Category Archives: Faith & Freedom
Today, OnMyHonor.Net, a coalition of concerned Boy Scouts of America (BSA) parents, scoutmasters, Eagle Scouts and other scouting leaders who affirm scouting’s timeless values, announced the Rally for Scouting, a nationwide series of rallies to support the current membership policy of the BSA to take place on Friday, May 17, 2013 from noon to 1:30 pm local time. A full list of over 40 rally locations is available at: http://www.OnMyHonor.net/map.
As delegates consider a proposed change to BSA membership standards, many people with an interest in scouting are raising concerns about the risks and effects that change would have on scouting programs. The proposed resolution, to be voted on by the national council on May 23 in Grapevine, Texas, would change the membership policy to require all chartered scouting units to allow open homosexuality among boys in the organization but not adults.
Recently, OnMyHonor.Net published an open letter providing a legal and ethical analysis of the BSA resolution, giving council members 10 reasons to vote “No” in May.
Rallies will be held today in Tucson and Phoenix:
2969 North Greenfield Road, Phoenix,
Contact: Kimberly Eliot (520) 282-0390
5049 East Broadway, Suite 200, Tucson
Contact: Roy Lamb (734) 634-2102
Read the letter
Okay, so put yourself in the place of those Watertown, Mass., residents in the search area for Tsarnaev.
You’ve been told to stay indoors for your own safety. Don’t go to work. Don’t go shopping. It’s not safe out there.
The police, FBI and SWAT teams are canvassing your entire neighborhood.
You’re tense. Everyone’s tense. You just wish this would be over, justice would be served, they’d catch this cold-blooded, murdering creep.
For your own protection … you make sure you have your gun at the ready.
Oh … but wait.
President Obama and the Democrats don’t want you to be able to protect yourself.
Too bad for you. If Tsarnaev breaks into your home … you’re a sitting duck. Your gun has been confiscated. All you’ve got left is hope that the police can find your home in time to protect you. By the time they get to your house, you and your loved ones could be dead.
This is exactly the life-threatening bind Obama and the Democrats want to put you in.
They want to put good, honest, law-abiding citizens like you at risk. At the mercy of home invaders, criminals … who would face no resistance from you. They’d have the confidence to do anything they want against an unarmed populace.
Think about it. This is what they want.
To borrow an analogy from Credence Clearwater Revival’s song “Fortunate Son,” Will Portman is a fortunate son. He’s a senator’s son.
When he told his father, U.S. Senator Rob Portmann (R-Ohio), he is homosexual, the elder Portmann came out in support of same-sex “marriage.” He’s the same Sen. Portmann who was under consideration for a vice-presidential running mate by Mitt Romney.
The son’s struggle with same-sex attraction is certainly unfortunate.
But the father’s response is troubling. Instead of offering to help his son, he selfishly does an about face and wants to impose same-sex “marriage” on the nation. He selfishly wants to take away the religious freedom of people who will be punished for opposing same-sex “marriage.” Just because of his own son.
I have no doubt the senator loves his son. But the way he shows it is misguided, and his personal family situation should not adversely impact the entire nation. He’s imposing his personal family situation on the country, and this is selfish and wrong.
The same thing happened in San Diego a few years ago. The mayor decided to support same-sex “marriage” after learning his daughter gave in to same-sex attraction. So he and the city council passed a resolution to impose their will on the city.
It’s time for selfish politicians to realize their personal family situations do not justify the imposition of same-sex “marriage” on their constituents. Especially when the majority of Americans support marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Queue up Credence on Youtube:
It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no senator’s son
SHOCKING MUST READ: Don’t Let Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Advocates Institute Cultural Madness and Turn America on its Head
Sky Fall: Gender Ideology Comes to the Schoolhouse
In our discussions with advocates of redefining marriage, we often hear that defenders of marriage and sexual difference are overreacting to cultural and legal changes. “You run around yelling that the sky is falling,” we’re told. “We’ve had same-sex marriage for a decade now in Massachusetts, and guess what: The sky is not falling.”
This is not an argument, of course, but an attempt to end any discussion of what it would mean to remove sexual distinctions from the law. As it did to James Bond’s psychiatric evaluation in the recent hit movie, the mention of the phrase “sky fall” is supposed to terminate the proceedings.
No serious participants in the current marriage discussion are running around like Chicken Little. Defenders of marriage are concerned primarily about the long-term implications of redefining the institution. We might not expect the redefinition of marriage to alter cultural practices dramatically right away. After all, it took nearly two generations to realize the full effects of the divorce revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. But strange things are nevertheless happening in Massachusetts, where sexual difference was eliminated from marriage laws in 2003.
Two years ago, the Massachusetts legislature enacted a statute prohibiting, among other things, discrimination in public schools on the basis of “gender identity.” The law defines gender identity as “a person’s gender-related identity, appearance or behavior,” which is not determined by “the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth.”
On the basis of that statute, the Massachusetts Department of Education (MDOE) has now eradicated sexual distinctions from public schools. MDOE’s new directive requires schools to let children use bathrooms and play on sports teams according to the gender they personally identify as theirs, not their anatomical sex. The directive also admonishes schools to eliminate sex and gender distinctions in graduation garb, physical education, and other practices.
Under Massachusetts law, the connection between gender identity and sexual distinction is now considered a historical accident, the result of arbitrary (at best) or mistaken documentation at birth. MDOE’s directive explains:
One’s gender identity is an innate, largely inflexible characteristic of each individual’s personality that is generally established by age four, although the age at which individuals come to understand and express their gender identity may vary based on each person’s social and familial social development. As a result, the person best situated to determine a student’s gender identity is that student himself or herself.
Because the child is solely responsible for identifying his or her own gender, the regulations require school officials to seek the student’s permission before disclosing the student’s gender identity to his or her parents.
That’s not all. The regulations suggest that students who don’t endorse a fellow student’s gender identity may be subject to punishment. After condemning bullying, the directive endorses a memorandum that a Massachusetts school principal sent to teachers instructing them to discipline students who intentionally refer to a transgender student by his or her given name, or the pronoun corresponding to his or her anatomical sex. Such behavior “should not be tolerated.”
MDOE justifies these regulations on pedagogical grounds: “All students need a safe and supportive school environment to progress academically and developmentally.” By “all students” MDOE must mean all students who share MDOE’s conception of sex and gender as an individual choice.
It is not difficult to imagine who will embrace MDOE’s conception. The regulations state, “A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl” (emphasis ours). The caveat that the student might want to be treated like a boy for some purposes seems an implicit admission that gender identity is not, in fact, an inflexible characteristic, as MDOE insists, but rather can adjust over time. And the directive states that the law “does not require consistent and uniform assertion of gender identity” (emphasis original).
While we doubt that teenage boys will take much interest in the provenance of gender personality, it’s not a stretch to suppose that they will welcome its implications for co-ed activity.
Perhaps this is why many parents in Massachusetts find these regulations shocking. We must confess that we are not so surprised. Massachusetts lawmakers have for many years been eradicating sexual distinctions from the law. This result seems to us the logical consequence of those efforts.
Redefining marriage to eliminate sexual complementarity as an essential characteristic doesn’t automatically commit a state to forcing girls to share locker rooms with boys. But there is a logical connection. One of the premises justifying the redefinition of marriage also grounds these new regulations, that is, the view that sexual difference is irrelevant to the practice of marriage.
But if sexual difference is irrelevant to marriage, then how can it be relevant to any practices? Once the state has determined that sexual difference is no longer a legitimate reason to extend special recognition to man-woman monogamy, there is no reason in principle to maintain sexual distinctions in less intimate practices. If one’s anatomical reality isn’t relevant to one’s marriage, it’s even less obvious why it should be relevant to one’s bathroom choice.
To be sure, there are prudential implications of eradicating sexual distinction from education laws. But if letting people identify their own gender is a matter of justice, then it’s the job of law to solve the practical problems of implementation. (That is a key lesson of civil rights legislation.)
Though future practical problems might seem obvious, the law makes it far from clear that there are any. If a boy who identifies as a girl really is a girl, as the law declaims, then any perceived harms resulting from his presence in a girls’ locker room are illusory. No wonder the Commonwealth exhorts school officials to discipline students who object to the arrangement.
There are other indications that those who perceive inherent differences between men and women will increasingly be marginalized from public life in Massachusetts. A few months ago, a federal court in Massachusetts ruled that the United States Constitution requires the Commonwealth’s Department of Corrections to pay for a sex-change surgery requested by an inmate who is serving time for murder. It is cruel and unusual punishment, the court reasoned, to force the prisoner to keep his anatomy intact while he is incarcerated.
This ruling might seem unrelated to removing sexual distinctions from law, but for the court’s reasoning. The court discredited the Commonwealth’s expert witnesses, who expressed doubt that a sex-change surgery is medically necessary, and who recommended treating the prisoner’s psychological and emotional disorders instead.
The court ruled that these recommendations are “not within the range that would be acceptable by prudent professionals.” In other words, the court decided that no prudent professional would deny sex-change surgery to a male prisoner who identifies himself as a woman.
The lesson is clear. If you think male and female are two distinct sexes determined by your anatomy at birth, then don’t bother serving as an expert witness in the United States District Court in Massachusetts. Nor can you in good conscience send your children to public school in the Commonwealth. A view of human nature that until very recently was understood to be obvious is becoming a source of disqualification from participating in public life.
As lawyers, we perceive the logic of this latest regulatory innovation. But as fathers, we think that those who are dismayed by MDOE’s regulations are the only Massachusetts residents who can plausibly claim to be in their right minds. If the sky is not falling then it is at least showing ominous fissures.
Adam MacLeod is an associate professor at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and a 2012-2013 Visiting Fellow of the James Madison Program at Princeton University. Andrew Beckwith is Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
Info Wars reports …
On February 20, 2013, the Tucson, Arizona City Council passed a resolution allowing the U.S. Air Force to “make appropriate decisions when balancing National Security and community needs when it comes to their existing and future military mission and assignments.”
In other words, the resolution allows the military to reject decisions made by the people of Tucson.
The resolution is posted on the Tucson government website (as of this writing) and further states that it “is necessary for the preservation of the peace, health and safety of the City of Tucson that this Resolution become immediately effective, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.”
In short, the Council has imposed what for all practical purposes is a declaration of martial law on the residents of Tucson.
According to the Military Law Dictionary, “Martial law is defined as the imposition of military rule over a particular region on an emergency basis” and the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is routinely denied during its tenure.
The resolution does not, however, implement full-blown martial law but rather a limited version that permits the Pentagon to decide what municipal laws it will obey when dealing with civilians.
The public was not allowed to voice its opposition and Council members were not permitted to discuss the resolution, as noted by the meeting notice and agenda posted on the city government website.
“Matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote,” the agenda states. “There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired by members of the governing body, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately.”
The Department of Defense initially made the power grab in response to civilian complaints about military flights over the city.
“This resolution will allow DM to increase by at least two-fold or more, the number of overflights of the very densely populated midtown Tucson, and allow round-the-clock overflights, and the introduction of whatever aircraft they wish, in whatever numbers they wish…. including the hearing-damaging accident-waiting-to-happen-experimental F-35!” Occupied Tucson Citizen reported.
“The use of the term ‘emergency’ is particularly despicable! In this case, it is not even stated what constitutes the so-called “emergency”, but is obviously being used to get around the fact that it was passed in great haste and secrecy, so as not to alert citizens of how they are being shafted!”
Infowars.com has moved copies of the above linked PDFs to its server due to past instances where government has removed documents:
On Tuesday at 2:30 p.m. the Phoenix City Council is going to show its utter depravity by considering a resolution allowing men who think they are female to use women’s restrooms. This radical far left-wing resolution should never have seen the light of day, but this kind of madness is sweeping the nation from the Left.
This means that a man who needs psychological help would be within his legal rights to use the same restroom as your little girl in public accommodations like restaurants, schools, and churches.
Because of the notoriety of this bill, the council session has been moved to the Orpheum Theater at 203 W. Adams Street in Phoenix.
The most radical Left elements of Arizona are all for this nonsense. Those with common sense are against it. Equality Arizona, the most vocal of the far Left special interests groups in the state, is calling people who oppose this bill “extremists on the fringe.” Their friends on the Council, including Mayor Greg Stanton, rushed this bill forward with little to no transparency. Breaking his campaign promise from last year.
Here’s what this serpent-inspired bill will do, if the council is crazy enough to pass it:
- If a business or church asks the man to leave the ladies’ room it will face civil and criminal prosecution for “discrimination.”
- There are no protections in this law to prohibit a predator from posing as a so-called “transgender” to gain access to a child through a restroom or locker room.
- Every business in or that works with the City of Phoenix would face the threat of frivolous lawsuits regardless of their views on homosexuality and so-called “gender identity” – a left-wing fabrication. The mere implication that a business is ”unwelcoming” or “unaccepting” to a homosexual or transgender can trigger a criminal investigation and costly lawsuit that could bankrupt a business. Guess that’s the kind of business environment Stanton wants to create here.
- Churches are not exempt from being forced to allow transgenders in whatever restroom they choose. Furthermore, the weak exemption in this law could force a church or a parachurch organization, like a Christian school, to hire homosexuals and transgenders regardless of the church’s religious beliefs. An affront to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.
Two adults on the Phoenix City Council, Jim Waring and Sal DiCiccio, are opposed to this threat to children, families, businesses and ministries. Councilman DiCiccio’s news release appears in the message below this one.
Contact these council members and urge them to be reasonable and talk these folks off the ledge before they take the state’s largest city into the moral abyss:
- Thelda Williams: firstname.lastname@example.org, 602-262-7444
- Vice Mayor Bill Gates: email@example.com, 602-262-7441
- Daniel Valenzuela: firstname.lastname@example.org, 602-262-7446
- Michael Nowakowski: email@example.com, 602-262-7492
- Michael Johnson: firstname.lastname@example.org, 602-262-7493