Obama Proclaiming Lesbians,Gay,Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, Pushes Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act

(CNSNews.com) – Citing his commitment to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), President Obama on Friday issued a proclamation declaring June 2010 “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.”
 
The president also emphasized his intention to secure “adoption rights” for same-sex couples and end both employment discrimination against LGBT individuals as well as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) compromise that bars homosexuals from serving openly in the military.
 
This is the second year that President Obama has declared June LGBT Pride Month, but it is the first time he has used the proclamation to call for repeal of DOMA.

“We see again president Obama trying to walk a tightrope on the marriage issue,” said Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow with Family Research Council. Obama “says we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, [but] he doesn’t say right out that we should change the definition of marriage,” Sprigg  noted.
 
Although Obama has said he does not favor same-sex marriage, “every policy he supports is designed to undermine the traditional definition of marriage or undermine the uniqueness of marriage as the union between a man and a woman. So I think we just see again the inherent contradiction in President Obama’s position in the same-sex marriage issue,” Sprigg said.
 
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, told CNSNews.com, “We have a nation that’s facing great unemployment, and economic crisis” as well as the flooding in Nashville and the Gulf oil spill, “and what is the president pushing? Gay transgender stuff and gays in the military, when Americans don’t care about any of this. These are not priorities….  But they’ve been pushed ahead of dealing with the economy, pushed ahead of dealing with the Gulf disaster.”
 
“It doesn’t come as a surprise to me,” said Lafferty, “because [the president] clearly stated his support for gay marriage, clearly stated his support for gays in the military, for pushing the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act and so-called hate crimes. I think a lot of people who voted for him aren’t aware of some of these positions.”
 
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, lauded the president’s proclamation in a statement sent to CNSNews.com: “President Obama is right when he says that ‘we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities’ as any couple — and that includes the freedom to marry.” 
 
According to Wolfson, “Couples who have made a commitment in life should have an equal commitment under the law, with the same rules, same responsibilities, and same respect. In America we believe in treating others as we’d want to be treated.  The government should not discriminate when it comes to who can get a marriage license.”
 
The president’s proclamation states in part, “Much work remains to fulfill our Nation’s promise of equal justice under law for LGBT Americans. That is why we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.”
 
When it passed in 1996, DOMA had bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. It passed the House on a vote of 342-67 with 120 Democrats voting for it. In the Senate, DOMA passed 85-14, with 32 Democrat backers.
 
Obama’s proclamation also says, “We must protect the rights of LGBT families by securing their adoption rights, ending employment discrimination against LGBT Americans, and ensuring Federal employees receive equal benefits… I am also committed to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” so patriotic LGBT Americans can serve openly in our military…”
 
Regarding adoption rights, Sprigg pointed to “an abundance of social science research that shows that children do best when raised by biological mother and father who are committed to each other in a lifelong marriage.”
 
Because of this, Sprigg says, “There should be a strong preference, if not an outright requirement, that children be placed with a married mother and father in order to give them that male and female role model, which is so important for their development.”
 
Both Sprigg and Lafferty said the president’s LGBT agenda will trample states’ rights. Sprigg noted that adoption is a state matter, and that any federal law probably would conflict with the laws of several states.
 
Likewise, Lafferty noted that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) “will override the laws of 38 states, telling school districts that they must comply and hire transgender individuals, and it will be illegal to reassign them.” 
 
Last year’s proclamation commemorated the 40^th anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York City, which many activists consider the start of the “gay rights” movement.  And while last year’s presidential proclamation included similar language regarding adoption rights and ending employment discrimination and DADT, the 2009 proclamation made no mention of DOMA.
 
President Obama’s 2010 proclamation, issued on the Friday before the long Memorial Day weekend, says, “As we honor the LGBT Americans who have given so much to our Nation, let us remember that if one of us is unable to realize full equality, we all fall short of our founding principles.”
 
Because it is lower priority on the Democrat Party’s agenda than DADT and ENDA, Sprigg doesn’t believe legislation to repeal DOMA will come up this year.

Courtesy of http://cnsnews.com/news/article/66952

Interest in Home Education Continues to Grow: More Than 10,000 to Gather for the Virginia Homeschool Convention

Contact: Yvonne Bunn, Director of Homeschool Support, Home Educators Association of Virginia, 804-278-9200  

RICHMOND, Va., June 1 /Christian Newswire/ — Home education may be “the fastest-growing form of education in the United States,”* with the number of homeschoolers in Virginia having grown to more than 30,000–a 37.6 percent increase since 2002.** The annual Virginia Homeschool Convention, now in its 27th year, has grown along with the movement, from a few hundred back in 1984 to an event expecting more than 10,000 participants from more than 20 states. Why this interest in home education?

“Reasons vary,” says Home Educators Association of Virginia’s president, Anne Miller. “Some homeschool for academic reasons, others for reasons of faith, and others for the benefits of individualized instruction. What remains a constant is that parents are concerned about preparing their children for the future and have found home education to be an effective option that allows their children to pursue their interests and to develop at their own pace.”

The Home Educators Association of Virginia (HEAV), a non-profit, statewide homeschool organization, is hosting the convention on June 10-12, 2010, at the Greater Richmond Convention Center, to both support home educators and offer resources to families curious about this option.

More than 125 workshops will address everything from parenting to time management to helping struggling learners. A used curriculum sale and a 67,500-square-foot Exhibit Hall will offer parents an opportunity to examine educational curricula and resources from around the country, while a special “boot camp” seminar will prepare homeschooling parents for their child’s high school years and graduation. During the convention, 200 students plan to walk the aisle in the state’s largest homeschool graduation ceremony on Saturday, June 12.

For those interested in learning more about home education, there will be four free how-to-begin-homeschooling sessions on Thursday afternoon. A free pass to the entire event is being offered to first-time parents of preschoolers and non-homeschooling grandparents (see website for details).

For more information on the convention and home education itself, visit www.heav.org, or call 804-278-9200.

* Brian D. Ray, Ph.D., “Research Facts on Homeschooling,” National Home Education Research Institute, 8/10/2009, click here (accessed May 24, 2010).

** Based on numbers given in Virginia Department of Education, “Home Instruction and Religious Exemptions, 2002-2003” (02/03/2003) and “Home-Schooled Students and Religious Exemptions, 2009-2010” (12/9/2009), click here (accessed May 24, 2010).

NY Judge Allows Student to Return to School, Wear Rosary

A federal judge issued permission Tuesday to allow a 7th grader who was suspended for wearing a rosary to return to school.

U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Kahn issued a Temporary Restraining Order to the school district that allows 13-year-old Raymond Hosier to resume classes and wear the rosary to school starting Wednesday.

The American Center for Law and Justice, which represented Raymond, had only filed the federal lawsuit against the Schenectady City School District Tuesday morning.

“We’re delighted that Raymond can now return to school with his rosary in place,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ. “This is an important first step in the legal process in what we believe will ultimately result in the federal district court determining that the punishment inflicted by the school district by suspending Raymond for wearing a rosary not only was wrong, but violated his constitutionally-protected rights of free speech and free exercise of religion.”

Raymond had been wearing the rosary since September 2009 to honor the memory of an older brother who died in a bike accident with the same rosary in his hand. School officials argued that the rosary violated the school district’s dress code policy and that it falls under gang-related symbols.

But for months Raymond wore the rosary without causing any disturbances, ACLJ attorneys pointed out. In May, however, he was suspended multiple times for wearing the beaded religious symbol. Authorities at Oneida Middle School asked Raymond to tuck the rosary inside his shirt, but he refused and was subsequently suspended.

In the complaint, ACLJ asserted that Raymond is not a member of any criminal gang and does not wear the rosary to promote gang membership or violence.

The ACLJ wants the court to declare the disciplinary actions by school officials against Raymond unconstitutional. It also wants the court to rule that the school’s dress code policy is unconstitutional and to prevent it from being used to punish other students in the future.

A court hearing date for the case is set for June 11.

Courtesy of http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100601/ny-judge-allows-student-to-return-to-school-wear-rosary/index.html

Graduations at Connecticut Church Ruled Unconstitutional

Two Enfield, Conn., schools have been prohibited by a federal judge from holding their 2010 graduations inside a church.

U.S. District Court Judge Janet C. Hall ruled on Monday that holding the ceremonies at First Cathedral, a megachurch, is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

“We are pleased that the court has found that holding a public high school graduation ceremony in an overtly religious setting is inappropriate when comparable secular facilities are available,” said Andrew Schneider, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, which filed the suit against Enfield Public Schools together with the national ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church.

“The Enfield Schools’ plan to hold the ceremonies in a church created an unnecessary divisive atmosphere for what should be a positive and inclusive event for all students,” he added.

Before making her decision, the federal judge visited the church in Bloomfield last week. She found the church to be “overwrought with religious symbols.”

Those attending graduation ceremonies at First Cathedral, she said, would encounter, among other things, a large cross on the church’s roof, a large central cross at the main entrance, a stained glass depiction of worshippers in the main entrance, and a large cross behind the stage “that undoubtedly constitutes the focal point of the entire sanctuary.”

“Upon consideration of the evidence from the perspective of such a reasonable observer, the court concludes that plaintiffs have made a substantial showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that holding 2010 graduations at First Cathedral constitutes an impermissible endorsement of religion because it conveys the message that certain religious views are embraced by Enfield Schools, and others are not,” Hall ruled.

“[B]y requiring a graduating senior – or a parent of one – to enter First Cathedral in order to be able to participate in his or her graduation – or to watch their child graduate – Enfield Public Schools has coerced plaintiffs to support religion.”

Though the Enfield School Board expressed an intention to cover or remove religious images and objects, Hall said that would also be unconstitutional.

“By attempting to ‘neutralize’ the First Cathedral by covering up many (albeit not all) of its religious images, Enfield Public Schools unconstitutionally entangles itself with religion,” she concluded.

The school board had initially voted in January to hold graduation ceremonies at the respective schools. But in April, board members determined that First Cathedral provided “the best location within the budget.”

A lawsuit was filed on behalf of two Enfield High School seniors and three parents. They argued that holding the ceremonies at the church “excessively entangle[s]” the district with religion and is in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Enfield and Fermi High Schools used First Cathedral for their previous graduation ceremonies, as construction was being performed on the schools’ athletic fields. Other schools in the Hartford-area have also held graduations at the megachurch.

Vincent McCarthy of the the American Center for Law and Justice told The Associated Press that the district will ask the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to hear an expedited appeal.

The graduation ceremonies are scheduled for June 23 and 24.

Courtesy of http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100601/judge-graduations-at-church-is-unconstitutional/index.html

God gets into Greenwood graduation anyway

GREENWOOD, Ind. — When Greenwood High School valedictorian Eric Workman took to the podium Friday to deliver his commencement speech, many in the audience grew restless.

Workman had become a lightning rod for controversy in recent months because of his successful federal lawsuit against school-sanctioned prayer at the high school’s graduation. Some in the packed high school gymnasium began coughing, talking and making noise.

In the lawsuit filed March 11, Workman claimed that the graduation prayer violated First Amendment separation of church and state.

Greenwood Schools officials argued that prayer has a place in high school graduations and that students who voted in favor of the prayer should have rights as well.

However, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker ruled in Workman’s favor in late April and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the school from permitting the school-sponsored prayer at its graduation ceremony.

In the ruling, Barker wrote that “the process in place permitting a student-led prayer at Greenwood represents a clear violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, as does the delivery of a specific prayer set to occur as the result of that process during the upcoming 2010 graduation ceremony.”

ACLU-Indiana Legal Director Ken Falk, who filed the suit on Workman’s behalf, agrees with the student’s view that school-sponsored prayer violates the separation of church and state.

“Everyone was quite clear of the difference between a school-sponsored prayer and a spontaneous speech by a student,” Falk said before the graduation ceremony. “A non-sponsored prayer by the school is not prohibited by the court’s injunction.”

The ruling did not prohibit praying entirely — only prayers sponsored by the school, a government entity.

Superintendent David Edds said the school will not hold student votes on the issue or try to hold graduation prayers in future years.

“It’s unfortunate, but they didn’t have any choice,” said graduate Chris Finneran, who voted in favor of a prayer.

Finneran said he was glad Cox mentioned God and faith. She was the only one of the four students who spoke to do so.

“It was fantastic, classy and well done,” he said of her speech.

School administrators also have changed a previous policy and have decided not to screen students’ speeches before the commencement.

Principal James Kaylor opened the graduation ceremonies by asking for respect for all speakers and warned that anyone behaving inappropriately would be escorted from the building.

John and Pat Mauser, who went to the ceremony to see a friend’s daughter graduate, said the applause Cox received after the religious portions of her speech showed that most students and parents wanted a prayer.

Junior Morgan Flora, 17, who attended the ceremony to see friends graduate, said she wants a prayer at her graduation and believes her class will fight for it.

“It’s not bad to let people know that God is with you in your life,” she said.

Courtesy of http://www.indystar.com/article/20100529/LOCAL0402/5290344/1001/ARCHIVE/God-gets-into-Greenwood-graduation-anyway

Court grants ADF request to allow 32 members of European Parliament to defend Italy in cross case

 

STRASBOURG, France — In a letter issued Thursday, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights granted the request of Alliance Defense Fund attorneys to allow 32 members of the European Parliament to intervene in a lawsuit over crucifixes in Italy’s public schools. ADF, which represents MEPs from 11 different nations, argued in a legal memo that a lower chamber’s ruling last year in favor of an “offended” parent who wanted the crosses removed exceeded the European court’s authority over such matters within Italy.

“The European Court of Human Rights shouldn’t overstep its authority and force a member nation to abandon traditions and beliefs that it has a sovereign right to protect if it so chooses,” said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska, who is based in Europe. “An outside judicial body demanding that a nation must forsake and discontinue how it handles millennia-old traditions is a step towards an authoritarian system that no country anywhere on the globe should welcome.  The MEPs are encouraged that they will be able to submit their views to the court and defend the rights of all sovereign European member states over such matters.”

Soile Lautsi, a Finnish and Italian citizen, requested that the council of the public school her two children attend–in northeastern Italy’s province of Padua–remove crucifixes from its classrooms. After her request was refused, Lautsi appealed to the Regional Administrative Tribunal, which also dismissed her case. She then appealed the decision to the ECHR, which ruled last November that crucifixes in Italy’s public school classrooms must go. The lawsuit, Lautsi v. Italy, was referred to the ECHR Grand Chamber in March, and ADF submitted its motion for leave to intervene on May 19.

ADF attorneys contend that the ECHR’s decision is problematic and warrants appeal because it: 1) inconsistently applies previous ECHR judgments and decisions; 2) incorrectly and inconsistently addresses concerns regarding parental rights in education; 3) erroneously disregards the principle of respect for the cultural sovereignty of member states; 4) marginalizes the far-reaching consequences the ruling has on many member states with symbols of their Christian heritage inside their public schools; and 5) wrongly awards moral damages to the parent when no real damage was suffered.

“If this appeal is lost, future rulings could have disastrous consequences for member states and set a dangerous example for other countries to follow,” Kiska added. “For example, lawsuits seeking the tearing-down of religious symbols simply because one person says he or she has been ‘offended’ are very common in the U.S. In addition to the concerns directly related to the facts of this case, ADF wants to head off any opportunity for activists in the U.S. to cite foreign court decisions as examples to follow.”

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

 

California Senate Passes Bill to Counter Texas Curriculum

The California Senate passed a bill Friday to prevent the new Texas social studies curriculum from unknowingly affecting its textbooks.

In a bipartisan 25 to 5 vote, state lawmakers approved SB 1451 that requires California’s Board of Education to review and report any discrepancies between the new Texas curriculum and California’s standard.

Since Texas is the second largest textbook market in the country, changes to its curriculum are expected to influence publishers and thus textbooks used in classrooms nationwide. But the California Senate, whose state has largest textbook market in the country, pushed back against the Texas standard by passing SB 1451 legislation.

About a week ago, the Texas State Board of Education approved a new social studies curriculum that places more emphasis on the role of Christianity in the founding of the nation, among other changes.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), who wrote and sponsored SB 1451, complained that the new Texas standard seeks to promote a closer relationship between church and state.

In a statement, the AU accused the “right-wind fundamentalists” on the Texas State Board of Education of being “determined to rewrite American history.”

But supporters of the standard retorted that it is the “fringe left” who tried to rewrite history books.

“Liberal fringe efforts to complicate, obfuscate, and denigrate our heritage and history must be rejected,” said Jonathan Saenz, director of legislative affairs at the faith-based legal group Liberty Institute.

The new Texas standard was approved after 18 months of work and will serve to guide curriculum in the state’s public schools for the next ten years.

Some 4.8 million K-12 students in Texas will be directly affected by the new curriculum.

By comparison, California has more than 6.2 million students attending K-12 public schools.

As the two states battle to influence the nation’s textbooks, some inside the industry, however, say neither will affect the nation’s curriculum because states can now digitally customize textbooks.

Bill SB 1451 will next face a vote in the California Assembly, and if passed, will head to the desk of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for approval.

Courtesy of http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100531/calif-passes-bill-to-counter-texas-textbook-changes/index.html

Lawsuit against Governor alleges violations of Colorado Constitution

By Jack Minor

The executive director of the Christian Family Alliance and  a conservative organization have initiated a lawsuit against Colorado Governor Bill Ritter and Jim Martin, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).  The lawsuit alleges the state violated the Colorado Constitution by issuing contracts to a Planned Parenthood affiliate and a Boulder abortion provider.

In 1984, Colorado voters approved the Abortion Funding Prohibition Amendment to the Colorado Constitution. The amendment prohibits the direct or indirect use of public funds to pay for abortions. In 2001, the CDPHE, under then-Executive Director Jane Norton, conducted an audit of the operations of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood and its affiliate, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains Services Corporation.  After finding Planned Parenthood subsidized the abortion operations of its subsidiary, the department ended funding for the organization.

However, under Governor Ritter’s administration, the CDPHE disregarded the court’s ruling and awarded five funding contracts to Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains Services Corporation, and the Boulder Valley Women’s Health Center, which both provide abortions.  The lawsuit filed by Mark Hotaling, of the Christian Family Alliance of Colorado and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), alleges the funding of these operations is in direct violation of the Prohibition Amendment.

The state and Planed Parenthood filed a motion to dismiss the case claiming that Hotaling lacked standing. On January 14, 2010 the district court granted the motion. Hotaling and the ADF have since filed a motion to appeal. Hotaling told the Gazette, he most certainly does have standing as he pays taxes to the state of Colorado, and has the tax returns to prove it. Other arguments made are that the funding does not go to fund abortions, but other administrative and family planning functions of these organizations.

The ADF points out that it makes no difference where the state funds are used, the intent of the voters was clear.  Moreover, they cite a court precedents ruling that giving prohibited funds to an organization for other purposes is not acceptable because the funds are “fungible.” As part of their arguments they referenced banking executives who have received bailout funds from the federal government. There were instances where the bank executives had paid bonuses to their executives. When criticized for the bonuses several of the bank executives told Congress they had not used bailout money to fund the bonuses.

In a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee in February 2009, the bank executives received a harsh rebuke from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) who said “Gentlemen, money is fungible. Don’t insult our intelligence. It is a rather silly claim to say ‘Well, we just used the depositors’ money or the investors’ money to pay the dividends and the bonuses, and then we put the taxpayers’ money in our vault pending the day when those depositors want to make a withdrawal.’ The issue is, what dividends and bonuses did you pay or will you pay while you are holding taxpayer money?” The ADF also cited legal cases that confirmed this issue of fungibility.

Hotaling said this is the largest pro-life case in the history of Colorado and the only time an elected official has been taken to court over the pro-life issue and he is encouraged by the state of the lawsuit and believes the appeals court will reverse the dismissal.

The ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.  The organization was launched in 1994 and employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage and the family.

 Courtesy of http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=2970

Department of Justice: Put Up The Cross

There’s a troubling new development in the Mojave Desert War Memorial Cross case.

As you know, more than 70 years ago, the VFW put up a small cross in California’s Mojave Desert – a World War I memorial.  The cross has survived many challenges – most recently at the Supreme Court – with the high court just last month  – ruling there is no constitutional crisis – saying the cross could stay in place.

In an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court correctly concluded that “a Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people. Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.”  You can read a summary of the opinion here.  The complete opinion of the Supreme Court is here.

We filed a critical amicus brief in the case – representing 15 members of Congress urging the high court to keep the cross in place.

But then, just days after the decision, vandals struck – they removed the cross – they stole it.  The outrage triggered an immediate response.  A replacement cross was quickly made and efforts began to put the replica back in place. 

But there’s a problem.  The National Park Service has refused – and now it’s up to the Department of Justice to make a decision.

This is absurd.  That’s why we’ve drafted a Demand Letter to send to the Justice Department – urging the Justice Department to put up the replacement cross without delay. 

It’s appalling that vandals would remove a cross which has survived a constitutional challenge at the nation’s highest court. What’s even more troubling is the fact that the federal government is opposed to permitting a replica cross to be put in place. 

Americans want the decision of the Supreme Court honored.  And that means keeping the Mojave Desert War Memorial in place.  It’s our hope that the original cross that’s been stolen can be reclaimed and returned to its proper place.  Until then, though, displaying a replica cross creates no constitutional crisis and sends an important message – the vandals – who decided to take the law into their own hands – will not succeed. 

We’re calling on the Department of Justice to take the appropriate action without delay and permit the replica cross to be put up on Sunrise Rock.  And, we’re sending a Demand Letter to the DOJ to do just that. 

“There is no good reason for the National Park Service to forbid the Memorial’s caretakers from replacing the stolen cross,” the ACLJ letter contends.  “Moreover, not replacing the cross will essentially reward those who stole the cross.  Finally, as Justice Alito recognized, removing the cross ‘would have been viewed by many as a sign of disrespect for the brave soldiers whom the cross was meant to honor.’  Likewise, failing to replace the stolen cross dishonors the memory of the veterans it was created to honor. Therefore, we respectfully request that you permit the caretakers to replace the cross immediately.”

You can read the complete Demand Letter here.

Now, you can stand with us and sign on to our Demand Letter.  And when you do we’ll send a miniature cross to the Justice Department on your behalf – a message – a symbol – a reminder that thousands of Americans want the Supreme Court ruling honored. 

Tell the DOJ:  Put the Replacement Cross Up.  Add your name to our Demand Letter now. 

Courtesy of ACLJ at http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?ID=954

ADF To Congress: Imposing Homosexual Agenda On Military Will Create Legal, Religious Liberty Chaos

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 27, 2010— Alliance Defense Fund attorneys, working with the Family Research Council, sent letters to all 535 members of the U.S. Congress Wednesday, advising them regarding the legal and religious freedom implications associated with the proposed repeal of the military’s standing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The information provided to Congress included legal analysis by ADF of the religious freedom threat posed to both chaplains and service members.

ADF also provided Congress a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, signed by 41 retired military chaplains, advising key officials that a repeal will, among other things, “endanger religious liberty for chaplains and service members.” A news conference to discuss how overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will undermine religious liberty in the military will be held Thursday at 2:30 p.m. EDT at the House side of the Capitol Building, Room HC-8, in Washington, D.C., with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Rep. Jack Kingston, ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot*, and pastors from across the country.

“The First Amendment rights of troops who defend those rights for the rest of us should be non-negotiable–not an afterthought,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Daniel Blomberg. “The small group of activists who are pushing to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ are conveniently ignoring the dramatic legal impact of the legislation upon the religious liberties of thousands of chaplains and service members. The legislation that Congress is considering puts at risk fundamental, constitutionally protected liberties, treating those rights as limited ‘privileges’ that can be taken away at any time.”

Earlier this month, upon request of the Pentagon working group in charge of reviewing the repeal, ADF also sent legal analysis regarding appropriate religious liberty protections for chaplains and service members if Congress were to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

“First, passing a law that elevates homosexual behavior to a protected class sets the military’s policy at direct odds with the moral teachings and beliefs of a significant group of military chaplains and service members,” the ADF analysis states. “This conflict will likely have the effect of both pressuring service members and chaplains to alter their beliefs to accommodate military policy and marginalizing those whose religious beliefs will become equated with racism or sexism. Second, while religious exemptions are a standard feature of non-discrimination laws protecting homosexual behavior–so standard a feature, in fact, that their absence from the pending repeal legislation before the House and Senate is conspicuous–they are often only partially helpful in guarding religious liberty.”

“The nature of the proposed repeal is an alarming signal that religious liberty, free speech, and even national security have taken a back seat to the homosexual legal agenda,” Blomberg added.

In February, ADF attorneys sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Gates advising them of the legal risks and dangers of the proposed repeal. Among other effects, such a repeal would place hundreds of chaplains to the armed forces in irreconcilable positions between military mandates and their religious freedoms. 

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.