and their academic instruction," the school said.

Pacific Justice chief Brad Dacus promised, "I will leave no stone unturned in an effort to reverse this heinous attack on parental rights, and that includes asking for your swift and immediate help."

He said the petition allows thousands of people to join together in a voice to the government.

"The scope of the February 28 decision by the appellate court is stunning in its disregard for your Constitutional rights. Under the ruling, issued by Justice H. Walter Croskey and two other members of the appellate panel, parents like you could be subject to criminal sanctions, which could include the paying of fines and the completion of state-mandated parent education classes and counseling programs.

"But the potential threat is much worse! If this decision is upheld, the way will be paved for the courts to remove children from the homes of non-compliant parents on the grounds of 'educational neglect,'" he said.

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, said the ruling was disturbing.

"The ruling is so alarming because the state appeals court judges actually wrote that 'parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children.' The judges said that parents without teaching credentials cannot teach. This ruling is a radical slam against homeschooling," his organization said.

However, Thomasson also said parents should not do anything extreme.

"Despite this intolerant, anti-parent ruling, California homeschoolers must not panic.… California homeschooling families should continue homeschooling, and parents who are considering homeschooling as a way to exit the immoral government school system should continue with their plans," he said.

The family in the case, Phillip and Mary Long, previously told WND they were reviewing their options for an appeal themselves but had not confirmed specifics yet.

There are an estimated 166,000 children in formalized homeschool situations in California, but Dacus estimated there are others "under the radar" that would be several times that number.

The Longs previously told WND of their concerns with the public school district's advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles and promotion of the theory of evolution.

"The parent-child relationship existed long before any government and makes it the responsibility of the parent to educate the child," Phillip Long told California reporters.

He said the responsibility includes protecting children from things that are hazardous "emotionally" as well as physically.

WND broke the story of the ruling, which reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who said "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

Congress outraged by California homeschool case
'There are a variety of things being considered'

Members of Congress privately are infuriated and worried over a California appeals court ruling that essentially banned homeschooling in the state, where at least 166,000 students are being educated that way, according to a homeschooling expert who has met with them.

"There's a lot of concern and outrage from members of Congress," Michael Farris, the chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, told WND today, shortly after he met with several members on this issue.

"There's a variety of things being considered," he said. "There could be a brief by members filed in the appellate court in support of parental rights. There could be a resolution from Congress there."

Plans still were being developed, he said. But the ultimate resolution, Farris suggested, would be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizing the rights and responsibilities of parents to direct their own children's education.

That effort already was under way under the banner of Parental Rights.

The website notes the campaign exists "to secure a constitutional amendment that defends the rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. … We believe that no government, regardless of how well-intentioned it might be, can replace the love and nurture of a parent in the life of a child."

The campaign said, "Without secured parental rights, the vital child-parent relationship is exposed to the imminent danger posed by anti-parent judges within the federal courts, as well as to the risks of international law which seeks to undermine the parental role."

The California case involved the family of Phillip and Mary Long, and stemmed from a juvenile proceeding. That case already had been closed by the court when court-appointed attorneys for their children appealed specifically trying to have homeschooling banned, and the ruling from the Court of Appeal for the 2nd Appellate District in Los Angeles essentially met their desires.

The opinion, by H. Walt Croskey, holds that homeschooling simply is not a legal option in California. The HSLDA said if the opinion stands, California would have the most regressive law in the nation.

Spokesman Allan Carlson of the The World Congress of Families said that would put California on the same standard as Germany and Brazil, two other governments that ban homeschooling.

The court ruling said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

Those words echoed the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

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," the court said.

The family told WND it was working on its options for appeal, but they remained indefinite. But there are other developments already.

* Assemblyman Joel Anderson has proposed a resolution in the state Legislature in California that calls for the Croskey ruling to be overturned.

* Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then, as elected officials, we will."

* California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell said, "Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state."

* The HSLDA said it would coordinate a petition seeking to have the legal opinion "de-published," which is a process that would prevent it from being used as a widespread precedent for other homeschooling families.

* Another petition appeals to Schwarzenegger and the state legislature and is being run by the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working with the website PetitionsToday.org.

* Yet another petition also is under way, at the ReverseTheRuling.com website. That organization offers information for homeschoolers who want to follow the California case, because of that state's influence throughout the nation. It was assembled by the organization Learning By Grace, an outreach dedicated to providing parents with innovative online Christian homeschool materials.

"We have seen God’s hand of protection on the homeschooling movement for the 25 years we have been working together for this cause. There is no reason to begin to doubt God now," Farris said.

Pacific Justice also is representing Sunland Christian School, which has been working with the family's children in a study program, on an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"Don't panic," the school said in a statement. "Help those who feel distraught and afraid, to be at peace and have faith for a favorable outcome. While we are appealing this ruling, it won’t be used in court against homeschoolers. Continue to homeschool effectively, caring about your family, children, their growth and development and their academic instruction," the school said.

Pacific Justice chief Brad Dacus promised, "I will leave no stone unturned in an effort to reverse this heinous attack on parental rights, and that includes asking for your swift and immediate help."

The Longs previously told WND of their concerns with the public school district's advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles and promotion of the theory of evolution.

"The parent-child relationship existed long before any government and makes it the responsibility of the parent to educate the child," Phillip Long told California reporters.

He said the responsibility includes protecting children from things that are hazardous "emotionally" as well as physically.

Croskey's ruling reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who said "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

Plan pushes for last step in eliminating marriage
Would extend benefits of commitment to any duo

A San Francisco plan that could be the last step needed to eliminate marriage from society is being advanced in the California State Senate, with SB 1066 by Sen. Carole Migden, a Democrat, gaining approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"This bill functionally abolishes marriage," warned Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. "Why get married, since you can get all the 'goodies' of marriage without the commitment of marriage?"

The state legislature, which earlier approved a marriage-by-another-name plan for same-sex couples despite a decision by voters that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman, now is moving beyond even that, pro-family organizations say.

The plan, according to Concerned Women for America of California, "extends California domestic partnerships to any two persons who share a common residence and are over 18. This means that all marriage benefits would be given to mere roommates…"

"The California legislature has already given away marriage benefits to same-sex couples without the consent of the people by passing existing domestic partnership laws," the group said. "Migden asserts that SB 1066 is 'a very practical expansion that absolutely reflects the new family unit today.'"

But, the group said, instead "it is an expensive experiment with California's children, who are at greater risk of abuse, behavioral problems and poor academic performance in cohabitating situations."

The California Family Council concluded such a plan would make marriage "virtually meaningless."

And Thomasson is urging pro-family residents to "pick up the phone and oppose SB 1066."

"This California bill … would award EVERY right and benefit of marriage between a husband and wife … to a man and a woman who are shacking up and outright refuse to marry," he said.

He said the state's family code already grants such rights to same-sex duos, despite the 2-1 vote of Californians in 2000 on Proposition 22 that defined marriage as involving only one man and one woman, a result that was affirmed by the 1st District Court of Appeals in San Francisco earlier.

"Migden, a San Francisco Democrat, won't admit that SB 1066 rewards cohabitants for not getting married," Thomasson said in a statement. "Here's what Migden told Associated Press."

"Families are changing. Young people are often having children and not rushing to marry. Straight couples and families should have the same rights as gay couples and families," she told the wire service, Thomasson said.

"If SB 1066 becomes law, young couples will go to county government offices and be asked whether they would like a marriage license or a 'domestic partnership.' Word will get around that the domestic partnership is 'easier.' Why get married…?" Thomasson said.

This, he said, is the critical issue behind the VoteYesMarriage campaign, which is proposing a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as involving only one man and one woman.

Those participating in the agenda to radicalize marriage in California by including same-sex couples have been working on it since the 2000 vote affirmed traditional family values.

The battle reached a peak in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom arbitrarily issued same-sex marriage licenses.

The courts eventually concluded he didn't have the power to create his own definition of marriage and the licenses issued to same-sex duos during that time were invalidated. However, several participants in the campaign sued, and that case challenging the state's marriage laws recently was argued before the state Supreme Court.

Six different cases stemming from the San Francisco situation were consolidated on the appeal, and Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University's School of Law, was one of those arguing on behalf of traditional marriage.

Staver said the fundamental constitutional right to marry includes rights and obligations that cannot be eliminated, because they come from the inherent nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"Marriage is more than a private relationship between two people who love each other," he said. "While it is a private relationship, marriage serves a public purpose to preserve society's interest in procreation and to provide the optimal environment for children."

Petition seeks rehearing in homeschooling case
Law firm says state statutes support parents teaching their own children

A California appeals court that issued a ruling banning homeschooling in the state failed to recognize existing state law, according to a lawyer who filed court documents today.

The petition for rehearing before the state's 2nd Appellate District Division Three court in the case involving the family of Phillip and Mary Long was filed by Gary Kreep, of the United States Justice Foundation.

The appeals court earlier concluded that there is no provision in California law for parents who want to teach their own children at home, but the petition notes that is supported numerous places in existing California law already.

The opinion, delivered just two weeks ago, has generated a shockwave through homeschooling circles in the United States. Just a day earlier, WND reported that Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said he had met with several members of Congress, and they expressed "a lot of concern and outrage" over the issue.

He said although plans still were being developed, it was possible members of Congress could seek to intervene in the case.

The California case stemmed from the family's juvenile proceeding. That case already had been closed by the court when court-appointed attorneys for their children appealed specifically trying to have homeschooling banned, and the ruling from Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey granted their wishes.

The court ruling said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

Those words echoed the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

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," the court said.

In his petition for rehearing, however, Kreep said he suggested the appellate decision had not recognized a number of references in California law addressing parents who want to teach their children at home.

And he said the opinion relied on precedents that have since been rejected in newer court rulings.

The USJF specifically is appealing on behalf of the father, since the mother still was represented by court-appoint lawyers, officials said.

The law firm said a review of all pertinent statutes supports the idea of parents homeschooling their children.

Farris said one logical solution would be an amendment to the U.S. Constitutional specifically recognizing parental rights. That effort already is under way under the banner of Parental Rights.

The website notes the campaign exists "to secure a constitutional amendment that defends the rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. … We believe that no government, regardless of how well-intentioned it might be, can replace the love and nurture of a parent in the life of a child."

Spokesman Allan Carlson of the The World Congress of Families told WND earlier if California's ban would be allowed to stand, the state would be on par with Germany and Brazil, two other governments that ban homeschooling.

In significant developments already.

* Assemblyman Joel Anderson has proposed a resolution in the state Legislature in California that calls for the Croskey ruling to be overturned.

* Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then, as elected officials, we will."

* California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell said, "Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state."

* The HSLDA said it would coordinate a petition seeking to have the legal opinion "de-published," which is a process that would prevent it from being used as a widespread precedent for other homeschooling families.

* Another petition appeals to Schwarzenegger and the state legislature and is being run by the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working with the website PetitionsToday.org.

* Yet another petition also is under way, at the ReverseTheRuling.com website. That organization offers information for homeschoolers who want to follow the California case, because of that state's influence throughout the nation. It was assembled by the organization Learning By Grace, an outreach dedicated to providing parents with innovative online Christian homeschool materials.

"We have seen God’s hand of protection on the homeschooling movement for the 25 years we have been working together for this cause. There is no reason to begin to doubt God now," Farris said.

Pacific Justice also is representing Sunland Christian School, which has been working with the family's children in a study program, on an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"Don't panic," the school said in a statement. "Help those who feel distraught and afraid, to be at peace and have faith for a favorable outcome. While we are appealing this ruling, it won't be used in court against homeschoolers. Continue to homeschool effectively, caring about your family, children, their growth and development and their academic instruction," the school said.

The Longs previously told WND of their concerns with the public school district's advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles and promotion of the theory of evolution.

"The parent-child relationship existed long before any government and makes it the responsibility of the parent to educate the child," Phillip Long told California reporters.

He said the responsibility includes protecting children from things that are hazardous "emotionally" as well as physically.

Croskey's ruling reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who said "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

The Private and Home Educators of California organization is posting a list of updates on the situation, and also a legal fact sheet for those who want to homeschool in California.

Students have their say about California homeschooling
'Court cannot make it illegal, that's legislature's job. Sheesh!'

Thousands of students from across the nation have weighed into the arguments over the recent court ruling in California that announced there was no legal provision to allowing homeschooling in the state.

"The court cannot 'make' something illegal – that's the legislature's job. Sheesh!" wrote Jon Chi Lou, of Heritage Christian High School. And Hye-Sung F. Gehring added, "This is ridiculous. California is retarded. Always has been."

The comments are just two from the many pages posted on The Wall, a comment section of a Facebook group called Make Homeschooling Legal in California. The forum-type operation on the social networking site was launched by a 16-year-old from Virginia, Sera Woodruff, who told WND she wanted to let people her own age know about the decision and its possible impacts.

The California case stemmed from the family's juvenile proceeding. That case already had been closed by the court when court-appointed attorneys for their children appealed specifically trying to have homeschooling banned, and the ruling from Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey granted their wishes.

The court ruling said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

Those words echoed the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

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," the court said.

The decision sent shockwaves through the homeschooling community in the United States, and statements denouncing it already have been issued by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell.

Several petitions also have been assembled to convey they unhappiness the court decision left behind, and one of those is being organized by the Home School Legal Defense Association, where Sera works while not pursuing her advanced homeschool classes including Arabic.

Her efforts are not connected to HSLDA, but she said she wanted to introduce the issue to the networking site because, "I realized there were a lot of teenagers who weren't even aware" of the issue.

To date, the group has nearly 3,100 members and it's growing.

"I really wanted to heighten awareness, so I've put up a lot of links, to Gov. Schwarzenegger's statement," and others, she told WND.

"Please sign this petition to legalize homeschooling in California," the group introduction says, including the link to HSLDA..

Quoting from the HSLDA website, the forum continues: "The court could have restricted its decision to the facts before it, but instead, it issued a broad ruling that effectively outlaws home education in California. The court also certified its decision for publication, which means that the decision can now be cited as legal authority by all other courts in California."

The HSLDA effort will be a formal petition to the California Supreme Court to "depublish" the opinion, which would limit its impact.

There has been a petition for rehearing submitted on behalf of the family to the 2nd Appellate District Division Three court that generated the opinion in the case of the family of Phillip and Mary Long by Gary Kreep, of the United States Justice Foundation.

The state legislature also has given signs it could get involved, and officials have confirmed that several members of Congress are expressing a high level of concern over the result.

A Facebook group posting confirmed just a few days ago that the petition signature total already has surpassed 100,000. "Keep spreading the word!" the group site urged.

Also posted are links to the ruling itself as well as a commentary on homeschooling by James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family Christian publishing powerhouse, and other locations with information.

"The reality is that the Constitution did not specifically state that the parent had the right to choose their child's educational form because they didn't think they had to," wrote Heidi Elizabeth Van Loenen. "The intention was that such rights were already the people's and should not have to be dictated by the government: only if the right was being infringed upon did it need to become law by stating it in an amendment."

"I think it is time to send all our judges back to school to relearn the Constitution and its meaning," she continued.

"There is no 'best way' for folks to be schooled. It ultimately should come down to what's best for the person in question, and that will be different for everyone on a case-by-case basis," added Jeremy Closs.

Such statements of support from Schwarzenegger and O'Connell are "good to hear, but it doesn't fix the court decision," Susan Beatty, co-founder of the Christian Home Educators Association of California, told the Los Angeles Times.

cont'd

The Facebook forum is open, and even opponents of homeschooling are welcome to vent. But Katrina Huang of San Diego tried to explain her position in support of homeschooling.

"Most of my friends think that my parents are overprotective creeps who can't keep their noses out of my life. I believe that parents are to represent God. I'm not saying they're perfect, but they represent Him as well as they can. We, to some extent, view God as we view our parents. Last I checked, God doesn't only monitor us sometimes. He's checking on us all the time. God's the ultimate 'over-protective parent,' eh?

"My mom's always been able to spend one on one time with me to work through whatever I don't understand. Instead of viewing my parents as my parents, I see them as my friends and helpers. They're my mentors. I can't understand what the government or anyone else has against that," she said.

The HSLDA also is offering a suggestion to consider an amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically recognizing parental rights. That effort already is under way under the banner of Parental Rights.

Spokesman Allan Carlson of the The World Congress of Families told WND earlier if California's ban would be allowed to stand, the state would be on par with Germany and Brazil, two other governments that ban homeschooling.

In other significant developments already.

* Assemblyman Joel Anderson has proposed a resolution in the state Legislature in California that calls for the Croskey ruling to be overturned.

* Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then, as elected officials, we will."

* California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell said, "Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state."

* A separate petition appeals to Schwarzenegger and the state legislature and is being run by the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working with the website PetitionsToday.org.

* And yet another petition also is under way, at the ReverseTheRuling.com website. That organization offers information for homeschoolers who want to follow the California case, because of that state's influence throughout the nation. It was assembled by the organization Learning By Grace, an outreach dedicated to providing parents with innovative online Christian homeschool materials.

Pacific Justice also is representing Sunland Christian School, which has been working with the family's children in a study program, on an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The Longs previously told WND of their concerns with the public school district's advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles and promotion of the theory of evolution.

"The parent-child relationship existed long before any government and makes it the responsibility of the parent to educate the child," Phillip Long told California reporters.

He said the responsibility includes protecting children from things that are hazardous "emotionally" as well as physically.

Croskey's ruling reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who said "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

The Private and Home Educators of California organization is posting a list of updates on the situation, and also a legal fact sheet for those who want to homeschool in California.

California homeschooling being given 2nd chance
Court grants rehearing, so earlier ban vacated

A California court order that essentially banned homeschooling in the state has been vacated and the judges who issued the ruling will hear further arguments on the status of parents who want to teach their own children.

WND broke the story in February about an order from an appeals court in Los Angeles against the family of Phillip and Mary Long.

The Longs say they have homeschooled because of an anti-Christian bias in public schools. The ruling stemmed from a juvenile proceeding that already had been closed by the court when court-appointed attorneys for their children appealed, specifically attempting to ban homeschooling. The ruling from Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey granted the attorneys' wishes.

The court ruling said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence. … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

The decision sent shock waves through the homeschooling community in the United States, and a variety of groups jumped into action, including the Home School Legal Defense Association, which worked with other groups on a petition for rehearing before the same court.

The petition actually was submitted by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation to the 2nd Appellate District Division on behalf of the Longs.

In an announcement today, the HSLDA said the petition had been granted.

"The California Court of Appeal granted a motion for rehearing in the In re Rachel L. case – the controversial decision which purported to ban all homeschooling in that state unless the parents held a teaching license qualifying them to teach in public schools," the HSLDA said in a statement.

"The automatic effect of granting this motion is that the prior opinion is vacated and is no longer binding on any one, including the parties in the case," HSLDA said.

"The Court of Appeal has solicited a number of public school establishment organizations to submit amicus briefs including the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Department of Education, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and three California teacher unions. The court also granted permission to Sunland Christian School to file an amicus brief. The order also indicates that it will consider amicus applications from other groups," HSLDA said.

"Home School Legal Defense Association will seek permission to file such an amicus brief and will coordinate efforts with a number of organizations interest[ed] in filing briefs to support the right of parents to homeschool their children in California," the group said.

"This is a great first step," noted Michael Farris, chairman of HSLDA. "We are very glad that this case will be reheard and that this opinion has been vacated, but there is no guarantee as to what the ultimate outcome will be. This case remains our top priority."

A long list of homeschool groups working in the state earlier had released a statement on the issue that could affect 200,000 students. Joining were the California Homeschool Network, Christian Home Educators Association of California, Private and Home Educators of California and HomeSchool Association of California.

"We are united in the goal of protecting the right of parents to teach their children private at home without additional governmental interference," the statement said. "We believe that children deserve to learn in the environment that best meets their individual needs. We support the right of parents to direct their children's education including, if they desire, teaching their children privately at home apart from any public school program and without a teaching credential."

The groups also described the appeals court ruling as "excessively broad" and concluded the previously interpretation of state law, under which parents are allowed to set up a private school and teach their own children in their own homes, is accurate.

The HSLDA earlier had sought to have the court "de-publish" the opinion, which also would limited its impact. But the ruling has attracted some attention from the highest levels.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the president has supported homeschoolers in the past.

"I'm sure it [the ruling] will probably be appealed, and then we'll see how it goes from there," she said.

Among the other responses have been:

* Assemblyman Joel Anderson has proposed a resolution in the California Legislature that calls for the Croskey ruling to be overturned.

* Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then, as elected officials, we will."

* California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell said, "Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state."

* A separate petition appeals to Schwarzenegger and the Legislature is being run by the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working with the website PetitionsToday.org.

* And yet another petition also is under way, at the ReverseTheRuling.com website. That organization offers information for homeschoolers who want to follow the California case, because of that state's influence throughout the nation. It was assembled by the organization Learning By Grace, an outreach dedicated to providing parents with innovative online Christian homeschool materials.

Even students are getting their say.

"The court cannot 'make' something illegal – that's the legislature's job. Sheesh!" wrote Jon Chi Lou, of Heritage Christian High School.

And Hye-Sung F. Gehring added, "This is ridiculous. California is retarded. Always has been."

The HSLDA also is suggesting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically recognizing parental rights. That effort already is under way under the banner of Parental Rights.

Pacific Justice also is representing Sunland Christian School, which has been working with the family's children in a study program, on an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Teachers union to decide fate of homeschooling?
Court solicits input from educators' labor groups

A California court has asked a teachers' union to provide its opinion on homeschooling, and the resulting decision will impact the rights of parents in the state to determine their own children's education.

As WND reported one day ago, the California Court of Appeal for the 2nd Appellate District granted a petition for rehearing in a juvenile case involving the family of Phillip and Mary Long.

The previous decision determined parents have neither statutory nor constitutional authority to school their children, causing a backlash of surprise and horror from homeschooling advocates across the nation, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The new order confirms the court is expanding its decision far beyond a single juvenile case to include an assessment of all state laws and opinions regarding homeschooling, as well as an evaluation of whether the state provisions follow the U.S. Constitution.

Additionally, the court asked the state's superintendent of public instruction, the California State Board of Education, the Los Angeles school district, the California Teachers Association and the Los Angeles teachers' union for their opinions on homeschooling.

The court denied a request by Sunland Christian School, the independent program in which the Long children were enrolled, to participate directly in the case.

Instead, it granted that school permission to file an amicus brief on the issues. Other homeschooling interests were invited to file such briefs, and the court said they would be considered.

Oral arguments are scheduled in June.

The court's opinion said the homeschooling case arose from a dependency case brought in juvenile court. In the process, attorneys assigned by the court to the family's two younger children sought a court order for them to be enrolled in a public or qualifying private school.

The district court denied the request, but the appellate court overturned the decision and granted the attorneys' request.

The appeals court noted its first opinion concluded the parents held neither a statutory right nor a constitutional right to provide homeschooling to their own children.

The court said its new ruling, when it is issued, will address whether state law allows homeschooling and, if so, under what circumstances, whether parents are allowed to homeschool their own children and whether California limits meet the demands of the U.S. Constitution.

Among the groups working on the case are the Alliance Defense Fund and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who are representing the father.

"Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children," said Gary McCaleb, a senior counsel for the ADF. "Because this ruling impacts all of Californians, we believe the case deserves a second look."

"Another look at this case will help ensure that the fundamental rights of parents are fully protected," Kreep added.

The original ruling concluded parents who educate their children at home could be criminally liable under California law. Homeschooling advocates also warned if that would happen, civil charges for child neglect and others also could be added to the mix, creating the potential for fines, court-ordered parenting classes or even the loss of custody under extreme circumstances.

The original opinion, written by Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey, said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence. … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

Also involved in the case on behalf of the parents is the Home School Legal Defense Association, which said it would seek permission to file amicus briefs on the issues.

A long list of homeschool groups working in the state previously released a statement on the issue that could affect 200,000 students. Joining were the California Homeschool Network, Christian Home Educators Association of California, Private and Home Educators of California and HomeSchool Association of California.

"We are united in the goal of protecting the right of parents to teach their children private at home without additional governmental interference," the statement said. "We believe that children deserve to learn in the environment that best meets their individual needs. We support the right of parents to direct their children's education including, if they desire, teaching their children privately at home apart from any public school program and without a teaching credential."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the president has supported homeschoolers in the past.

"I'm sure it [the ruling] will probably be appealed, and then we'll see how it goes from there," she said.

Among the other responses have been:

* Assemblyman Joel Anderson has proposed a resolution in the California Legislature that calls for the ruling to be overturned.

* Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then, as elected officials, we will."

* California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell said, "Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state."

* A separate petition appeals to Schwarzenegger and the Legislature is being run by the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working with the website PetitionsToday.org.

* And yet another petition also is under way, at the ReverseTheRuling.com website. That organization offers information for homeschoolers who want to follow the California case, because of that state's influence throughout the nation. It was assembled by the organization Learning By Grace, an outreach dedicated to providing parents with innovative online Christian homeschool materials.

Even students are getting their say.

"The court cannot 'make' something illegal – that's the legislature's job. Sheesh!" wrote Jon Chi Lou, of Heritage Christian High School.

And Hye-Sung F. Gehring added, "This is ridiculous. California is retarded. Always has been."

The HSLDA also is suggesting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically recognizing parental rights. That effort already is under way under the banner of Parental Rights.

Pacific Justice also is representing Sunland Christian School in the case.

Crackdown on biblical speech challenged
Case cites approval of 'fags' slogan, ban on 'Romans 1:27'

A brief has been filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California again challenging a school district's policy that allows such slogans as "Stop the Hate," "fags," "queers," "that's so gay" and even "I Kiss Boys," but bans "Romans 1:27."

The case stems from punishment handed down by the Poway Unified School District for student Chase Harper, who was a sophomore in 2004 when the school recognized the "Day of Silence," an annual promotion in public schools of the homosexual lifestyle.

The event, scheduled this year for April 25, is targeted for exposure by a campaign assembled by a multitude of Christian organizations.

"It's outrageous that our neighborhood schools would allow homosexual activism to intrude into the classroom," said Buddy Smith of the American Family Association, one of a long list of organizations asking parents to keep their students home from school on that day.

"'Day of Silence' is about coercing students to repudiate traditional morality. It's time for Christian parents to draw the line – if your children will be exposed to this DOS propaganda in their school, then keep them home for the day," he said.

The "Day of Silence" promotion is intended, ostensibly, to make students "aware" of the "discrimination" suffered by homosexuals in society, by having students remain silent for the day. Such events typically are organized by a school's "Gay-Straight Alliance" group, but the event has been promoted for its previous 11 years by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

The case over Harper's expression of his opinion developed in Poway High School in 2004. The district, which operates 23 schools in San Diego and 11 in Poway, serves about 33,000 students. But when Harper wore a T-shirt with two slogans: "Be ashamed. Our school has embraced what God has condemned" and "Homosexuality is shameful. Romans 1:27," he was ordered either to take the shirt off or spend the day in the school office, where he was photographed, questioned and challenged by a police officer.

The Bible verse reads, in the New American Standard version, "And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

A school administrator then told Harper he should "leave his faith in the car."

The 9th Circuit initially ruled the school may have been justified in its censorship, but in March 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision.

Chase, and his sister, Kelsie, have renewed their case because of the potential impact of the school policy that prohibits students from expressing any religious beliefs that might be seen as "negative" or "offensive" by others.

The new brief submitted to the 9th Circuit notes that the school specifically authorizes recognition of the pro-homosexual "Day of Silence," and has allowed a variety of slogans, including "loser," and a purple square and yellow "equal" sign.

But it bans Harper's specific statement of Christian faith.

"Our education system is the incubator of democracy. And our democratic system depends on the ability of its members to engage in vigorous debate. Thus, schools have a duty 'to guide students through the difficult process of becoming educated, to help them learn how to discriminate between good concepts and bad, to benefit from the errors society has made in the past, to improve their minds and character,'" said the brief, quoting from a previous federal court ruling.

"But schools may not eliminate all diversity of thought. To do so would allow schools to become precisely what [the U.S. Supreme Court] said the First Amendment could never tolerate: 'enclaves of totalitarianism' where students are 'confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved," the brief said.

"The school has made no attempt to respect the balance struck by the Supreme Court between preserving an effective educational environment and safeguard students' free speech rights. Accordingly, the Harpers respectfully request that this court reverse the lower court decisions and remand the case with instructions to enter summary judgment in the Harpers' favor on their facial challenges to the school's speech policies…" said the filing submitted by the Alliance Defense Fund and Advocates for Faith and Freedom, two law organizations.

"Christian students shouldn't be penalized for expressing their beliefs," said Tim Chandler, ADF legal counsel. "They have the same First Amendment rights as all other students on campus. Speech cannot be silenced simply because someone else disagrees with it or deems it to be 'negative.' As the Supreme Court has stated, students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate."

Just a few weeks ago, the Poway district adopted a new policy regarding "hate behavior," after a series of incidents including the hanging of nooses, a complaint that a Halloween costume looked liked a Ku Klux Klan outfit, and the drawing of a swastika and profanity, written in feces, on a student store window.

Supt. Don Phillips said it is meant to be clear that "intimidating (or) harassing will not be tolerated."

A district judge earlier had ruled in the Harper case that schools have a special "interest in protecting homosexual students from harassment" because that is a "legitimate pedagogical concern."

Such a concern, he ruled, "allows a school to restrict speech expressing damaging statements about sexual orientation and limiting students to expressing their views in a positive manner."

Critics have worried that opens wide the door for any activist school principal or superintendent to create a range of new ways for Christian students to be denied First Amendment rights based on the content of theier speech.

Robert Tyler, who has worked for the Alliance Defense Fund on the case, said that looks like a double standard.

"Why is it acceptable to tell a student of faith their views are not as valuable as the view of any person opposing them?" he said.

Judge Alez Kozinsky, who wrote the minority opinion the last time the case was before the 9th Circuit, had concluded, "I have considerable difficulty with giving school authorities the power to decide that only one side of a controversial topic may be discussed in the school environment because the opposing point of view is too extreme or demeaning … The fundamental problem with the majority's approach is that it has no anchor anywhere in the record or in the law. It is entirely a judicial creation, hatched to deal with the situation before us, but likely to cause innumerable problems in the future."

The campaign calling for parents to keep their children home of the "Day of Silence" for 2008 quickly is gaining momentum.

Matt Barber, a spokesman for Concerned Women for America, said the day "amounts to educational malpractice."

"Our schools are supposed to be places of learning, not places of political indoctrination. It is the height of impropriety and cynicism for 'gay' activists and school officials to use children as pawns in their attempt to further a highly controversial and polarizing political agenda," he said.

The coalition is suggesting parents ask their school districts about "Day of Silence" plans, especially the date because some school districts vary. Then, the group said, parents should "inform the school of our intention to keep your children home on that date and explain why."

Among the groups already promoting the protest are:

* Abiding Truth Ministries

* American Family Association

* AFA of MI

* AFA of PA

* Americans for Truth

* Christian Information Service

* Christian Civic League of Maine

* Concerned Women for America

* Culture Campaign

* Defend the Family International

* Exodus Mandate

* Illinois Family Institute

* Traditional Values Coalition

* Indiana Voice for the Family

* Informing Christians

* Liberty Counsel

* MassResistance

* Mission America

* New Generation Christian Center

* Parents' Rights' Coalition

* Right March

* Stephen Bennett Ministries

* Values USA

* and Watchmen on the Walls

Hackers attack Christians, promise punishment
'Because of threat to our staff, we're working off-site pending investigation'

Staff members for a prominent pro-family organization that has been key to the battle against California's mandated homosexual indoctrination programs for public schools are working off-site while an investigation is conducted into threats that someone would arrive at the office and "punish" them, officials confirmed today.

The investigation into the threats follows several days of aggressive attacks on the website for Capitol Resource Family Impact, which has restored the site multiple times, only to see another hacker attack disable the location.

Karen England, chief of the organization that has played a prominent role in a challenge to the implementation of SB777, a legislative plan to mandate only positive messages about homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality in public schools, confirmed the web attacks, and the subsequent threat.

"Last night CRI's website was hacked again by the same vandals that have been attacking our website and e-mail servers for the last several days," she said in a notification to supporters. "One of our internet savvy supporters has been investigating the source of the hacks and discovered that several hacker websites are taking credit for the attack on our organization.

"These hacker websites encourage other hackers to not only deface our web site (and gives them instructions on how to do so), but they threaten to send someone to our office to 'punish' us," she said.

"Because of the physical threat to our staff safety, we will be working off-site until authorities have investigated the threats," she said.

"The hackers intend to stop our work and intimidate our staff. This proves that we are being effective!" she said. "Although this attack has caused us some headaches, we are moving forward, undeterred."

"History has shown that the fiercest persecution comes when you're having the greatest impact on culture. While we will take precautions for our safety, we will also boldly continue our fight for families!" she said.

The website attacks apparently were launched late last week. At that time, a reporter was visiting the site, and his standard virus protection program was triggered, with more than a dozen warnings and alerts.

Capitol Resource, however, could not prevent the attack that was developing, and staff members spent the weekend rebuilding and restoring the site, officials said.

"Out website technician worked all weekend to fix the problems and as soon as he had fixed the site, another hack would occur almost immediately. As a result, we had to make significant changes to our website and e-mail services," England said. "Our website was literally wiped bare by the hackers. It's going to take us many days to replace the content that was destroyed."

WND has reported on Capitol Resource's work notifying Californians when the legislature wanted to criminalize parents who spank their children, as well as when a lawmaker proposed allowing communism to be taught in schools.

But the organization's highest profile recently has come as part of its Save Our Kids campaign to assemble enough petition signatures in the state to put SB777 on the state election ballot.

That plan was adopted by the Legislature last year and signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"SB777 is a mandate for every school district, ending local control on sensitive issues," the organization says on the SOK website. "SB777 normalizes homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality across the state, without room for local discretion on addressing these issues."

England told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

The California plan still is facing a court challenge on its constitutionality in addition to the possible vote of the people.

The organization notes earlier state law already "establishes equal protection for every California public school student," so that SB777 was unnecessary. It specifically requires: "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias" against homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality."

While there's no indicate of any connection to the current situation Capitol Resource is facing, WND has reported in the past on a public threat from a homosexual activist to the organization.

"If you continue your efforts, we will BURY you," said an e-mail from Ben Patrick Johnson of Equality California, to his "colleagues" at the CRI, according to a statement from the Christian organization.

"For a group that purports to expand tolerance and civil rights, Equality California is not practicing what it preaches," CRI said at the time.

"This type of language evokes images of Communist leader Nikita Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the podium of the United Nations when he declared that Communism would bury America," said CRI. "The irony is not lost on us – Communists squelch all opposing speech, just as the modern 'intolerance' movement seeks to silence all opposing viewpoints.

"Johnson then threatens 'we have every intention of yours [group] going down, as have others who oppose decency and human rights.' It is shameful that a group that represents itself as promoting tolerance and civil rights would stoop to the very tactics it accuses CRI of using. Not once has CRI personally attacked opponents in such a degrading and vicious manner," said the organization.

"In a video diatribe against CRI posted on his website, Johnson declares that CRI and its supporters are 'hate peddlers' and 'conservative, religious prejudice peddlers.' He further declares that we are 'smirky, self-righteous folks' who have 'launched an aggressive campaign against legislation to protect gay youth in California's and ultimately America's schools.' This statement reveals not only the vitriolic language this supposed 'tolerance' group uses, but also the true agenda behind such legislation as SB 777. The radical homosexual agenda intends on sweeping the nation. California is merely the first step in the campaign to stifle free speech and stamp out opposition to 'alternative lifestyles,'" CRI said.

The e-mail from Johnson, according to CRI, said:

"Dear colleagues at the Capitol Resource Institute,

"I am a firm supporter of freedom of speech, and therefore I support yours, even if it in direct contrast with my own. However, we all use the media and the internet to spread our message: and with no hubris intended, I advise you -- if you continue your efforts, we will BURY you ... with public opinion, with media, and ultimately with legislation. EQCA passed NINE bills last year to protect basic dignities and we have every intention of yours going down, as have others who oppose decency and human rights.

"Today, over 150,000 Californians will receive the following message via email blast, MySpace, YouTube, and iTunes -- in other words, we're everywhere. I invite you to subscribe to my daily webcast, not because you agree with what I/we have to say, but for your own information ... so you can see what thousands of Californians are hearing and seeing about you."

'I'm a parent, arrest me,' woman tells lawmakers
Committee forwards plan to criminalize spanking

A California mother of five has told members of a legislative committee their plan to criminalize spanking by concerned parents would mean that misbehavior and rebellion no longer could be corrected, and she could face arrest.

Sarah Berke appeared today before the Democrat-controlled Assembly Public Safety Committee, whose members listened to her, then advanced the plan to criminalize spanking with any "implement," such as a wooden spoon, little paddle, rolled-up newspaper, switch, belt or brush.

The proposal is a rerun of last year's attempt to do the same thing, criminalize parents who spank their children, by redefining it as child abuse.

"I'm here today as one of the thousands of parents in our state who love our children and believe in traditional values," she said. "As someone dead-set against the evil of child abuse, I also have a strong faith that calls on me to correct misbehavior and rebellion when it occurs."

She said that means, "spanking once in a while."

However, "my faith and moral beliefs that teach me to 'train up a child in the way he should go' would make me a suspected child abuser under AB 2943," she said. "Under this bill, I could be arrested and charged with child abuse. I could be tried in criminal court, be sent to jail for a year, and lose custody of my children.

"AB 2943 tramples the rights of good parents to raise their children with various methods of correction and discipline. This is wrong. Spanking isn't child abuse," she said.

The proposal is being backed by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, who launched the same campaign a year ago, only to see it fail then.

Her plan would define any spanking with the use of an "implement" as child abuse.

"AB 2943 will result in good parents being arrested, handcuffed, and charged with criminal child abuse," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families. No state legislature has passed a bill like this, and no state or federal court has ruled that spanking is child abuse."

Voting to endorse the plan were Jose Solorio of Santa Ana, Hector De La Torre of Los Angeles, Fiona Ma of San Francisco, Anthony Portantino of La Caqada Flintridge and Curren Price of Inglewood. All are Democrats. Republican Greg Aghazarian of Stockton voted against.

The proposal next goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the body that halted last year's plan by Lieber because of the expected costs, and the status of California's red-drenched state checkbook.

"This bad bill labels tens of thousands of good fathers and good mothers as violent child abusers," Thomasson said. "Under AB 2943, all mandatory reporters, including teachers, police officers, social workers, counselors and clergy, must be trained to see parents who spank as potential child abusers. The fact that Sally Lieber wants to order good parents into a 'nonviolent parental education class' demonstrates that she thinks parents who spank are violent child abusers."

"This is so wrong – God gave children to parents, not to the state," said Thomasson, whose organization is providing Californians with information to call and e-mail their state lawmakers about the plan.

Lieber has claimed this year's effort would only deal with child abuse, just as last years. But she also affirms that all spanking, by definition, is child abuse.

Those arrested could be charged and tried in a criminal court and be sentenced to a year in jail and lose custody of their children, the family organization said. In addition, it said, such cases could be referred to Child Protective Services and Juvenile Court.

"It's shameful that a lawmaker wants to ban parents from lovingly disciplining their children," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Family Impact.

"Many parents use a wooden spoon or similar instrument to discipline a disobedient child because they don't want to use their hand, an instrument of love," she said.

Meredith Turney, the organization's legislative liaison, testified against the plan.

"AB 2943 equates kicking, cutting or burning a child with a responsible spanking," she said. "The millions of responsible parents who lovingly discipline their children would never engage in such abusive behavior as burning or cutting their children," she said.

The California Teacher's Association, however, supported the plan, saying, "The use of physical punishment teaches children that violence/physical force is an acceptable method to resolve differences. We need to stop the cycle of violence…"

That organization also supported teaching homosexuality in class, as well as supported communist teachers in public schools, England said.

"It is shocking and outrageous that the largest teachers' union in the state wants to intrude into our homes and tell us how to raise our children," stated England. "Not content with simply indoctrinating students with communism and homosexuality, the union now wants to prevent parents from disciplining their children."

England said current law already addresses abuse adequately.

"This bill goes much further and seeks to prohibit parents from raising healthy, responsible children," she said.

"There is contempt in the legislature for Judeo-Christian values and AB 2943 is the most blatant evidence of this attempt to take away our freedom to raise children according to our beliefs," Turney said.

Lieber's plan last year drew objections even from editorialists.

The Contra Costa Times said the bill "is completely unenforceable. Are we to expect a 2-year-old to dial 911 and report a parent for swatting him or her on the behind?"

The newspaper's editorial took a straightforward shot at the issue.

"With all of the pressing problems facing our state, what issue has the knickers of our esteemed lawmakers in such a twist? What burning concern has the ponderous pundits on the cable news shows frothing at the mouth?

"Global warming? Plunging real estate values? Good-paying jobs being shipped off to India every time you turn around? Maybe the governor's new health care proposal?

"None of the above.

"The latest meaningless, national distraction, is a silly bill proposed by Assembly Pro Tem Speaker Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, that would make it a crime to spank any child 3 years old or younger."

The editorial's suggestion? "Get real."

California's 'judicial fiat' condemned – by judge
'Undeterred by state, federal law, new constitutional right invented'

Two members of the California Supreme Court, which earlier today ruled the state cannot prevent homosexuals from "marrying," have condemned the decision as "judicial fiat."

"A bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves," said the dissent written by Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter and joined by Associate Justice Ming W. Chin.

"Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right," the opinion said.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Ron George, who was appointed to his office by former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, trashed society's traditional and biblical institution of marriage, opening up the option for same-sex duos to be "married" because retaining the historic definition "cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest."

The majority in the 4-3 decision explained the justices based their reasoning on several factors, including society's feelings about, or perception of, the issue.

Joining George in the majority opinion were Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard and Kathryn Mickle Werdegard. Carol Corrigan wrote a separate dissent.

The court found that excluding homosexuals from "marriage" is not needed, and would, in fact, "impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children," the court said.

"Because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples," the court said.

"Retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise – now emphatically rejected by this state – that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects 'second-class citizens'…"

Officials with the American Family Association of Pennsylvania pointed out the problems that now have been created by the decision.

"The judges found there is a 'fundamental right to form a family,' where does such a statement end? How is family defined? Are families formed by incest between a father and his daughter, an uncle and niece, or by group marriages, one man three women, one women 10 men – how is a family formed under such a ludicrous court decision?" the group asked.

"These California judges have created chaos of marriage in that state and it will have ramifications across the country. There is no residency requirement in California nor do they have a Massachusetts-type law that says if your marriage is not legal in your state, you cannot marry here. The door has been opened for Pennsylvania's and all other state's Defense of Marriage Acts to be challenged. Same-sex commitment ceremonies in Philadelphia in November and State College in March have laid the groundwork for just such a challenge," the group said.

The opinion came in response to a series of lawsuits filed against the state after voters in California voted 61-39 percent that marriage should be recognized only between a man and a woman, and then the mayor of San Francisco started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex duos.

The court stopped him from doing that, but only because the question had not been properly submitted, which it now apparently has been.

"I cannot join the majority's holding that the California Constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry," the dissent said. "In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error.

"Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage – an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law – is no longer valid," Baxter continued. "California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow.

"If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority."

Baxter said the majority's logic was troubling.

"The majority relies heavily on the Legislature's adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative statute…"

He explained: "The question presented by this case is simple and stark. It comes down to this: Even though California's progressive laws, recently adopted through the democratic process, have pioneered the rights of same-sex partners to enter legal unions with all the substantive benefits of opposite-sex legal unions, do those laws nonetheless violate the California Constitution because at present, in deference to long and universal tradition, by a convincing popular vote, and in accord with express national policy … they reserve the label 'marriage' for opposite-sex legal unions? I must conclude that the answer is no."

He said the people have every right to adopt laws changing the definition of marriage. But that didn't happen. Instead, it was a "judicial fiat," he concluded. "I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu."

"The majority … simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex."

The dissent itself confirmed the worst fears emanating from Pennsylvania:

"Who can say that, in 10, 15, or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" the Baxter opinion said.

Further, Baxter continued, "it is certainly reasonable for the Legislature, having granted same-sex couples all substantive marital rights within its power, to assign those rights a name other than marriage. After all, an initiative statute adopted by a 61.4 percent popular vote, and constitutionally immune from repeal by the Legislature, defines marriage as a union of partners of the opposite sex."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, an ardent supporter of homosexual activism, said she welcomed the "historic decision."

"I have long fought against discrimination and believe that the state constitution provides for equal treatment for all California's citizens and families," she said.

However, a flood of comments from pro-family groups landed on the other side.

"In 1863, Abraham Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address that ours is a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' Well, not in the state of California, where four imperious and unelected justices have just overridden the will of the voters," said James Dobson, chief of Focus on the Family, a Christian publishing and broadcast empire.

"In 2000, Proposition 22 defined marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman; the initiative passed by an overwhelming margin of 61 to 39 percent. That emphatic expression of the will of the people has now arrogantly been declared null and void," he said.

"It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment in the November elections," he said. "Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny."

cont'd

At Americans for Truth, officials now are lobbying for a Federal Marriage Amendment, saying only that "would establish a national standard preserving the historic institution of marriage as one-man, one-woman."

A WND reader said, "The appropriate response from California citizens should be to remove these clowns from office and appoint people who aren't influenced by rich perverts. The majority of Californians have already spoken in the polls, marriage is for men and women. Now they need to let the politicians know that they mean business."

Another WND reader was brief in his concern:

"Four vs. 4,618,673. The four won," he said.

"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there'd be a day when so-called 'same-sex marriage' would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the absurd notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America.

"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman," he said.

"The people of California decided eight years ago that marriage in our state will be defined as between one man and one woman. Four arrogant, elitist, activist judges decided that they know better than the people how marriage should be defined," said Karen England, of Capitol Resource Institute.

"It is certainly disappointing that the court, in declaring a right to same-sex marriage in the California Constitution, has shown an outrageous lack of respect for a majority of California voters and ignored a long history of legal precedent supporting traditional marriage," said legal counsel Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom, one of the organizations that worked on the case.

California Assemblyman Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, said, "With the passage of Proposition 22, the voters of California agreed that marriage is 'between a man and a woman.' PERIOD. The court's decision today is further proof that some activist judges value their own beliefs over the will of the people."

"This ruling defies logic. It is a gross departure from the rule of law. It is outrageous. Traditional marriage is common sense. Yet, this decision is nonsense," said Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which also worked on the case.

The ruling disposed of several individual challenges to California's marriage statutes that arose after the state's voters, by a margin of 4.6 million to 2.9 million, adopted a law that states California would recognize only marriages involving one man and one woman.

That same plan now is being proposed for a constitutional amendment by the ProtectMarriage.com campaign, a broad-based coalition of pro-family organizations, churches and individuals.

That's now needed, the campaign says, because even though voters overwhelmingly passed the Proposition 22 law, that was a "regular statute" within the outlines of the California Family Code. But politicians and judges have been bypassing it, and chipping away at it, to ignore the will of the voters, and now the courts have gutted it entirely.

A constitutional amendment, however, cannot be changed by either legislative or judicial "fiat." The campaign already has collected enough signatures to be on this fall's ballot, and only awaits verification from the state.

The battle dates to 1996, when then-Assemblyman William J. "Pete" Knight introduced legislation to protect traditional marriage. It failed by one vote in the state Senate.

He later led the Protection of Marriage Coalition to gather more than 600,000 petition signatures and qualify Prop 22 for the ballot, an effort that was approved by 61.4 percent of the voters in 2000.

It reads, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

State lawmakers and judicial activists, however, have been moving to undermine that vote ever since.

Rev. Rob Schenck, of the National Clergy Council, called for voters to be involved not only in pursuing a constitutional amendment, but ejecte a few black robes from the courthouses.

"California citizens can take bad judges off the bench by voting no when their names appear on the ballot," he said. "Citizens must get directly involved in choosing who will sit on their highest state courts."

Randy Thomasson, of Campaign for Children and Families, said the court simply "exchanged the rule of law for the rule of unbridled power to destroy all that is good and sacred."

"Gov. [Arnold] Schwarzenegger should resist any temptation to sign any bill opposing the people's vote on marriage," he suggested.

History is a GOOD TEACHER, and it appears that people have problems remembering history. So, it's a good thing to remind everyone from time to time about what the FACTS WERE and WHY! In this case, the FACTS and the "WHY'S" were the same for the ENTIRE RECORDED HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY, with the exception of JUST THE LAST FEW YEARS! So, let's have a little REFRESHER COURSE!

1 - Homosexual behavior was a FELONY OFFENSE in the entire country until just the last few years. Most states still have the laws on the books whether they are enforced or not!

2 - WHY? - Homosexual behavior is known as a "CRIME AGAINST NATURE" - a CRIME AGAINST GOD'S NATURAL DESIGN AND ORDER! This is why homosexuality, sex with beasts, and other ABOMINATIONS TO GOD had a prescribed punishment of STONING TO DEATH! In effect, the ABOMINATION was stopped from spreading to others with the death penalty. IT'S ALSO AN UNQUESTIONED FACT THAT THESE PERVERTED SEXUAL ACTS ARE ALREADY DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN EPIDEMIC OF DEADLY DISEASES THAT CAUSE DEATH! THE NUMBERS OF THOSE WHO HAVE DIED OR ARE WAITING TO DIE ARE OUTRAGEOUS - FAR BEYOND A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS!

It appears there is rampant INSANITY TODAY, and many folks have NO COMMON SENSE AT ALL! Isn't the above enough COMMON SENSE to indicate that CIVILIZED SOCIETIES WHO CARE ABOUT THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE POPULATION WOULD BE COMPLETELY RIGHT IN MAKING ANY ACT A FELONY THAT KILLS LITERALLY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE EVERY YEAR! What about those trying to encourage our children into PARTICIPATING IN PERVERTED SEXUAL ACTS THAT ARE FAR BEYOND JUST LIFE-THREATENING? If one forgets completely about MORALS, GOD'S COMMANDS, AND THE HOLY BIBLE - ISN'T THE PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS, THE MILLIONS DYING, AND THE MILLIONS MORE WAITING TO DIE ENOUGH TO CAUSE SOMEONE TO EXERCISE A TINY BIT OF COMMON SENSE?

We don't teach our children to drink "DRANO" because it would be life-threatening, painful, cause serious illness, and have a fairly high probability of causing DEATH! Drinking "DRANO" is NOT OK, good, NORMAL, or SMART for VERY OBVIOUS AND COMMON SENSE REASONS! EXCHANGE THE WORD "DRANO" WITH "PERVERTED SEXUAL ACTS" AND WE HAVE A LIKE COMPARISON!

HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE MENTAL GIANTS TO FIGURE THIS OUT?

Fate of homeschooling in court's hands
Original case ruling threatened education choice for thousands

The fate of homeschooling, the education choice for hundreds of thousands in the state, now is in the hands of the justices on the bench of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 3, according to an announcement from the Home School Legal Defense Association.

The organization said today that all of the filings of the legal briefs in the case that has been labeled "In re Rachel L." have been completed.

"The Court of Appeal, which made the fateful decision on Feb. 28, 2008, to declare all homeschooling illegal unless the parent is a certified teacher, will now begin the process of considering the arguments. The current schedule anticipates oral arguments to begin this June," the HSLDA told supporters in an e-mail alert.

"HSLDA has been at the forefront of the process to defend the right to homeschool in California and across the country. In this case, we were able to successfully help Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation, who represents the father at the center of this case, Mr. L., to prepare the arguments to grant the petition for re-hearing.

"When the Court of Appeal granted the petition for rehearing, the original opinion was vacated and no longer has any legal effect," HSLDA said.

In granting the petition for rehearing, the appeals court judges invited a number of organizations and interests to file amicus briefs, expressing their opinion on the issues at hand including the constitutionality of homeschooling in California. Among those invited were the state education department and teachers' union, as well as the state.

In the brief filed recently on behalf of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. argued that there's no need to dig into state constitutional issues regarding homeschooling since state laws already provide for that choice for parents.

"Here, this court need not reach any constitutional issues because this petition can be decided entirely on statutory grounds," the brief said. "The Education Code provides a broad statutory basis for homeschooling in California, setting forth three different avenues through which parents may legally homeschool their children."

The brief said the trial court in the case at hand "addressed only the constitutional issues, it never considered the preliminary question of whether the parents had met the statutory requirements for homeschooling under the Education Act."

WND broke the story in February when the original decision was released, and has reported on the various briefs as they have been filed.

An earlier amicus brief was filed by the Pacific Justice Institute on behalf of Sunland Christian Academy, the private school that offered the independent program in which the family's children were enrolled.

The father in the case is represented separately by the United States Justice Foundation and the Alliance Defense Fund, which have been working on the case's main arguments to the court.

But since the case originated with a juvenile court proceeding, some of the arguments and briefs have remained confidential, because of the standard for handling juvenile proceedings. Other briefs have been released publicly.

"In the latest round of filings, we have also been able to provide substantial assistance to the Alliance Defense Fund, which is partnering with the U.S. Justice Foundation in order to make the strongest argument possible to preserve homeschool freedom in California," the HSLDA said.

"HSLDA has also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in conjunction with Focus on the Family and Family Protection Ministries to show the benefits of a home education. These arguments draw on the extensive development of homeschooling and the successful track record of parents educating their children at home," the organization said.

"While we do not know what the court will decide, you can be confident that hundreds of hours were spent by many different organizations to defend your right to homeschool," the support group said in a statement signed by its president, J. Michael Smith.

The original opinion, later dropped, was written by Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey and said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence. … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

Homeschool advocates immediately expressed concern the original ruling would leave parents who educate their children at home liable criminally as well as open to civil charges for child neglect that could create the potential for fines, court-ordered counseling or even loss of custody.

The White House said President Bush has been a longtime supporter of homeschooling, and an amicus brief – this one on behalf of members of Congress – was filed by Liberty Counsel.

The brief notes that as early as 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the rights of parents to direct the education of their children.

"The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only," the high court said.

The original California opinion arose from a dependency case brought in juvenile court. In the process, attorneys assigned by the court to the family's two younger children sought a court order for them to be enrolled in a public or qualifying private school.

The district court denied the request citing parental rights, but the appellate court overturned the decision and granted the attorneys' request. The appeals court concluded the parents held neither a statutory right nor a constitutional right to provide homeschooling to their own children.

Supremes asked to give voters a chance
'We trust the high court will respect the democratic process'
Posted: May 22, 2008
8:45 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A petition has been submitted to the California Supreme Court asking the justices there to delay the effective date of their same-sex marriage opinion until voters have their say on the issue.

The request came today from the Alliance Defense Fund, which has argued the case in the state's courts as the case progressed.

ADF attorneys say the court should avoid "obvious legal problems" that could develop when California voters vote in November on a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

"The people of California have a constitutional right to vote on marriage, and we trust the high court will respect the democratic process," said Glen Lavy, a senior counsel for ADF. He argued the case before the court on March 4.

"The possibility of significant and unnecessary legal and social problems can be avoided by waiting to see what the California people desire when it comes to the meaning of marriage," he said.

The high court ruled 4–3 on May 15 that the voter-approved Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys who defended Proposition 22 note that the outcome illustrates precisely why a state law alone is not sufficient to protect marriage.

"Amending the state constitution is ultimately the only avenue to ensure that no one interferes with the will of the California people on the meaning of marriage," Lavy said. "We hope that the court will allow the California people to have their say on the amendment without enduring the potential problems associated with implementing the court’s decision before then."

Last week's ruling striking the will of the people about marriage in California has prompted a reaction from pro-family organizations who already have submitted nearly twice the number of signatures needed to place the constitutional amendment before voters.

They believe the battle over marriage in the Golden State is far from over.

Of 28 states where such an amendment has been considered, it has been approved 27 times.

Whoa! Marriage laws aren't changed – yet
Activists note California court cannot change existing statutes

Some 10 days ago, four black-robed members of the California Supreme Court trashed traditional marriage of one-man-and-one-woman. But that opinion has to be translated into changes in state law, forms, and procedures before any actual same-sex "marriage" can take place, and that hasn't happened yet and might not for some time, according to a pro-family organization.

For example, one of the legally established forms in California involving marriage issues reflects several references to "bride" and "groom" and "husband" and "wife" that must properly be filled out by "qualifying" individuals before state law allows it to be recognized, according to Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families.

And state law demands, "Every person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office within this state … is guilty of a felony." Thomasson believes that leaves a formal change in state statutes as the only way the state can implement what the court has expressed in its opinion.

State officials had a different thought on the matter.

Richard Stapler, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, told WND, "It is my understanding, with their ruling, it was the remedy for their finding that local entities were to make changes to licensing [forms and procedures] to conform with the court's ruling."

He said his understanding was that "no legislative action" was needed for the "remedy of the opinion."

Kate Kendell, of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, also told the Associated Press she isn't worried.

"The T's crossed and I's dotted on the form are the least of our concerns," she said.

But Thomasson told WND that part of the reason that the same-sex "marriage" licenses granted by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004 were invalidated by the state Supreme Court is that the state forms hadn't been changed legally, and the state's laws ban making individual alterations on such forms.

He said the laws cannot be changed arbitrarily.

(Story continues below)

"The courts give their opinions. They cannot make the Legislature do something," he said. "The Legislature can respond and pass legislation, but the democratic process must be followed."

Mark Horton, director of the state Public Health Department, oversees the state's Office of Vital Records, and spokeswoman Linette Scott simply stated, "We are going to be in compliance with the court order."

But Thomasson already has faxed Horton a letter concerning the forms, and changes to them:

"The standard marriage application form and processes cannot be changed from a 'bride' and a 'groom' or a 'man' and 'woman' without the Legislature first putting a bill on the governor's desk that he signs," Thomasson advised.

"The authority of California statutes was clearly understood by your office in 2004 when the city of San Francisco created altered forms which were out of compliance with the marriage statutes governing this process. Even with the Supreme Court's May 15 ruling, only the Legislature can change the statutes which govern those forms," he wrote.

"The California Constitution clearly limits lawmaking power to the Legislature and the voters. This foundational requirement of our democratic process applies now to changing the marriage forms in response to the court," he said.

The state's marriage forms create complications for those who would simply use their own judgment and initiative to create, or change, a form. They already read: "Make no erasures, whiteouts or other alterations."

"These statutes are in the California Family Code, placed there by the Legislature and the people through the initiative process, which, according to the California Constitution, are the only two legislative powers in the state," Thomasson's organization said.

In 2004, during the month of San Francisco's "marriages," a spokesman for the state agency that registers marriages confirmed that the standard application form is required, "and if it has been altered in any way, then it will not be registered and recorded."

The official said forms with "bride" and "groom" crossed out and alternatives written in cannot be recognized.

"We have to follow the law when we process these forms. It's part of the public statute," said Nicole Evans, spokeswoman for Kim Belshe, the California Health and Human Services secretary.

"Unlike Massachusetts, which has no statutes on marriage licenses, forms and processes, California cannot change its standard marriage form or processes until the Legislature passes and the governor signs legislation in response to the Supreme Court's ruling," Thomasson said.

Thomasson also said there could be complications with the legislative process right now, since the specified effective date for any legislation pending in the California Legislature now would be Jan. 1, 2009. That could be changed by a two-thirds vote supporting the issue as an "emergency," but he said minority Republicans probably would not be willing to do.

Thomasson said the American people also must learn from the ruling.

"We cannot just live as Americans and believe when a judge rules, we have to submit. There are very many virtuous people throughout history who have said 'no' to unjust commands, unjust orders," he said.

"The Supreme Court can't require the Legislature to do anything," added Gary Kreep, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation.

"All the court could do is declare a statute unconstitutional, although in this case there was no basis for it. After that, it's up to the Legislature or the voters to respond. The Schwarzenegger administration can't do anything to the marriage form and processes until the Legislature passes a bill changing the existing statutes," Kreep said.

That concept even was cited in a dissenting opinion in the May 15 opinion. Associate Justice Carol Corrigan noted the principle of judicial restraint "protects the people against judicial overreaching. It is no answer to say that judges can break the covenant so long as they are enlightened or well-meaning."

Corrigan suggested, "If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box."

WND reported just one day earlier about the Alliance Defense Fund, which is suggesting the court itself delay the effective date of its ruling, scheduled now for June 16.

That was requested because voters probably will have before them in November a proposed constitutional amendment that would, if approved, limit marriage to one man and one woman. Such an approval essentially would nullify the court's ruling, because even the courts cannot declare the state's constitution unconstitutional.

Supporters of that ballot issue have turned in 1.1 million signatures to put it on the statewide election ballot. About 750,000 signatures are needed, and county clerks are in the process now of verifying those.

The state's high court ruled the voter-approved Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys who defended Proposition 22 note that the outcome illustrates precisely why a state law alone is not sufficient to protect marriage.

"Amending the state constitution is ultimately the only avenue to ensure that no one interferes with the will of the California people on the meaning of marriage," Senior Legal Counsel Glen Lavy said. "We hope that the court will allow the California people to have their say on the amendment without enduring the potential problems associated with implementing the court’s decision before then."

Of 28 states where such an amendment has been considered, it has been approved 27 times.

Same-sex weddings could commence June 14
Effort under way to overturn California Supreme Court ruling

Same-sex couples in some California counties will be able to marry as soon as June 14, the president of the California's county clerks association said.

Stephen Weir, who heads the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, said Monday he was told by the Office of Vital Records that clerks would be authorized to hand out marriage licenses as soon as that date, which is a Saturday and exactly 30 days after the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage should be legal.

The court's decisions typically take effect after 30 days, barring further legal action.

Weir added that the state planned to give California's 58 counties advice this week for implementing the historic change so local officials can start planning.

No confirmation
Suanne Buggy, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Public Health, which oversees the vital records office, would not confirm Monday that state officials have settled the matter of when counties can or must start extending marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"We will be getting guidance out to the counties soon," Buggy said.

According to Weir, it would be up to each county clerk to decide whether to open their offices to gay and lesbian couples on that Saturday or to wait until the following Monday.

Some clerks have said they would try to accommodate couples at the earliest possible date, depending on their staffing and anticipated demand, he said.

If the court's decision does take effect on June 14, couples could, in theory, plan to obtain their licenses and take their vows at 12:01 a.m. that day, he said.

Official hopes to be first
As it happens, Weir's office in Martinez already holds open hours on the second Saturday of each month, so serving couples who want to get hitched as soon as possible won't be a problem, he said. He and his partner of 18 years hope to be the first ones to tie the knot.

"Just because we have been so close to it, and so far, I would really like to be first," Weir said.

An effort, however, is under way to stay the Supreme Court's decision until voters can decide the issue with an initiative planned for the November ballot. The measure would overrule the justices' decision and amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

Justices have until the ruling's effective date to weigh the request, but could give themselves longer to consider it, attorneys have said. Another complicating factor is that the Supreme Court also directed a midlevel appeals court that upheld the state's one man-one woman marriage laws a year ago to issue a new order legalizing same-sex marriage, and it is not clear when the appeals court will comply.

Massachusetts is the only other U.S. state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. More than 9,500 same-sex couples in that state have wed.

Sex indoctrination opponents are like Hitler'
Board member blasts critics of state's 'gay' promotions

A school board member in California says those who oppose the state's SB777, a law approved by last year's legislature and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that restricts public schools to teaching only positive perspectives of homosexuality, are "like Hitler."

The report comes from Karen England of Capitol Resource Family Impact, which is working on the Save Our Kids campaign to assemble enough petition signatures in the state to put SB777 on the 2008 election ballot.

"Last night the West Covina Unified School Board took a bold stand for families and our values by voting to pass a resolution supporting the Save Our Kids initiative," said England's report. "This is the first local school board to publicly protest SB777 and its harmful policies."

"Three brave members of the school board voted to support Save our Kids: Steve Cox, Mike Spence and Camie Poulos. However, two members refused to support the Save Our Kids resolution: George Fuller and Jessica Shewmaker," she said.

"Just before the vote on the resolution occurred, board member Fuller actually declared that anyone who opposes SB777 and its sexual indoctrination is like Adolf Hitler. He asserted that there once was 'a man who tried to rid the world of homosexuals; Hitler didn't survive,'" she reported.

"Board member Spence demanded an immediate apology from Fuller for comparing citizens with traditional values to an evil dictator like Adolf Hitler. Fuller refused to apologize," England said.

"We are extremely excited that the West Covina Unified School Board is supporting the protection of innocent children from sexual indoctrination," England said. "But our victory here also revealed just how bigoted and hateful some school board members are. Board member George Fuller should publicly apologize to the citizens of his district and all Californians for comparing us to Adolf Hitler. This is shameful behavior from an elected school board member and his constituents should be very concerned this man is making decisions about their children's education.

"We encourage every recipient of this email to contact West Covina Unified School Board members George Fuller and Jessica Shewmaker and ask why they did not support the Save Our Kids resolution," she said. "Also, contact George Fuller and ask him why he won't apologize for comparing citizens with traditional values to Adolf Hitler."

"SB777 is a mandate for every school district, ending local control on sensitive issues," the Save Our Kids website says. "SB777 normalizes homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality across the state, without room for local discretion on addressing these issues."

England told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

The California plan still is facing a court challenge on its constitutionality in addition to the possible vote of the people.

The organization notes earlier state law already "establishes equal protection for every California public school student," so that SB777 was unnecessary. It specifically requires: "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias" against homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality."

Marriage protection initiative qualifies for CA ballot

An initiative that would again protect traditional marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex "marriage" in the state. It is similar to marriage protections that have been adopted in 26 other states.

"This signifies the fact that California voters really do favor and will come out to vote for the protection of historic marriage," said Ron Prentice, executive director of ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of religious and social conservative groups behind the initiative.

In response to the court's May 15 ruling, California public health officials already have amended marriage license applications to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bride and groom. Local officials have been told to start issuing the revised licenses to same-sex couples on June 17.

Homosexuals would still be able to get married between then and the election, even with the initiative pending, unless the court agrees to stay its decision until after Nov. 4, as the amendment's sponsors have requested.

If the marriages proceed during the next five months, it is unclear whether they would be nullified if the amendment passes. Some legal scholars have said the state Supreme Court might get called on again to settle that question.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, said advocates of same-sex marriage have already launched a campaign to defeat the measure. "There is just so much at stake, now, in terms of what kind of state we are going to live in and what values we are going to uphold," Kendell said.

To qualify for the ballot, the measure needed 694,354 petition signatures, an amount equal to eight percent of the votes cast during the last governor's race. Proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in late April, and county clerks determined the measure qualified by verifying the validity of three percent of the signatures they received, according to Bowen.

California residents have already spoken on the issue of homosexual marriage, passing Proposition 22, the defense of marriage act, by a 62 percent margin in March 2000.

Bush supports putting marriage on ballot
'Judges presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization'

President Bush has supported a constitutional amendment that calls marriage the union of one man and one woman since he, in 2004, warned, "a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilizations," and his opinions haven't changed, according to a spokeswoman.

The answer came from White House spokeswoman Dana Perino at a news briefing today. She said, "You know the president's position on this has been very clear."

She was responding to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, who asked, "As of yesterday, the California ballot this November will have the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, which the president supports, doesn't he?"

Perino responded that Bush has been clear.

"And he does support it," Kinsolving asked.

"Let's go to your next question," she said.

It was in 2004 when Bush announced his desire for a constitutional marriage amendment in light of the newly decided – at that time – state court ruling in Massachusetts that declared the constitutionality of marriage certificates for same-sex duos.

He said the Defense of Marriage Act, at that time eight years old, was approved overwhelmingly in Congress.

"Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage," he said then. But he noted the "activist judges" and others continue to try to redefine the institution.

"Unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty," he warned. "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

He said the "one recourse" left is to "enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. … An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. … And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance."

"Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," he concluded.

However, since then, support for a U.S. Constitutional amendment has not been assembled, and Bush's forecasts have come true, with the latest issue being created by the California Supreme Court which ruled in May that state laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman are unconstitutional.

Already in the works in that state was a plan to submit the issue to voters, as an amendment to the state constitution. Just yesterday, state officials confirmed enough signatures had been validated to put that issue on this November's ballot.

That campaign was assembled by Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council. Prentice also serves as chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com campaign.

The amendment reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Liberty Counsel, one of the legal groups working on the case, recently filed a request for the state Supreme Court to stay its May 15 ruling.

"Now that we know for certain the California Marriage Protection Act will appear on the November ballot, the California Supreme Court must stay its decision. Issuing a stay is the only course of action. The people of California will have the final say on marriage. I have no doubt that when the people vote, they will affirm marriage as one man and one woman," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law.

In a second question, Kinsolving asked, "The New York Times editorial page commends Sen. McCain for promising, if he is elected, to bring the hallowed British parliament's prime minister's question time to Congress. And my question: Would the president be willing to try this just once as a sampling before the election?"

"As entertaining as that might be, I think we'll let – the next president can decide if they want to do that or not," Perino said.

"Well, the next – don't you think that McCain is going to be the next president?" Kinsolving said.

"I do, and we'll let him decide," Perino said.

"And he has decided, so why doesn't this president break it in?" Kinsolving asked.

"It's a great idea. It would be a lot of fun for you to cover," she said.

Democratic Party endorses homosexual marriage

California Supreme Court refuses pleas from attorneys general in 10 states to delay homosexual marriage

On June 3, the Democratic National Committee issued a 2008 Gay PRIDE proclamation supporting homosexual marriage. DNC Chairman Howard Dean and Representatives Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin released the proclamation.

Quote

Democrats Issue 2008 Gay PRIDE Proclamation Supporting Homosexual Marriage

Democrat National Committee
June 3, 2008

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today joined Massachusetts Democratic Representative Barney Frank and Wisconsin Democratic Representative Tammy Baldwin in issuing the following Proclamation marking PRIDE Month:

"Today, on behalf of Democrats across America, we join together in celebrating the contributions that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and their families make to our society and reaffirm our Party's commitment to promoting full equality under the law for every American.

"As leaders of the Democratic Party, we stand proudly with the LGBT community and commit ourselves to working together to build an America that is truly inclusive. Every American has the right to live in dignity, with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law.

These are our country's and our Party's core values. Across the country, at every level of government, Democrats have championed sweeping protections in the areas of employment, housing, domestic partnerships and civil unions, adoption, gender identity or expression, and hate crimes.

We need to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, pass the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, and repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' We need a comprehensive, science-based strategy for combating HIV/AIDS. We must address the socioeconomic problems, including poverty and limited access to health care, that increase vulnerability to this disease.

"To do all of these things we need to put a Democrat in the White House, expand our majorities in Congress, and elect more Democrats at the local and state level across the country. To do that, we need you. Get active, get involved, and join us so we can take our country back."

Also, in a display of sheer arrogance, the California Supreme Court has refused to delay legalization of homosexual marriage until after the people of California have a chance to vote on the issue in November. Attorneys general from 10 states asked the activist judges to delay implementing their ruling, citing the millions of dollars in litigation it will cost their respective states and the legal chaos caused by the California Supreme Court.

These activist judges clearly showed their goal is to force homosexual marriage on every American. The only way America can protect itself from such radical judges is through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment of 2008 (H.J. RES. 89). This amendment would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman.

American Family Association is attempting to get 1,000,000 emails sent to Congress. Their system will automatically send it to your representative asking him or her to co-sponsor H.J. RES. 89. They have 125,000 so far. Their system will automatically detect if your representative is one of the 18 co-sponsors and present you with a suggested "thank you" e-mail. If he or she is not a co-sponsor, our system will present you with an e-mail message urging your Member of Congress to support H.J. RES. 89 - the Marriage Protection Amendment (2008).

Biblical marriage vs. CA courts: Ruling today

Pro-family attorneys are trying another legal route to block implementation of so-called "gay marriage" in California this evening.

The California Supreme Court has rejected appeals of its ruling that the state must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning at 5:01 p.m. (local time) today. But the Supreme Court's decision merely hands the case back down to the California Court of Appeal, which is charged with deciding how and when to implement the high court's ruling. It is that power that Matt Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, is appealing to now.

"It should clearly be stayed because the people are going to vote in November with regards to the California marriage protection amendment. That's a matter that, in fact, we addressed before the California Supreme Court, which they denied. However, the California Court of Appeals has a separate, independent obligation to consider this matter as well," contends the attorney.

Liberty Counsel filed a petition last week with the appeals court on behalf of the Campaign for California Families, asking the court to delay issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples for that and other reasons. "The California Supreme Court only addressed two of the many statutes regarding marriage. You can't simply address two statutes when there's [sic] literally hundreds of others, all of which reference 'men' and 'women,' 'male' and 'female,' 'husband' and 'wife,' all of which have to be addressed," Staver explains.

The Liberty Counsel chairman says failure to take matters such as that under consideration is one of the primary reasons the U.S. and state constitutions do not let judges write laws. "All of the confusion illustrates one point: judges should not be in the business of being politically active lawmakers," Staver points out.

The appeals court, according to the attorney, should stay the decision to give the legislature time to examine the hundreds of other state statutes that could come into conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling. "It's that court which is tasked with implementing the particular ruling. It's at that level we're asking, now, this court to do its job, to follow the rule of law and to stay this decision," Staver says.

Liberty Counsel's press release says this case "is far from over. We will not give up. The people will have the final say on marriage."

Homeschoolers' fate hangs on hearing results
Court's earlier opinion said parents don't have right to teach children

The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles is scheduled to hear oral arguments Monday in the Rachel L. case, the startling ruling released in February in which the judges concluded there was no constitutional or statutory provision for parents to homeschool their children.

The case immediately sparked nationwide outrage, up to the White House and Congress, which approved a resolution calling for a rehearing, and the court panel's judges eventually scheduled new arguments in the dispute, effectively overturning their own earlier ruling.

Kevin Snider, chief counsel for the Pacific Justice Institute, is to argue the legality of homeschooling under both state law and constitutional law as a representative of the private Christian school that provided the overarching program in which the family participated.

An estimated 166,000 children are being homeschooled in California, and their future also will be argued by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who represents the father in the case, along with the Alliance Defense Fund.

The Home School Legal Defense Association, the nation's premiere homeschooling advocacy organization, also has been assisting in preparation of the arguments, which will be in addition to the arguments from the various components of California's education industry, education agencies and teachers' unions.

"We are looking forward to this opportunity to defend the thousands of families who are making sacrifices to teach their children at home. The state should be applauding, not threatening, these families," said Brad Dacus, president of PJI.

"We hope that the court reverses its decision and restores homeschool freedom to California," said Michael Farris, chairman of the HSLDA.

In 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the rights of parents to oversee the education of their children, stating, "The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations," according to Liberty Counsel, which also is working on the case.

The court's earlier opinion originated with a juvenile case, but concluded that parents without mandatory credentials from state agencies and teachers' unions do not have the right to school their children at home.

Liberty Counsel filed a brief on behalf of 19 members of Congress providing an overview of education laws in all 50 states.

In another brief, filed on behalf of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. argued that there's no need to dig into state constitutional issues regarding homeschooling since state laws already provide for that choice for parents.

"Here, this court need not reach any constitutional issues because this petition can be decided entirely on statutory grounds," the brief said. "The Education Code provides a broad statutory basis for homeschooling in California, setting forth three different avenues through which parents may legally homeschool their children."

The brief said the trial court in the case at hand "addressed only the constitutional issues, it never considered the preliminary question of whether the parents had met the statutory requirements for homeschooling under the Education Act."

WND broke the story in February when the original decision was released, and has reported on the various briefs as they have been filed.

Since the case originated with a juvenile court proceeding, some of the arguments and briefs have remained confidential, because of the standard for handling juvenile proceedings. Other briefs have been released publicly.

"HSLDA has also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in conjunction with Focus on the Family and Family Protection Ministries to show the benefits of a home education. These arguments draw on the extensive development of homeschooling and the successful track record of parents educating their children at home," the organization said.

The original opinion was written by Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey and said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence. … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

Homeschool advocates immediately expressed concern the original ruling would leave parents who educate their children at home liable criminally as well as open to civil charges for child neglect that could create the potential for fines, court-ordered counseling or even loss of custody.

The original California opinion arose from a dependency case brought in juvenile court. In the process, attorneys assigned by the court to the family's two younger children sought a court order for them to be enrolled in a public or qualifying private school.

The district court denied the request citing parental rights, but the appellate court overturned the decision and granted the attorneys' request. The appeals court concluded the parents held neither a statutory right nor a constitutional right to provide homeschooling to their own children.

'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.

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."

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.

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."

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

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.

Quote from: Pastor Roger on August 18, 2008, 09:41:40 PM

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. ;D

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."

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.

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.

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.

School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
Parents outraged at public elementary's secretive 'coming out' event

Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.

One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school.

The little girl replied, "We're learning to be allies."

The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch.

According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating "Gay and Lesbian History Month" and is in the process of observing "Ally Week," a pro-"gay" occasion usually geared toward high school students.

The school is scheduled to host discussions about families and has posted fliers on school grounds portraying only homosexuals. According to the report, a "TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud" will take place Nov. 20. Students will listen to traditional stories with "gay" or transgender twists, to include "Jane and the Beanstalk."

Some parents only recently noticed posters promoting tomorrow's "Coming Out Day." When WND contacted the school to confirm the event, a representative replied, "Yes, it is scheduled on our calendar."

When asked if the school made any efforts to inform parents, she refused to answer and said the Hayward Unified School District would have to respond to additional questions. However, the district did not answer its phones or e-mails, and a voicemail recording would not take messages. "Coming Out Day" is not listed on the district's online school calendar.

Some of the parents contacted Pacific Justice Institute for representation when they learned the school was pushing pro-"gay" events for young children without warning.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said opponents of California's proposed ban on same-sex marriage, or Proposition 8, often say the measure would not have an effect on public schools – but this is one of many recent developments that prove otherwise.

"Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?" he asked. "Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools."

Quote from: Pastor Roger on November 03, 2008, 08:31:18 PM

If Obama and his cohorts get their way it will soon be illegal for us to teach our own children and the agenda above plus a whole lot worse will be mandatory for all.

Brother,

I've thought about this many times. It's a matter of prayer, and I think that GOD will provide. I have no doubt that things are going to get much more difficult, regardless of what happens in the election. The circumstances will dictate what we pray about. We both have grown children, but we also both have grandchildren. I can't stand the thought of someone teaching my grandchildren filth and trying to snare them for the devil. At this point, I believe that GOD will provide the path at the right time if we pray and yield ourselves to HIS Will. We might also think strongly that the time of the RAPTURE is soon. Regardless, we are talking about sending our children and grandchildren THROUGH THE FIRE. My first thoughts are that they would have to kill me first. Considerable prayer and Bible study would really be necessary to yield to GOD'S Will - not mine and not some agent of the devil. We still have many legal avenues to use and try. Regardless, we know that the devil is coming, and the Great Restrainer will be removed by GOD to allow the devil to do his worst during portions of the Tribulation Period. The Great Restrainer is the HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD, and we have HIM living in our hearts. Just think - we may be part of the GREAT RESTRAINER, and these events will have much to do with the timing of the RAPTURE. I know there are many thoughts and differences on this topic, and I didn't mean this as an argument - rather for thought. As Members of the CHURCH WHICH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST, we have already been delivered from the WRATH TO COME. The big question involves the level of WRATH and WHO'S WRATH. As Christians, we are already SAVED, but GOD didn't promise us an easy time without suffering. We both know that our PROMISES as Christians are literally OUT OF THIS WORLD for Eternity. The time could come soon when Christians are killed for refusal to deny CHRIST and submit to the devil. YES - I'm talking about this part of the world. That would be a reasonable service for CHRIST. We could also be called to fight. We don't know yet, and much will be and MUST be a matter of prayer. We could also be led like lambs to the slaughter.

Love In Christ,
Tom

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.

Californians tell court 'marriage' is 1-man-1-woman
'If you introduce counterfeit, it devalues original'

Voters in California have rejected the opinion of four justices on their state Supreme Court who created homosexual "marriage" in May, approving a constitutional amendment that means from this point on only marriage between one man and one woman is "valid or recognized" in the state.

Proposition 8 was approved by a margin of several hundred thousands votes, or 52 percent to 48 percent, according to state officials.

The verdict comes just months after the May ruling from the state Supreme Court that "created" the state designation of "marriage" for same-sex couples. State officials even rewrote marriage licenses to designate "Party A" and "Party B" instead of "bride" and "groom."

That, however, has been thrown out by voters, although several political leaders and "gay" couples already have announced plans to challenge the now-constitutional definition of marriage as "unconstitutional."

In other elections yesterday, Florida and Arizona also approved "gay" marriage bans for their state constitutions, raising to 30 the number of states where voters have embedded protections for traditional one-man-one-woman marriage in their constitutions.

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel, called the results a "mandate."

(Story continues below)

And he said, through the votes, Americans were condemning "the rampant judicial activism which has forced the silly and oxymoronic, though very harmful, notion into popular lexicon."

"Although president-elect Obama has indicated his opposition to both the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and all constitutional marriage protection amendments, this election proves that he is sorely out of step with the American people on these issues. … The passage of these three state constitutional amendments is an indicator that Obama, who has pledged full support for every single demand of extremist homosexual pressure groups, must recalibrate his far-left positions on these and other social issues if he wishes to be an effective leader," he said.

"The institution of legitimate marriage is a cornerstone of any healthy society. If you introduce counterfeit money into society, it devalues the dollar. By the same token, if you introduce counterfeit 'gay marriage' into society, it devalues the institution of natural marriage. President-elect Obama owes his African-American supporters and the rest of America assurances that he will work to protect the cornerstone institution of legitimate marriage and reject the free-speech killing, religious liberties chilling agenda of the radical homosexual lobby," Barber said.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has promised to challenge Proposition 8, the Associated Press reported.

The report also said the first lesbian couple "married" in Los Angeles County also will argue the new provision is unconstitutional.

A commentary at Dakota Voice.com said the "mess" in California will have to be cleaned up, because of the thousands of same-sex marriages based on the state Supreme Court's ruling.

"The question will be what happens to these unions that for a time were blessed by official state sanction," the editorial said.

Randy Thomasson of the pro-family Campaign for Children and Families told WND that issue probably will end up before the state Supreme Court again, although the amendment now states that nothing but a marriage between a man and a woman will be "valid or recognized" in the states.

"I predicted that it would pass by a narrow majority, which it has," he said. "I will say this: America is in a moral freefall. Consider that in the year 2000, 61 percent of California voters believed marriage is only for a man and a woman. This election, it's only 52 percent who believe that. That's a nine-point loss for truth in only eight years.

"Just think what the next eight years will bring unless pastors and other leaders for moral truth become the dominant voices for truth in society. Think what will happen to children of churchgoing parents unless those parents get their children out of the godless government school system and instruct them in the ways of the Lord," he said.

The goal of advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles, traditional marriage supporters believe, is a complete and total indoctrination of coming generations of children.

The following video, used by California's Protect Marriage.com campaign, tells the story of a Massachusetts family who objected to such teachings in a public school after the state, lacking a constitutional protection for marriage, saw judges open wide the door of marriage to same-sex duos.

Meredith Turney, a spokeswoman for Capital Resource Institute, said she was pleased "the people of California basically told these four activists judges, 'We decided this eight years ago, and four of you cannot define marriage for millions of Californians.'"

The California Supreme Court's original opinion said same-sex duos should be allowed to marry because retaining the historic definition "cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest."

Joining Chief Justice Ron George in the majority opinion were Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard and Kathryn Mickle Werdegard. Dissenting were Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin. Carol Corrigan wrote a separate dissent.

The pro-"gay" marriage campaigners also vilified the Mormon church in an ad they generated.

It shows fictional missionaries from the church group confiscating rings of two lesbians and tearing up their marriage certificate.

The Most Rev. Stephen Blaire, bishop of Stockton and president of the California Catholic Conference, called the ad "a blatant display of religious bigotry and intolerance." He said he was dismayed any media outlet would agree to run it.

In the ad, two missionaries identify themselves as Mormons and say, "We are here to take away your rights."

They go into the house, take the rings and hunt through drawers for a marriage license, which they tear up.

Rick Jacobs, of the pro-homosexual marriage campaign, told KUTV television in Salt Lake City the ad literally is a message the houses of Californians are being invaded by the Mormon church.

But Scott Trotter, an LDS spokesman, argued members are working with others in a broad-based coalition "in defense of traditional marriage."

"While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the church this same courtesy," he said.

In Justice Baxter's dissent to the majority opinion in California, he raised the specter of chaos soon to come.

"The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy," he wrote. "Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

"Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" he wrote.

ACLU launches court action to overturn Prop. 8

Homosexuals and their supporters in California are vowing to fight the passage of a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Even as the last votes were being counted, the American Civil Liberties Union and other opponents of Proposition 8 filed a challenge with the state Supreme Court. They contended that it cannot be used to undermine one group's access to rights enjoyed by other citizens. (Read earlier story: "Major pro-family victory in California")

The city attorneys in Los Angeles and San Francisco also filed a request with the Supreme Court to invalidate the amendment's approval, arguing that it deprives homosexuals of constitutional rights.

This amendment became necessary after the California Supreme Court -- by a 4-to-3 decision last summer -- ruled that an earlier state referendum protecting traditional marriage was illegal.

Proposition 8, which appeared on Tuesday ballot and passed with 52 percent of the vote, overrides that court ruling by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Thirty states now have adopted such measures, but the California vote marks the first time a state took away same-sex "marriage" after it had been legalized.

Exit polls on Tuesday revealed dramatic demographic gaps in the homosexual-marriage vote. While about six in 10 voters under 30 opposed the ban, about the same proportion of those 65 and older supported it. There were sharp racial discrepancies as well. Even as black voters overwhelmingly backed Barack Obama -- a homosexual-rights supporter -- in the presidential race, about seven in 10 of them voted against same-sex marriage, compared with about half of white voters.

Denise Fernandez, a 57-year-old black woman from Sacramento, said she voted for Obama and Proposition 8. "I believe a Christian is held accountable," she said.

Yes, we will be held accountable and she most certainly will be held accountable also.

Traditional marriage amendments also passed on Tuesday in Arizona and Florida, with 57 percent and 62 percent support, respectively, while Arkansas voters approved a measure aimed at homosexuals that bars unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents.

Massachusetts and Connecticut are now the only states to allow same-sex marriage.

'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban
'Burn their ******* churches, then tax charred timbers'

Decisions by voters in Florida, Arizona and California to join residents of 27 other states with constitutional protections for traditional marriage have prompted threats of violence against Christians and their churches.

"Burn their ******* churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier.

The amendments in all three states essentially limit marriage to one man and one woman. In California, the measure states the only marriages "valid and recognized" in the state are those between one man and one woman.

Thirty states now have adopted marriage amendments. However, in California, the vitriol appeared especially high since the state Supreme Court in May created same-sex marriage for homosexuals. Proposition 8 overruled the court decision, readopting the marriage definition California voters adopted in 2000.

On a blog website, "Tread" wrote, "I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives."

Another contributor to the JoeMyGod website said, "While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."

A contributor identifying himself as "Joe" said, "I swear, I'd murder people with my bare hands this morning."

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel, called the statements "hate crimes" for their intent to create violence against someone based on their beliefs.

"This is not just a matter of some people blowing off steam because they're not happy with a political outcome. This is criminal activity," he said. "The homosexual lobby is always calling for 'tolerance' and 'diversity' and playing the role of victim. They claim to deplore violence and 'hate.' Here we have homosexuals inciting, and directly threatening, violence against Christians."

On the "Queerty" website, "Stenar" asked, "Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."

"I'm going to give them something to be ******* scared of. … I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done," wrote "Jonathan."

Liberty Counsel's Barber said, "This is not free speech; these are 'hate crimes' under the existing definition. Imagine if Christian websites were advocating such violence against homosexuals. There'd be outrage, and rightfully so. It'd be national front-page news. Federal authorities should immediately investigate these threats and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law."

On yet another site, "Americablog," "scottinsf" wrote, "Trust me. I've got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics … I warn them to watch their backs."

"I hope they all rot in hell, those servants of a lying, corrupt devil! BAN RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM," wrote Angelo.

One contributor went so far as to threaten to take out his frustrations on his own family.

"You want me to come back to Idaho for Christmas? Oh wait, my partner and I can't share the same bed? We can't show any affection or any outward sign of our love for each other? Well sorry family ... no Uncle Adam and all his expensive gifts and delicious cooking for you. Your childrens' presents will now be donations in their name to the equal rights organization of my choosing. As will their and your birthday presents, wedding presents, graduation presents, and everything else I give going forward."

The writer continued, "Remember, I'm angry. And I'm strong from my years at the gym and really am ready to take my frustration out on someone or something."

Barber said the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and "other leaders within the homosexual lobby" should call immediately for an end to such threats.

There were suggestions of a different type of violence, too.

"Hope the gay waiters at their hotel ****** in all the drinks they served these cretins," "Jake" wrote about protectors of traditional marriage.

"If you're planning a heterosexual wedding in California … be prepared for picketers. Designate someone to watch the parking lot … You're going to have lots of unexpected expenses. Add $500 to your budget for security. … Be prepared for the flowers not lasting to the reception or the tuxedos showing up two sizes too small or the music at the reception being a way too loud or the cake tasting a little funny," stated another threat. "Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are everywhere."

Another even listed addresses of Mormon facilities. Mormon, Catholic and other religious groups were active in supporting the marriage definition.

"I do not openly advocate firebombing or vandalism. What you do with the information is your own choice," wrote Jeremy.

Every single WORD from GOD is going to be fulfilled! YES - we should see it and simply give THANKS! I pity those who don't have JESUS CHRIST as LORD and SAVIOUR. They should still be our highest priority, even if we die in the attempt. We know about what GOD says about those who are persecuted in HIS NAME, and we already have our instructions about how to make our JOY MORE FULL! We simply need to Pray, YIELD, and joyfully serve the LORD! After all, we are CHILDREN OF THE KING OF KINGS!

Love In Christ,
Tom

2 Corinthians 4:1-18 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Same-sex marriage rowdies single out Mormons
Protesters riot at temple, vow further action against Latter-day Saints

Police arrested two people, and photographs from the scene show angry crowds and violent confrontations in front of the Los Angeles Mormon temple yesterday as part of continued protests over the passage of California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage.

As WND reported, since the ballot measure was approved by voters earlier this week, supporters of same-sex marriage have made profane and violent threats against Christians and churches.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, has become a focused target of anger after the church's leadership urged members to support the Yes on 8 campaign and opponents of the measure, according to the Los Angeles Times, estimate LDS members gave over $20 million to pass the ballot initiative.

Lorri L. Jean, chief executive officer of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, was at yesterday's massive demonstration, which swarmed the Mormon temple with an angry mob of an estimated 2,000 protesters.

"It is a travesty that the Mormon church bought this election and used a campaign of lies and deception to manipulate voters in the great state of California," Jean told the crowd, according to KTTV-TV in Los Angeles. "Today we will send a message to (LDS) President Monson that we will not tolerate being stripped of our equal rights in the name of religious bigotry."

Jeff Flint, strategist for Yes on 8, however, told the Times, "I am appalled at the level of Mormon-bashing that went on during the Proposition 8 campaign and continues to this day."

The Times reported dozens of the protesters screaming "Bigots!" and "Shame on you!" through the temple's closed gates. The newspaper's website shows dozens of photographs of protesters scaling the fences around the temple, waving signs and being restrained by police during some isolated, violent confrontations.

"As protests go, this one is remarkably long," Los Angeles Police Department Lt. John Romero told KCAL-TV in Los Angeles, four hours after the marches began. "When we talk about anti-war or immigration rights, (it) typically (lasts) one hour, two hours top."

The LDS church has been a lightning rod for anger after its role in passing Proposition 8. Last month, protesters parked an SUV painted with hate messages in front of a Mormon family of seven's home. WND reported a television commercial in which Mormon missionaries were depicted barging into a lesbian couple's home, explaining their mission to "take away your rights."

David Loder, a business manager and member of the Mormon church, told the Times his Yes on 8 yard sign was vandalized and he heard about the protest on the radio.

"As a member of the LDS church we have known [and still do] the feeling of being ridiculed and mistreated because of our faith," he said.

Still, Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign, which produced the "Home Invasion" commercial, told the Times he does not believe his group was bashing Mormons.

"This is not about religion," said Jacobs. "This is about a church that put itself in the middle of politics."

Jean, whose Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center organized the rally outside the temple, now says she plans to continue protesting the Mormon church's involvement.

During the rally she announced plans for a new website to raise funds for advocating same-sex marriage in California. For every $5 donated, Jean said, her organization will send a postcard to LDS President Thomas S. Monson condemning "the reprehensible role the Church of Latter-day Saints leadership played in denying all Californians equal rights under the law."

LDS officials yesterday issued a statement asking for "a spirit of mutual respect and civility."

"The church acknowledges that such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life – family and marriage – stirs fervent and deep feelings," church spokeswoman Kim Farah wrote in an e-mail to the Times. "No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information."

Quote from: sentry on November 10, 2008, 10:16:37 PM

I've often asked "what is happening to our society". The more I read God's word, the more I understand. Man has a battle within himself. He wants to rule and sweep the blood of Jesus Christ away. God destroyed Sodom for the same purpose. Man became corrupt. Our world is on a down-hill roll. Some of our churches are becoming of the world. I feel that is why we as Christians need to pray together anywhere we can. On this forum, there are people from all around the world and I feel blessed to be a part of the fellowship of Jesus Christ here. One day Christ will come and all pain, worry, heartache will be vanished away. Until that day each of us need to be a family in Jesus Christ. Love to all and God's blessings.

AMEN SENTRY!

Brother, I think that you hit the nail square on the head, and I share your thoughts. There has been an ongoing war between good and evil for the history of mankind and before. We know that GOD can win this war anytime HE wants to, and HE Will at HIS Appointed time. I think that time is soon and I anxiously await both returns of our LORD and SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST. HIS first return won't be all the way down to the earth, rather to the clouds to catch up (RAPTURE) HIS CHURCH WHICH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. It gives me joy every time I think about this.

HIS SECOND return will be all the way down to the earth at HIS SECOND COMING to end the Tribulation Period and restore PEACE. It will be the only REAL PEACE that the world has known for these thousands of years, and ONLY JESUS CHRIST can make this kind of PEACE. JESUS CHRIST Himself will ride into battle in Great Wrath to crush evil and reserve it for Eternal Judgment. Heavenly Hosts of Armies will follow HIM into battle. JESUS CHRIST will win the war and RULE AND REIGN over the earth from the Throne of David in Jerusalem. Israel will be restored. Many people either don't know or understand that JESUS CHRIST is the Anointed KING of Israel, and HE Will claim HIS Throne and all that is HIS.

Brothers and Sisters, GOD'S Promises are beautiful to consider every day. I firmly believe that things are going to get much harder soon, but that will also mean that fulfillment of GOD'S Promises are also soon.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Revelation 7:1-4 NASB After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree. And I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the seal of the living God; and he cried out with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, saying, "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads." And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:

Quote from: blackeyedpeas on November 11, 2008, 11:22:27 AM

Brothers and Sisters, GOD'S Promises are beautiful to consider every day. I firmly believe that things are going to get much harder soon, but that will also mean that fulfillment of GOD'S Promises are also soon.[/b]

Amen! "Even so, come, Lord Jesus."

Church lady meet same-sex 'marriage' protesters
Cross-carrying senior, reporter face screams, threats

An angry mob of homosexual activists in Southern California attacked an elderly bespectacled woman carrying a cross, then shouted her down during a live TV interview as she tried to explain to a reporter her defense of the state's new marriage amendment.

"WE SHOULD FIGHT! WE SHOULD FIGHT!" screams one pro-'gay'-marriage protester as the woman, identified as Phyllis Burgess, stands calmly with a reporter waiting to be interviewed.

Another is screaming, "GET OUT OF HERE," and the reporter tells her anchor team back at the station, "As you can see we are being attacked."

The situation developed when homosexual activists gathered at the Palm Springs City Hall for a protest following voters' approve by a margin of nearly 53 percent to 47 percent a state constitutional amendment that acknowledges only a marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California. The amendment specified that it is effective immediately.

Then Burgess appeared, carrying a cross, to portray the biblical perspective of homosexual marriage.

She barely had arrived when the cross was knocked from her hand, then stomped on the ground.

The on-scene reporter, identified as Connie Chang, tried repeatedly to complete her interview.

"She just wants to express her viewpoint, sir," she tells a protester who was waving his arms in her face.

The video later was posted on the San Francisco State University College Republicans' website.

But the worst was yet to come, said Ryan Sorba, chairman of the college group.

"The video is astounding and chilling and speaks for itself," he wrote. "The end of this video illustrates the fate of religious freedom and marriage should pro-sodomy activists ultimately legalize so-called same-sex marriage by way of activist California courts."

That's where the anchor concludes the report with: "There's a lot of anger and a lot of hate, quite honestly, on both sides."

On the Republicans' comment page, there was outrage.

"There is simply no explanation for this kind of intolerance. For a group of people who claim to be fighting to expand their rights, they sure are willing to strip conservatives of theirs," said one participant.

"Yeah, the 80 year old woman was full of HATE. you could tell," wrote another anonymous poster.

Another said, "The anchor said there was a lot of anger and hate on both sides – there was no anger and hate portrayed by the little old lady holding the cross. She reminds me of Ghandi. The anger and hate was all one sided. To defile a crucifix like that is a very grave evil indeed."

"Man, this is unbelievable," added Fiona. "I have never seen so much intolerance and hate in my life. Who is being silenced now. The news anchor obviously was not paying attention to what was going on, if he had the nerve to say there was hatred from both sides. ... From what I saw, she was saying she loved the people, was praying, and had her belongings ripped from her and trampled on."

The other perspective was represented by another poster, "That lady had it comin.'"

____________

From what I have been told by a number of people that I know that live in the southern portion of California there has been numerous incidents of violence against Christians in the area. Many of them just attempting to get to their churches and others during their normal routines that had to go through the protesters in order to get to where they needed to be.

Schwarzenegger on Proposition 8: 'We will undo that'
Governor encourages same-sex marriage advocates not to give up

In a CNN interview, Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger encouraged opponents of the passed Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, not to give up until the measure is overturned.

"It is unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," vowed the governor in yesterday's interview, referring to Proposition 8's passage, "because this will go back to the courts."

He later said of the voter-approved state constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman, "We will undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward."

Proposition 8 marks the second time in recent years that the people of California have voted to ban same-sex marriage in the state. The first was Proposition 22, adopted March 7, 2000, when 61 percent of the vote approved a ballot initiative that added the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the California Civil Code.

Earlier this year, however, the California Supreme Court voted 4-3 to strike the law as unconstitutional, paving the way for same-sex marriages to begin in the state.

Defenders of traditional marriage then brought Proposition 8 as a ballot initiative to add the same words to the state's constitution. Proposition 8 passed last week with 52.5 percent of the vote.

In the CNN interview, however, Gov. Schwarzenegger asked opponents of Proposition 8 to take a lesson in perseverance from his former body-building days. He said that in weight lifting, he would attempt to lift a weight 10 times and fail, before succeeding on the 11th try.

"I learned that you should never, ever give up. I think this is the same," Schwarzenegger said.

Referring to opponents of Proposition 8 seeking to overturn the measure, he continued, "They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done."

Marriage fight turns to preservation of constitution
'If courts deny people their rights, the rule of law will be upended'

Marriage has been argued in the California courts already for years, with the state Supreme Court declaring the creation in May of the "right" for same-sex duos to "marry," but the battle has taken on a new tone with the approval by voters in the state last week of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman.

"The battle to preserve marriage has taken on a whole new dimension as we fight to preserve our basic constitutional form of government," said Brad Dacus, of Pacific Justice Institute. "If the courts deny the people of California their inherent right to determine such a basic matter of public policy as preserving marriage, the rule of law will be upended. The stakes are incredibly high."

When it was clear that voters in the state, by a margin of about 53 percent to 47 percent, had approved Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, pro-homosexual activists wasted no time in filing at least three lawsuits seeking to declare the provision in the constitution, which took effect on its approval, unconstitutional.

Dacus' Pacific Justice Institute now has filed documents with the state Supreme Court to defend the constitutional amendment.

The three cases come from the ACLU and Lambda, a pro-homosexual activist organization, from celebrity attorney Gloria Allred, and from the city attorneys for San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Clara County.

"All three cases use the same basic arguments that Prop. 8 'takes rights away' and should be considered a revision, rather than an amendment, to the state constitution," Pacific Justice said. "Revisions must be approved by both the legislature and voters."

Learn about the intimidating tactics and brilliant marketing techniques being used by "gay rights" activists – read David Kupelian's controversial blockbuster, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom."

According to state law, California Attorney General Jerry Brown is the official defender of the amendment. However, Brown worked to have it defeated before voters had their say and has not stepped in to respond yet.

As a result, Pacific Justice filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the cases, opposing the demands for the court to block enactment of the provision, which now is a part of the state constitution.

"It is being argued that voters can never undo judicial decisions – even when the courts insert themselves into public policy debates," noted PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider. "If accepted, that argument will eviscerate California's initiative process."

"PJI Staff Attorney Matt McReynolds added, "The lawsuit filed by San Francisco, L.A. and Santa Clara County are egregious abuses of power. More than 700,000 citizens in those locales voted in favor of Prop. 8, yet their tax dollars are being used to finance an attack against Prop. 8. This is political grandstanding at its worst."

The filing states: "Petitioners rely on section 923 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) as authority for a stay of the implementation of Article II, paragraph 8 of the California Constitution. This section provides no grounds upon which the Supreme Court can prevent the implementation of a constitutional amendment while it is under review by the court. Indeed, petitioners have cited no case in California's 158 years of judicial history in which this court has taken such an action. There is good reason for this. Such action would be an usurpation by the judiciary in violation of the separation of powers."

The filing continues that since marriage only between one man and one woman was approved by voters, it became the status quo, as it was for all of the 158 years prior to the May court ruling.

California voters approved a measure in 2000 defining marriage as one man and one woman, but because it was only a state law, the state Supreme Court was able to throw it out. Defenders of traditional marriage sought to put the definition in the state constitution to take it beyond the grasp of activist judges.

Pro-'gay marriage' rallies planned nationwide
Protests in all 50 states aim to pressure California Supremes to overturn Prop. 8

Same-sex marriage advocates have marked today as a "National Day of Protest" and are planning marches around the country to rally against California's Proposition 8, a voter initiative that passed on Election Day, defining marriage in the state as strictly between one man and one woman.

Organizers have march leaders and groups coordinated in all 50 states, even in towns as small as Decorah, Iowa, population 8,172.

"Guess the whole 'Yes We Can' Obama thing got something started," writes poster kgongre, advertising the event on OpEdNews.com. "Too bad so many who voted for progress with one hand tried to shove us back in the closet with the other. No. Not going to work that way this time.

"Seems a lot of us Gay folk are just about fed up with being told who we can and can't marry," kgongre writes.

The planned day of protest is being coordinated through a website called Join the Impact, which states its movement seeks to "look forward toward what needs to be done now to achieve one goal: Full equality for ALL."

Join the Impact has served as a clearinghouse for international supporters of the protest, enabling the groups to coordinate their marches to begin at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time, across the U.S. and in at least nine other countries.

Ed Reggi, organizer of the St. Louis protest, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch the goal is to pressure the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8.

"If California can rewrite its constitution to specifically target gays and lesbians, then whose civil rights could be next?" Reggi asked.

Seattle activist Amy Balliett, founder of Join the Impact, told the website 365gay, "When we're backed into a corner, as we have been with these propositions, we cannot let ourselves be silenced. Protest is a way to bring that conversation back to a national level."

Learn about the intimidating tactics and brilliant marketing techniques being used by "gay rights" activists – read David Kupelian's controversial blockbuster, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom."

As WND reported, following Proposition 8's passage, protest marches in California began and grew to near-riot levels. Photos in the Los Angeles Times showed protesters climbing the fences of a Mormon temple, screaming through the chain link, while marchers shouted "bigot" and "shame on you" through the gates.

Thousands have taken to the streets in California, leading to arrests and confrontations – including one in which an elderly lady carrying a cross was verbally assaulted, her cross stripped from her and trampled on the ground.

WND has also reported how Christian churches have been targets of hateful, angry rhetoric, even while homosexual marriage advocates have marched carrying signs reading "Love thy neighbor" and "Separation of church and hate."

Join the Impact insists, however, that today's protests are intended to be peaceful.

"Our mission is to encourage our community to engage our opposition in a conversation about full equality and to do this with respect, dignity, and an attitude of outreach and education," says the website. "JoinTheImpact, as an entity, will not encourage divisiveness, violence, or disrespect of others and we do not approve of this. We do not stand for pointing the finger at one group and placing blame."

Anti-Prop. 8 Mob Watch: Christians in San Francisco’s Castro district

Gay activists hound Christians in San Francisco’s Castro district:

A description of a youtube video on the incident:

After just singing and worshiping God for a while, Roger decided that we should all hold hands in a circle and continue singing. So we did.

Someone (Actually a person who came up and hugged and kissed some of us who he knew from the past) convinced some people that we were there to protest against the no on 8 campaign.

Then some guy who was dressed up like one of the sisters (The sisters of perpetual indulgence is a group of men who dress up like nuns and call themselves the spiritual authority of the Castro.) took a curtain-type thing (Which I think they use to curse people) and wrapped it around us.

Then a crowd started gathering. We began to sing “Amazing Grace”, and basically sang that song the whole night. (At some points we also sang “Nothing but the Blood of Jesus” and “Oh the Blood of Jesus”.) At first, they just shouted at us, using crude, rude, and foul language and calling us names like “haters” and “bigots”. Since it was a long night, I can’t even begin to remember all of the things that were shouted and/or chanted at us. Then, they started throwing hot coffee, soda and alcohol on us and spitting (and maybe even peeing) on us. Then, a group of guys surrounded us with whistles, and blasted them inches away from our ears continually. Then, they started getting violent and started shoving us. At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles. Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said “Hey, that’s not yours, can you please give it back?”. He responded by hitting her on the head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her. I called the cops, and when they got there, they pulled her out of the circle and asked her if she wanted to press charges. She said “No, tell him I forgive him.”

Afterwards, she didn’t rejoin us in the circle, but she made friends with one of the people in the crowd, and really connected heart to heart. Roger got death threats. As the leader of our group, people looked him in the eyes and said “I am going to kill you.”, and they were serious. A cop heard one of them, and confronted him. (This part is kinda graphic, so you should skip the paragraph if you don’t want to be offended.) It wasn’t long before the violence turned to perversion. They were touching and grabbing me, and trying to shove things in my butt, and even trying to take off my pants - basically trying to molest me. I used one hand to hold my pants up, while I used the other arm to hold one of the girls. The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them.

KTVU news article on this:

In San Francisco's Castro District, people on both sides of the same-sex marriage controversy confronted each other on Friday night, as police tried to keep the peace. Proposition 8 passed in a close vote and eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Members of the gay community said that almost every Friday night, a Christian group meets at the corner of Castro and 18th Streets. They try to convert gays and lesbians into a straight lifestyle.

This Friday night, the message didn't go over well. Some gays and lesbians reacted by trying to chase the group out of the Castro.

"Their rights were respected," said Joe Schmitz, an opponent of Prop 8. "They got a chance to go ahead and pray on the sidewalk and I had the opportunity to express my freedom of speech which is telling them to get out of my neighborhood."

San Francisco Police officers in riot gear formed a line and escorted the religious group into a van to safely get them out of the area.

Members of the gay community insisted that their reaction to the Christian group was spontaneous. "It was not an organized thing. We're tired of it. It's not religious. It's not a racial thing. It's about hate. We're trying to send a message across the world that we're standing up and we don't want this to go on anymore," said Adam Quintero.

Supporters of same-sex marriage plan on Saturday to stage a national day of protest against Prop 8. Some demonstrators told KTVU that they are planning on more than protests. They say they plan to break away and carry out acts of civil disobedience.

In San Francisco, the demonstration is scheduled to take place outside City Hall. Other demonstrations are planned in Oakland and Walnut Creek, and in New York, Washington, Chicago and other U.S. cities.

Supporters of Prop 8 include the Mormon and Catholic churches. They say the passage of the measure was the will of the people and that they are being unfairly targeted.

Don Eaton, the public affairs representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints in the Bay Area said, "The church only encourages people to vote their conscience. The church also reminded us what our doctrine is with regards to marriage between a man and a woman." He also said that some members of the church gave money to the No on 8 campaign, and they weren't punished by the church.

A non-profit group called the Equal Justice Society joined the legal battle against Prop 8 on Friday. It and the NAACP, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and Mexican American Legal Defense jointly filed a lawsuit. They are asking the California Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8, arguing that it takes away civil rights.

"People of color need to stand up for the LGBT community," said Eva Paterson of the Equal Justice Society. "We think civil rights groups that represent people of color say it's very dangerous for the California electorate to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights."

Quote from: Pastor Roger on November 17, 2008, 10:46:12 PM

These violent and obscene PERVERTS have provided ample evidence numerous times why the public should always STAND UP AND VOTE AGAINST FILTH LIKE THIS! Decent people shouldn't put up with something like this even once. These idiots need to be sitting in JAIL OR PRISON every time they do something like this. Multiple SERIOUS CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS were committed by them, and they should have been PROSECUTED to the LIMIT OF THE LAW! Failure to PROSECUTE them will simply result in more victims. WE STILL HAVE LAWS, AND THIS ISN'T A JUNGLE YET!

Quote from: Pastor Roger on November 17, 2008, 11:35:20 PM

Amen! Unfortunately it is becoming a jungle of filth very rapidly though. I don't see any of them getting charged because the people that were attacked won't press charges.

Hello Pastor Roger,

Brother, I understand, appreciate, and try hard to practice "Hate the sin - NOT THE SINNER!" I even understand not filing charges in minor situations, but this wasn't a minor situation. This was a MAJOR situation with numerous FELONY offenses being committed. As a retired career police officer, I know that things like this must be addressed by the law sooner or later. "LATER" usually involves much more violence because the people got away with it before. I've seen the COST of failure to ENFORCE THE LAW, and the COST is too great for any of us to pay. This group of idiots might escalate their actions to KILLING the next time because they weren't PROSECUTED this time. I do understand the thoughts of many Christians failing to PROSECUTE, but I think these thoughts are misdirected and represent a near INVITATION to commit more serious violations of the law. OBVIOUSLY, it would be much better to STOP things like this before it turns into a MAD-DOG blood-letting situation. Further, children should not be seeing or hearing about things like this. I firmly believe that AGGRESSIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT must be practiced to remind IDIOTS that we still live in a civilized country. One can look at countless examples of what happens when the Laws of the People aren't enforced. The problems get WORSE and OUT OF CONTROL to the extent that conditions become unlivable. One also runs the risk of VIGILANTES starting to enforce the PEACE if the police won't.

By the way, the Police themselves can file these charges if they have probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The victim or victims filing charges is not required in cases this serious. If a FELONY and BREACH OF THE PEACE is being committing in the presence of a Police Officer, the Police Officer is required by law to take the appropriate actions. Failure to do so is a violation of the Law, Constitution, and the Officer's Oath of Office. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW comes into play - with or without the request or assistance of the victim. Assistance from the victim is only required on more minor violations of the law and does not apply to the numerous SERIOUS violations in this case.

Quote from: Pastor Roger on November 18, 2008, 12:43:18 AM

From what I understand from the article the police were not witnesses to the majority of the physical portion when it came to the first woman in the article that wouldn't file charges but did hear the verbal threats and were present for the other accosting of the Christians. It might be different there but I know according to the laws here that the vast majority of them could have been arrested for mob action as well as some more serious charges without the victims doing so.

I agree totally. I would have filed charges anyway because as you said they now think that it is alright to act that way and may even go further next time. I have seen that happen time and time again with people here.

Hello Pastor Roger,

The vast majority of criminal laws around the country are very close to each other. They might be called by a different name, but similar violations are covered. Using California as an example makes for a weird comparison because they only enforce the law when it suits them or the agenda of their city administration. They actually order officers not to enforce certain criminal laws for special events like GAY PRIDE PARADES. The police officers actually stood there and watched nudity and obscene sexual acts on a city street - in broad daylight - and in front of children. YES, the officers were ordered not to enforce the law that day. In REALITY, all of the city officials and police officers involved COULD be held CRIMINALLY AND CIVILLY RESPONSIBLE for violation of a lengthy list of laws pertaining to basic government and law enforcement and the total AVOIDANCE of all RESPONSIBILITY. Special treatment of certain segments of society is almost impossible for GOOD police officers to deal with. This would produce great STRESS for anyone who seriously cared about enforcement of the law.

So, what happened in California and WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED are in direct CONFLICT. These victims were being held against their will and being molested and abused. In reality, they were falsely imprisoned and held HOSTAGE and/or KIDNAPPED. Their CAPTORS acted like TERRORISTS and violated numerous FELONY laws. We don't know if there's even a proper police report - much less appropriate law enforcement actions. There isn't even any information that the police asked the victims if they wanted to leave the presence of their tormentors. Witnessing any portion of this sad action would have REQUIRED police action. At the very least, there was a BREACH OF THE PEACE and INNOCENT VICTIMS WERE STILL IN DANGER. If I understood things correctly, the police left them in this condition, witnessed violations of the law, and completely neglected their duty. Here, the officers would be fired, and criminal charges would be filed against the officers. It appears that normal and REQUIRED police services were DENIED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE CHRISTIANS!

Mayor suggests Jesus would allow same-sex marriage
City boss vows to take fight for homosexuals to schools, Congress, White House

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told a crowd of cheering homosexuals that Jesus wouldn't discriminate against "gays," suggesting that God would allow same-sex marriage.

He then vowed to take the battle for homosexual marriage to schools, churches, Congress and the president.

Villaraigosa, former president of the ACLU of Southern California, addressed the "No on Prop 8" protest outside Los Angeles City Hall on Nov. 15.

"Some have said, 'Well Mr. Villaraigosa, I don't like your position on Proposition 8,'" the mayor said. "They said, 'Who are you to get involved in this issue?' Well, I think we got elected to stand up for a constitution."

He continued, "I think we got elected to stand up for the idea that in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of God, thou shalt not discriminate."

Protesters held signs stating, "Who would Jesus hate?" and "CA gays are the victims and Mormons are the persecutors."

Many chanted, "Yes we can!" – a slogan popularized by the Barack Obama campaign.

Villaraigosa suggested Jesus stood for individual rights, including "rights" to same-sex partnerships.

"You know, I didn't live – and none of us did – during the time of Jesus," he said. "But I like to believe that the Jesus I love, the Jesus I pray to, didn't just talk about being a shepherd. He knew that the role of the shepherd was to bring the flock in – all of the flock, every one of us. The constitution has always been a document that speaks out for rights, the fundamental rights of people, for the liberty that we cherish and love, for the liberty that we fight and die for."

Then the mayor promised to continue the fight for "gay" marriage beyond protests.

"We come today to begin a conversation because it's not just going to be about demonstrations," Villaraigosa said. "It's not just going to be about the Internet. We're going to have conversations in our neighborhoods, in our schools, in our churches and every civic institution, in our unions, in city hall and the halls of Congress and the legislature.

"We're going to take every opportunity to begin that conversation – all the way to the White House."

__________

The blasphemy continues.

Romans 1:22-28 KJV Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

1 Corinthians 6:9 KJV Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Ephesians 4:18-19 KJV Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

Ephesians 5:11-12 KJV And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 KJV Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Jude 1:6-10 KJV And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

Lawsuit seeks safeguards from 'gay' harassment
9/11 cited, marriage supporters told: 'You haven't seen anything yet'

A California organization that promoted a successful ballot measure last fall to protect traditional marriage now is challenging the constitutionality of a state campaign finance law used to harass and threaten supporters of the initiative.

The Alliance Defense Fund filed a lawsuit on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com to protect financial contributors to the Proposition 8 campaign from retaliation.

Personal information about individuals who gave a little as $100 in support of Proposition 8 has been made public under the campaign law, resulting in threats and intimidation from advocates for homosexual marriage, the lawsuit said.

(Story continues below)

Individual situations that already have been reported include:

* "John Doe #4," who got multiple threatening e-mails including one that read: "hello propagators & litagators (sic) burn in hell" and "You have won our tampon of the year award."

* "John Doe #6," who got a postcard chastising her for supporting Prop 8 ("In some instances, such phone calls and e-mails were accompanied by death threats, a threat made all the more plausible by the compelled disclosure of the addresses of the donors.")

* Another Prop 8 contributor who was told, "Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down" and, "I've got a little surprise for Pasor [sic] Franklin and his congregation of lowlife's [sic] in the coming future … He will be meeting his maker sooner than expected."

* Also issued as a threat to Prop 8 suipporters was: "If you thought 9/11 was bad, you haven't seen anything yet."

* Yet another missive, listing the donor's home and business contacts, said: "I just wanted to call and let you know what a great picture that was of you and the other Nazi's [sic] in the newspaper … We have plans for you and your friends. … I hope you rot in hell, you ******* ****."

"Putting the names and employers of the people who supported Proposition 8 on the Internet for anyone to see has caused serious problems," said James Bopp Jr., the lead attorney for Prop. 8 supporters. "No one should worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes.

"This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats," he said.

The election saw more than 7 million Californians support Prop. 8, which defines marriage in the state constitution as being between only one man and one woman. It pulled the rug out from under plans adopted just months earlier by the California court system that created homosexual "marriage" by fiat.

But under state law, people who gave money to support Proposition 8 had their names, employers and other personal information listed on the website of the secretary of state of California

After their election failure, Prop. 8 opponents then used the list of names to go after people who supported the measure.

"Some people who supported Proposition 8 had their homes and churches vandalized, were forced to resign their jobs, and were even threatened with violence and death. To stop this harassment and these threats, this lawsuit asks the court to stop the release of the names and personal information of people who gave money to support Proposition 8," the ADF said.

"Our laws should ensure free participation in the democratic process, and not result in compromising the free speech and association rights of guaranteed to all Americans," said ADF Legal Counsel Tim Chandler, a local counsel in the case.

"Citizens shouldn't have to choose between being involved in the democratic process and subjecting themselves to acts of vengeance," he said.

The lawsuit challenges parts of California's campaign finance laws that require people who donate as little as $100 to have personal information revealed on the Internet as unconstitutional violations of free speech. The lawsuit also challenges parts of the campaign finance laws that require reporting of donations after a proposition has been voted on as unconstitutional.

WND reported earlier when pro-homosexual activists physically intimidated and badgered a woman for supporting traditional marriage.

WND also reported earlier when another public interest law organization, Pacific Justice Institute, brought a related complaint.

PJI's action alleges a San Francisco woman was fired for voting for Prop 8.

"Californians have been shocked by the aggressiveness of radical homosexual activists who have ousted several individuals from their jobs and livelihoods based solely on their support for traditional marriage," states Brad Dacus, president of PJI, on the group's website. "These tactics of fear and intimidation in retaliation for supporting a lawful ballot measure are completely unacceptable."

PJI also claims to be advising several others seeking settlements after they, too, were fired for supporting Proposition 8.

WND also reported earlier that two radio hosts were fired, they believe, because they questioned on air a local politician's call to boycott businesses that supported Prop. 8.

"I voiced my opinion," radio host Marshall Gilbert told WND. "I voted yes on Prop. 8, and I was fired over that." Radio station officials denied the claim.

Advocates for homosexual marriage have set up a website, AntiGayBlacklist.com, which lists hundreds of California residents, churches and businesses that donated money to the Proposition 8 campaign, urging sympathizers not to patronize those on the list.

Brothers and Sisters,

We are watching CHAOS grow, and it's easy to see how it could be out of control one day. There's a growing number of people talking about killing those who stand up for right and against wrong. These kinds of situations are described in the Holy Bible in connection with the Tribulation Period. Many will definitely call EVIL GOOD and vice versa: GOOD as EVIL. Christians are being demonized for acting on a MORAL STANCE that is 100% BIBLICAL.

Here's a news flash for the world: THE WORD OF GOD WILL ENDURE FOREVER! Nothing will ever be able to destroy the WORD OF GOD because GOD IS ALIVE - IS THE CREATOR - AND IS THE KING OF KINGS! The time is coming when ALL will be brought under the subjection of JESUS CHRIST! Most of the world doesn't believe that JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF will TAKE the Throne of David in Jerusalem and rule and reign over the earth. It won't matter what people want - JUST WHAT GOD WANTS. After all, HE is the CREATOR and MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE! HIS WILL BE DONE - AND IT WILL BE!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Luke 1:30-33 NLT "Don't be frightened, Mary," the angel told her, "for God has decided to bless you! 31 You will become pregnant and have a son, and you are to name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel forever; his Kingdom will never end!"

Acts 2:29-36 NLT "Dear brothers, think about this! David wasn't referring to himself when he spoke these words I have quoted, for he died and was buried, and his tomb is still here among us. 30 But he was a prophet, and he knew God had promised with an oath that one of David's own descendants would sit on David's throne as the Messiah. 31 David was looking into the future and predicting the Messiah's resurrection. He was saying that the Messiah would not be left among the dead and that his body would not rot in the grave. 32 "This prophecy was speaking of Jesus, whom God raised from the dead, and we all are witnesses of this. 33 Now he sits on the throne of highest honor in heaven, at God's right hand. And the Father, as he had promised, gave him the Holy Spirit to pour out upon us, just as you see and hear today. 34 For David himself never ascended into heaven, yet he said, 'The LORD said to my Lord, Sit in honor at my right hand 35 until I humble your enemies, making them a footstool under your feet.' 36 So let it be clearly known by everyone in Israel that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified to be both Lord and Messiah!"

Romans 15:12-13 NLT And the prophet Isaiah said, "The heir to David's throne will come, and he will rule over the Gentiles. They will place their hopes on him." 13 So I pray that God, who gives you hope, will keep you happy and full of peace as you believe in him. May you overflow with hope through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Revelation 5:4-5 NLT Then I wept because no one could be found who was worthy to open the scroll and read it. 5 But one of the twenty-four elders said to me, "Stop weeping! Look, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the heir to David's throne, has conquered. He is worthy to open the scroll and break its seven seals."

Revelation 22:16-17 NLT 16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne. I am the bright morning star." 17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." Let each one who hears them say, "Come." Let the thirsty ones come-anyone who wants to. Let them come and drink the water of life without charge.

ChristiansUnite Forums

Entertainment => Politics and Political Issues => Topic started by: Soldier4Christ on April 27, 2007, 09:24:03 AM