YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[Soldier4Christ]

Supremes to consider 'Statue of Tyranny'
Ruling in Utah case could impact U.S. monuments from shore to shore

Arguments over whether there ultimately is to be a Statue of Tyranny in New York Harbor or a tribute to Adolf Hitler among a collection of World War II memorials have been scheduled before the U.S. Supreme Court in just a few weeks, and a law firm arguing against those ideas has submitted its response brief.

"The basic question is whether a city gets to decide which permanent, unattended monuments, if any, to install on city property," said the document filed by the American Center for Law & Justice. "The answer is 'Yes.'"

The case stems from a claim from a Utah organization called Summum that it has the First Amendment right to demand erection of a monument to its seven "aphorisms" in the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah.

A federal district court declined to order the city to erect Summum's monument, but a three-judge federal appeals court panel in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, opening the door wide for any organization to post virtually any type of monument on any public property for any reason.

The ACLJ then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to review the arguments and make a decision.

"Summum's assertion of a right to force its monument upon the city has no legitimate basis in Supreme Court case law," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ. He'll present the oral arguments to the high court on Nov. 12.

"We're hopeful the high court will overturn the 10th Circuit's decision that ultimately would cause havoc for local governments," Sekulow said.

If the ruling is not reversed, the alternative to allowing any monument for any reason would be to remove all monuments, the brief argued.

The case began with the demand from Summum, which was begun in Salt Lake City in 1975 and calls itself a church. It sued Pleasant Grove in federal court, alleging because the city had a donated Ten Commandments monument in a city park, the First Amendment required the city to accept and display a monument to Summum's seven aphorisms.

Those, according to a church website, predate the 10 Commandments and include: The principle of psychokinesis, the principle of correspondence, the principle of vibration, the principles of opposition, the principle of rhythm, the principle of cause and effect and the principle of gender.

The "church" claims the aphorisms were written on the original stone tablets given by God to Moses, the tablets he broke when he saw the Israelites had manufactured a golden calf idol during his absence. The organization says they were broken because Moses realized people couldn't understand the aphorisms, so he came down a second time with the Ten Commandments.

But the dispute over erecting a local monument has national consequences, the ACLJ said.

"The court of appeals' approach would make the government's display of the Statue of Liberty the speech of France, not the United States, entitling others to erect counter-monuments," the ACLJ said. "Likewise, the Vietnam, Korean, World War II, and upcoming Martin Luther King, Jr., monuments in the nation's capital would likely be deemed private speech, not government speech, entitling Summum and everyone else with a monument to occupy their own corner of the National Mall."

"A comparison between Pleasant Grove's acceptance and placement of the Ten Commandments monument donated by the Eagles, and the 1877 Congressional Resolution accepting thet Statue of Liberty reveals striking similarities as to the manner of acceptance, placement, and purpose of these monuments," the ACLJ outlined in its newest filing.

    * "Just as the president of the United States was 'authorized and directed to accept' the Statue of Liberty, the monument donated by the Eagles was erected 'with the specific permission and approval of Pleasant Grove and its governing council,'" the brief said.

    * "Just as Congress directed the president 'to designate and set apart for the erection' of the Statue of Liberty 'a suitable site…,' the mayor of Pleasant Grove directed 'that a letter be written the Fraternal Order of Eagles accepting the monolith of 'The Ten Commandments' and stating it would be placed in a prominent place in the Rose Garden Park,'" the brief continued.

    * "Just as the 'citizens of the French Republic' were to 'erect at their own cost a colossal bronze statue of 'Liberty enlightening the world,'' the Fraternal Order of Eagles 'paid for the creation and installation of [the Ten Commandments,]'" the brief compared.

    * "Just as the completion of the Statue of Liberty was 'to be inaugurated with such ceremonies as will serve to testify the gratitude of our people for this expressive and felicitous memorial of the sympathy of the citizens of our sister Republic,' the 'unveiling ceremony' of the Ten Commandments monument 'took place in connection with the Fraternal Order of Eagles sixty-first convention,' where 'Mayor Cook said he thought the monument 'would serve to remind the citizens of their pioneer heritage,'" the brief said.

"If Pleasant Grove did not go far enough in demonstrating 'government speech' in accepting and placing the Ten Commandments monument in 1971, neither did Congress in accepting the Statute of Liberty in 1877. And if the Statue of Liberty remains private speech, despite government acceptance, placement, and purpose – the same government acceptance, placement, and purpose found in Pleasant Grove – then Congress should be prepared to make room for a Statue of Tyranny," the brief said.

The ACLJ said 15 friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed on behalf of the city, including those representing 14 states and New York City.

Even organizations that typically oppose the ACLJ, including Americans United for Separation of Church and State and People for the American Way, supported the ACLJ's First Amendment free speech questions in the case.

The ACLJ has argued the First Amendment does not require that a government park be turned into a "cluttered junkyard of monuments contributed by all comers," but the 10th Circuit ruling made several crucial errors and failed to recognize that.

"First, the court below fundamentally misapprehended the distinction between government speech and private speech in this case," the arguments said. "Second, the court below misidentified the relevant 'forum.' Third, the court erroneously held that city parks are traditional public fora for private, unattended, permanent monuments. Fourth, the lower court erred by holding that a city's acceptance of donated monuments creates a designated public forum for private speech through such monuments."

The concept of allowing anything as a monument is "scary," Frank Manion, of the ACLJ, told WND earlier. "The Minutemen in Massachusetts? We need a Redcoat. A George Washington statue? Why not George the 3rd. A Holocaust memorial? How about a Hitler memorial?"

The ACLJ said the Ten Commandments monuments are the real targets of the legal actions, because in many circumstances, cities or other governments likely would order such monuments removed, rather than order acceptance of others.

The ACLJ, which has worked on the case with the Thomas More Law Center, contends that the Constitution "does not empower private parties to force permanent displays into a park, crowding out the available physical space and trumping the government's own vision" for the parks.

[Soldier4Christ]

Washington judge rules for same-sex benefits
'Domestic partners' included under state law

 A Washington man who quit his job to care for his dying, same-sex domestic partner is entitled to unemployment benefits, a Thurston County judge has ruled.

State law lets a worker leave a job for "good cause" and receive benefits for 11 reasons. Those include a death, an illness or a disability affecting the person's immediate family, according to the Northwest Women's Law Center's Unemployment Law Project.

In his ruling, Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks found that in the case of Dean Lake, the definition of immediate family included Lake's domestic partner of 12 years, Tony Sisneros. Lake had quit a job to care for Sisneros, who had terminal brain cancer and died in September 2007, according to the law center.

"The Employment Security Act, read in its entirety, includes stable domestic partnerships within the definition of 'immediate family' " under two pertinent laws, Hicks said in a one-page, hand-written order entered into the Superior Court record Friday.

The ruling appeared to be the first to address the issue of same-sex domestic partners, said Janet Chung of the law center. But Employment Security spokesman Mark Varadian said the ruling "doesn't apply beyond this particular case," and the agency "would still be looking at cases like this on a case-by-case basis."

In his ruling, Hicks reversed the Employment Security position on Lake and sent the matter back to the department for the awarding of benefits and attorney fees. Varadian said the agency won't appeal and understands it is "on the hook" for legal fees for Northwest Women's Law Center and The Unemployment Law Project, which handled Lake's 2007 suit.

Lake and Sisneros were in a committed relationship and owned bank accounts and property together, Women's Law Center executive director Lisa Stone said in a news release. After Lake used all of his vacation and sick leave to care for his partner, his employer denied him additional leave and he left the job.

"It is unfair and immoral to force people like Mr. Lake who are in stable, long-term relationships — especially couples who are unable to marry — to choose between their economic security and caring for the persons they love during times of illness," Stone added. "Now the judge has affirmed that is it also illegal and that such partners are equally entitled to unemployment benefits."

Employment Security defines "immediate family" to include "spouses and children, but also step-children, foster children, parents of either spouse, and other relatives who temporarily or permanently reside in the same household," the law center said in its release.

Lake could not be reached immediately to comment.

[Soldier4Christ]

I saw this following article on the Stop The ACLU blog and just couldn't help but post it here.

Surrender Monkey Friday: Dem Congress Punts



The Surrender Monkey is simply thrilled by news that came out Thursday, and demanded that he be allowed to cover it

    The Democratic-controlled Congress, acknowledging that it isn’t equipped to lead the way to a solution for the financial crisis and can’t agree on a path to follow, is likely to just get out of the way.

    Lawmakers say they are unlikely to take action before, or to delay, their planned adjournments — Sept. 26 for the House of Representatives, a week later for the Senate. While they haven’t ruled out returning after the Nov. 4 elections, they would rather wait until next year unless Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who are leading efforts to contain the crisis, call for help.

    One reason, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, is that “no one knows what to do” at the moment.

So, we have major financial turmoil in the markets, problems with housing, particularly Freddie and Fannie, and what does, the Democrat controlled congress do? Punt. On first down. To President Bush. The guy they have been maligning for days over the latest financial problems (not to mention since 1/21/2001.)

Queen Nancy and Dingy Harry say “Save us, Dubya, save us!” Glad to know we are getting value for the money Congress appropriates to itself.

Captain Ed:

First Pelosi adjourns the House in the middle of an energy supply crisis that hammered the working class with sharp hikes in fuel and food costs. Now both Pelosi and Reid want to adjourn both chambers of Congress rather than deal with the credit crisis that Washington created with its heavy-handed mandates to issue credit to marginally qualified borrowers and lack of oversight over government-guaranteed entities. Given their ineptitude, we probably should be grateful — as Bloomberg notes. But considering their rhetoric over the last few days, their retreat may be one of the most cowardly acts in domestic policy seen in a very long time.

He dubs the Congress the Brave Sir Robin Congress. That character is Surrendie’s favorite from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[Soldier4Christ]

Tancredo Proposes Anti-Sharia Bill...

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo has taken the Islamic bull(y) by the horns and has drawn up legislation that would bar entry to those Muslims who stand for Sharia Law and calls for the deportation for those that are already here who advocate Sharia law. Regardless of the out come of this, Tancredo's legislation opens up two new debates. The first is how can any of our lawmakers actually vote against this? Are any of our lawmakers actually crazy enough to vote in favor of Sharia over our Constitution? Another debate is where will American Muslims stand on this, will they scream freedom of religion on this? Because we can never truly give them freedom of religion, because to do that would mean to allow Sharia to be the law of the land. So American Muslims where do you stand, with the freedoms of America or the brutality of Sharia?

Amid disturbing revelations that the verdicts of Islamic Sharia courts are now legally binding in civil cases in the United Kingdom, U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) moved quickly today to introduce legislation designed to protect the United States from a similar fate.

According to recent news reports, a new network of Sharia courts in a half-dozen major cities in the U.K. have been empowered under British law to adjudicate a wide variety of legal cases ranging from divorces and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

“This is a case where truth is truly stranger than fiction,” said Tancredo. “Today the British people are learning a hard lesson about the consequences of massive, unrestricted immigration.”

Sharia law, favored by Muslim extremists around the world, often calls for brutal punishment – such as the stoning of women who are accused of adultery or have children out of wedlock, cutting off the hands of petty thieves and lashings for the casual consumption of alcohol. Under Sharia law, a woman is often required to provide numerous witnesses to prove rape allegations against an assailant – a near impossible task.

“When you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of radical Muslims, you are also importing their radical ideology – an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of western democracy – such as gender equality, pluralism, and individual liberty,” said Tancredo. “The best way to safeguard America against the importation of the destructive effects of this poisonous ideology is to prevent its purveyors from coming here in the first place.”

Tancredo’s bill, dubbed the “Jihad Prevention Act,” would bar the entry of foreign nationals who advocate Sharia law. In addition, the legislation would make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense.

Tancredo pointed to the results of a recent poll conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion as evidence that the U.S. should act to prevent the situation in Great Britain from replicating itself here in the United States. The poll found that some 40 percent of Muslim students in the United Kingdom support the introduction of Sharia law there, and 33 percent support the imposition of an Islamic Sharia-based government worldwide.

“We need to send a clear message that the only law we recognize here in America is the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed by our democratically elected representatives,” concluded Tancredo. “If you aren’t comfortable with that concept, you aren’t welcome in the United States.”

[Soldier4Christ]

Dos Palos students protest after school forces sophomore to remove American flag shirt

Students at Dos Palos High School protested Thursday -- by wearing patriotic regalia to school -- after a sophomore student was forced to remove a T-shirt depicting the American flag.

Officials at the Merced County school confirmed Thursday that Jake Shelly was forced to take off a red, white and blue tie-dyed American flag T-shirt on Tuesday. The shirt said nothing offensive, just: "United States of America, Washington, D.C."

The school's assistant principal issued Shelly a bright yellow T-shirt that read "DCV: Dress Code Violator" to wear for the rest of the day. He was given his shirt back after classes ended.

"It was really embarrassing and humiliating to have to wear that all day -- and just for supporting your country," his sister Kaycee Shelly said.

Kaycee Shelly told members of the media at lunchtime that her brother was overwhelmed and did not want to do any more interviews.

Earlier in the day, he was speaking with a local news station when an unidentified teacher walked up to him, ripped off the microphone clipped to his shirt and told him he was not allowed to talk to the media.

District officials said they apologized to the student, his family and the local American Legion on Wednesday -- Constitution Day.

"In reviewing the dress code at the time, an administrator felt the shirt was in violation of that section of the dress code," said Superintendent Brian Walker. "She asked him to remove it and he did."

The assistant principal initially thought Shelly's T-shirt violated a clause of the school dress code that does not allow "shirts/blouses that promote specific races, cultures, or ethnicities."

School officials said they will now interpret that clause of the dress code -- which was written at the beginning of this school year -- differently.

Defiance when asked to remove an article of clothing is an automatic 3- to 5-day suspension, according to the dress code.

"Certainly we are taking responsibility for it and it will not happen again," Walker said. "A shirt that has an American flag, a shirt that has a Chinese flag or a Mexican flag, is certainly not a violation of that part of the dress code."

Jake Shelly was wearing the tie-dyed T-shirt as part of a hippie dress-up day during homecoming week.

Students on campus started a campaign to wear as much red, white or blue clothing and carry as many flags as possible Thursday in protest of Tuesday's decision, despite the apology. Jake Shelly wore the same shirt he wore Tuesday and was not disciplined.

"I am glad so many people are supporting this and wearing red, white and blue," his sister said. She believes the swift change in rules was because of the overwhelming student action.

A.J. Galindo is one student who wore a patriotic shirt to school.

Galindo's shirt honored Marine Cpl. Joshua Pickard, a family member who died in Iraq in 2006. Pickard's two brothers remain active in the Marines.

"I think it is horrible that you can't wear an American flag to school without something like this happening," he said, referring to the flurry of activities during the school's lunch hour. "We have people fighting for our country and dying every day, but we can't wear an American flag at a public school?"

A.J. said he was proud of the patriotism displayed by his classmates.

His mother, Julie, said she was upset when she first heard the news Tuesday but feels better about the situation now.

"Initially, I was really concerned about what I heard, but after asking a few questions I realized the whole controversy is just the result of one person's misinterpretation of the rule," she said.

Julie Galindo said everyone makes mistakes and accepted the apologies by the school's administration.

She added that Dos Palos is a patriotic town and erected a veteran's memorial just last year. Several members of the education community served on a committee to erect the memorial that stands on the grounds of Marks Elementary School.

"I wouldn't want anyone to think of Dos Palos as an unpatriotic place," Julie Galindo said. "I feel very proud of my town and very proud of my country and very proud to wear the American flag."

[Soldier4Christ]

Dos Palos High School sophomore Jake Shelly wore the same shirt Thursday that was the subject of administrative action earlier in the week. Many of Shelly’s schoolmates showed solidarity with the student by sporting their own patriotic T-shirts on Thursday.

Terri Gill, principal of Dos Palos High School attended the district's board meeting tonight and issued a formal apology.

Here is what she said:

"I would like to make a formal apology to our students, our community and our country. By no means was this done with the intent to ban our students from expressing their patriotism. The rule was actually written to encourage patriotism and school spirit, since we are all Americans and Dos Palos Broncos.

“A new administrator read the rule at face value. When the administrator talked with me, she then realized her error. The administrator then called the parent, who did accept her sincere apology and she then called in the student who too accepted her apology.

“We are very proud to be Americans. We wouldn’t be able to be involved in a meeting like this if we lived in many other countries in our world. Men and women have fought and many have died to afford us our freedom. I was raised by a father that was a member of the first Special Forces in the Marine Corp, he was a Marine Raider. Please know that God, Country and Family are engrained in my being.

“We wish we could reverse this situation, but we all know that is impossible. With that, we do hope that our students, community and country accept our wrong-doing, and know that Dos Palos High School waves our American flag with honor and will continue to promote patriotism with our young people. Thank you.”

After Gill concluded her statements, Roy Hart from the local American Legion made a short speech. Here are some of his comments:

“The last words of our Pledge of Allegiance – which we all just said – are ‘liberty and justice for all.’ That includes old guys like me and young men like Mr. Shelly.”

“A mistake was made in the last 36 hours and I have been in constant turmoil.”

“I had a speech all prepared; I stayed up most of the night last night. I was ready to unload several barrels, maybe even a Howitzer.”

But after the apologies – which Hart accepted – he decided to be a little less severe. Then he was watching the television news and saw a microphone ripped off of Shelly’s chest, which sent his “blood pressure through the roof.”

“It is hard for me to believe that a person in power might not know the laws and freedoms afforded to all citizens,” he said.

Hart was visibly upset during his comments, trembling and with tears in his eyes. He said Marks Elementary School (the site of the meeting) has one of the most beautiful Veteran’s Memorials “this side of the Mississippi” where he finds solace on Veteran’s Day.

“I hope we can put this behind us and I hope we can get something good out of this.”

“There is nothing stronger than the Constitution of the United States and that red, white and blue flag there protects it all. And we protect it,” he concluded to resounding applause.

There was also applause as Gill concluded her statement.

[Soldier4Christ]

Congress still protecting you – from lightbulbs!
Bachmann says Republican challenge to reverse law forced to 'collect dust'

An act sponsored by 25 representatives asking the government to reconsider its ban on incandescent light bulbs has been stalled in committee – and the leading sponsor is faulting Democratic leadership.

The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act highlights growing concerns over the safety and environmental impact of compact fluorescent bulbs, or CFLs. Before the sale of incandescent bulbs is banned, the representatives are asking the comptroller general to prove replacement with CFLs will be cost-effective, reduce overall carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent in the United States by 2025 and that the bulbs will not pose a health risk to the general public.

However, the act has been delayed in the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality since March 14 – more than six months. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., leading sponsor of the legislation, told WND Democrats are not concerned about pushing the act through.

"The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, H.R. 5616, is currently collecting dust in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, held up by Democrat leadership that refuses to make this legislation a priority," Bachmann said. "The Democrat leadership fills the congressional schedule with naming post offices and ends the work week early rather than do the people's business."

She continued, "They don't want to take up the real issues that make a difference in people's lives because those issues require them to make tough choices."

As WND reported, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was signed into law in December, phasing out the use of traditional, incandescent light bulbs in favor of CFLs beginning in 2012 and culminating in a ban on incandescent bulbs in 2014.

Concerns about mercury in the bulbs and mercury vapor released when a CFL is broken led Bachmann and a group of legislators in the House to second-guess the government's choice.

"Each light bulb contains between 3-6 milligrams of mercury," Bachmann said earlier in an MSNBC interview. "There's a question about how that mercury will fill up our landfills, and also if you break one in your home, you'll have mercury that instantaneously vaporizes in your home. That poses a very real threat to children, disabled people, pets, senior citizens. And I just think it's very important that Americans have the choice to decide, would they like an incandescent or a (CFL)?"

Bachmann introduced the bill in March because, she said, she thought Congress had "acted a bit prematurely" in taking a popular environmentalist cause and making it a government dictate. She told WND Democrats want control, and forcing Americans to buy CFLs is just one more way to interfere with their daily choices.

"The light bulb ban exposes the Democrat mindset," she said. "They want to limit consumer choice and tell American families what products they can and can't buy.

"The light bulbs they are forcing on American families are not new," she continued. "Consumers have just been rejecting them for a variety of reasons: cost, aesthetics, health and environment concerns. At a time when hard-working taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet, the last thing they need is to have the government forcing them to purchase a more expensive and potentially unsafe product."

Following the introduction of H.R. 5616, the bill was sent to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and then sent to the Subcommittee on Energy & Air Quality, where it has languished without action or a hearing for since March. But Bachmann has not given up.

She said, "This act is important because the American people deserve the ability to choose what products they purchase for their homes and families."

[Soldier4Christ]

Brand new push in Congress to prevent Shariah invasion
Bill intended to assure citizens they won't be governed by Islam

Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., introduced a bill to the House of Representatives that seeks to prevent Islam's radical Shariah law from gaining a foothold in the U.S. legal system, as it has in other countries.

Tancredo introduced HR 6975, the Jihad Prevention Act, last week. If made into law, the bill would allow American authorities to prevent advocates of Shariah law from entering the country, revoke the visa of any foreigners that did champion Shariah law and revoke naturalization for citizens that seek to implement Shariah law in the U.S.

The radical form of Islam's Shariah religious law includes several statutes often objectionable to Western minds, including stoning for adulterous women, amputation for thieves and the death sentence for converting from Islam.

"When you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of radical Muslims," Tancredo said in a press release, "you are also importing their radical ideology – an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of Western democracy – such as gender equality, pluralism and individual liberty."

"The best way to safeguard America against the importation of the destructive effects of this poisonous ideology is to prevent its purveyors from coming here in the first place," Tancredo said.

As WND reported earlier, large Muslim populations in Canada seeking to live out their faith have convinced the Canadian government to permit the enforcement of Shariah law.

The journal of the American Bar Association reported last week that Islamic court rulings are now enforceable in the United Kingdom as well.

Tancredo said he "moved quickly" to prevent similar legal entanglements in the U.S.

"We need to send a clear message that the only law we recognize here in America is the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed by our democratically elected representatives," concluded Tancredo. "If you aren't comfortable with that concept, you aren't welcome in the United States."

WND contacted the Council on American-Islamic Relations for comment on the bill, but received none.

HR 6975 has been referred to the House Committee on Judiciary for review.

[Soldier4Christ]

Court slams lesbian 'adoption'
'Judicial activism is a cancer that eats away at the rule of law'

A pro-family law organization is praising an appeals court decision in Kentucky that blasted a lower court for literally ignoring state law and creating an "adoption" for two lesbian women in violation of expressed state law.

"Judicial activism is a cancer that eats away at the rule of law and undermines the confidence of the people in the legal system," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law. "There is a clear distinction between the role of a judge and the role of a legislator. One interprets law and one makes law. The psychological dysfunction known as 'judicioactivism' is easily cured by a good dose of the Constitution, bed rest and removal from the bench to prevent relapse."

The ruling from the Kentucky Court of Appeals came in the case of two lesbians, identified only as T and S, who decided that T, the half of the pair unrelated to a child, Z, born from artificial insemination, should "adopt" the child, even though state law in Kentucky forbids that.

The lesbians, even though they were separated and moving on to other "life partners," convinced an activist judge that the case should be handled as a "stepparent" adoption, a set of circumstances that normally arise when a single parent gets married, and the newcomer to the family adopts the spouse's children.          

But Kentucky doesn't allow lesbians to be "married," so those procedures did not apply.

"The family court's ruling that 'this is a stepparent adoption' presupposes a factual determination that T was, in fact, Z's stepparent. This was clear error. A stepparent is defined by one's indirect legal relationship to a child. A stepparent to a child is one, other than a biological or adoptive parent of that child, who marries one of the child's biological or adoptive parents," the appellate ruling said.

"Stepparent status requires a legal marriage to the child's parent. We do not see how this elemental concept eluded the court below and can only conclude that it was knowingly ignored."

The ruling said stepparent adoptions are only legal when the stepparent is married to a biological parent, and reaffirmed that marriage can exist only between one man and one women.

"It's not this or any court's role to judge whether the legislature's prohibition of same-sex marriage … is morally defensible or socially enlightened," wrote Judge Glenn Acree in the opinion. "Nor is it this or any court's role … to craft any means by which the legal consequences of such a prohibition may be negated or avoided."

"What occurred here amounted to 'reinstituting by judicial fiat common law marriage which by expressed public policy is not recognized,'" the court ruling said.

"We cannot ignore – and the family court should not have ignored – the fact that the parties' relationship 'simply does not exist as a 'marriage' of any kind,'" the court said.

"Without question, it is inappropriate to use a legal fiction to sidestep a public policy so clearly expressed by the Legislature in statute and by the People of the Commonwealth in its ratification of a Constitution provision," the court said. "Failure to strictly adhere to the adoption laws have resulted in some painful decisions… The decision in this case was destined to join their ranks."

Liberty Counsel said an activist Florida county circuit court has issued a similar opinion, suggesting Florida's 31-year-old law banning adoptions by homosexuals was "somehow unconstitutional," despite the fact the same law has been ruled constitutional by both state and federal courts.

"In fact, Liberty Counsel successfully defended the same law at the federal court of appeals that upheld the law. Despite the fact that these decisions by the appeals courts are binding on the Florida trial judge, he lawlessly disregarded these binding precedents," Liberty Counsel said.

The Kentucky court opinion noted that in the particular case at issue, there will be no happy endings. State law affirms that an "adoption" order is final one year after issuance and that deadline already has passed. The appeals court judges returned the case to family court, where a judge will have to work the dispute over custody, since the earlier "permanent joint custody" order was void.

__________

We need more Judges like this one and those "lawless" ones do indeed need to be removed from the bench.

[HisDaughter]

The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act

This is so irritating!  Do they really have nothing better to do over there in the other Washington?   MORONS!!  Get a REAL job for Pete's Sake!  Quit wasting our time and OUR money!  IDIOTS.  Take a permanate leave of absence.  PLEASE!

What?  Did we pick a village idiot or two from every state to represent us?  Of course I've already heard about this whole "light bulb" thing but this morning........well maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night or maybe I need more coffee.....or maybe I'm just fed up with idocracy (my word) of our government.  What?  Do they go to staffing each morning, smoke a bunch of dope and then decide on the stupidest thing they can do today and get paid for it?  "I didn't inhale" my foot!

Okay....I'm going for more coffee now.

[Soldier4Christ]

Yes, it was a waste of our time and our money right from the beginning with the banning of the incandescent bulb law. I agree with Bachmann. This law does need to be rescinded and the only way to do so is to pass the bill that he and the other 24 signers are trying to do. While it is just a small portion of the problem and seems to be insignificant it is important. As is stated in the article the original bill will only add to the already existing problems of the poor that we are experiencing with this economy and with health problems.

[HisDaughter]

Exactly.  And sorry PR, I didn't see that you had posted because I was too busy adding to my rant.  I guess I just wasn't done yet. 

[Soldier4Christ]

 

I like your rant. Yep, I do think that they do just that (the dope and stupidest thing) and to make sure that they add in steps to make the poor poorer and further in their control.

[nChrist]

This is so irritating!  Do they really have nothing better to do over there in the other Washington?   MORONS!!  Get a REAL job for Pete's Sake!  Quit wasting our time and OUR money!  IDIOTS.  Take a permanate leave of absence.  PLEASE!

What?  Did we pick a village idiot or two from every state to represent us?  Of course I've already heard about this whole "light bulb" thing but this morning........well maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night or maybe I need more coffee.....or maybe I'm just fed up with idocracy (my word) of our government.  What?  Do they go to staffing each morning, smoke a bunch of dope and then decide on the stupidest thing they can do today and get paid for it?  "I didn't inhale" my foot!

Okay....I'm going for more coffee now.

    

I like your rant! After all, not one of them were accepted to the THREE STOOGES SCHOOL OF HIGHER LEARNING! This should be made a part of the minimum requirements to serve as a representative. My wife and I did laugh about this bill when it came out. It didn't make any sense at all. The bulb is terribly expensive, AND it requires an EPA army for clean-up if you accidentally break one of them. On top of that, it does eventually wear out and is HAZARDOUS WASTE. It's one of those WIN-WINS for everyone. (NOT!)

[HisDaughter]

  

THREE STOOGES SCHOOL OF HIGHER LEARNING! This should be made a part of the minimum requirements to serve as a representative.

The Stooges would be a definate improvement over what we have serving us now to be sure!  At least when they messed up it still worked out in the end and they didn't really harm anyone but themselves!  A vote for Larry, Curly and Moe would be counted as sanity compared to whats going on now.