Tuesday, August 30, 2005
The Library Policy states that the Community Room is available to "nonprofit organizations" for "programs of a civic, cultural or educational nature." However, the Policy also states the following: "If a program deals with a controversial subject, then all sides of the issue must be presented." Liberty Counsel applied to use the Community Room for specific dates at the end of May and on June 6 or 13, 2005. The application stated that the meeting would present a biblical perspective on traditional marriage. The meeting would include prayer and scripture reading. Kerry McCrone, the library director, denied the application on May 23. With the denial, the library director sent back a copy of the Policy with language highlighted stating that if a program deals with a controversial subject, all sides of the issue must be presented. In other words, the Policy requires that any time a "controversial subject" is discussed, the opposing viewpoint must also be presented.
Library officials ought to know that a policy which purports to ban "controversial" speech is unconstitutional. Under the library policy, any member of the public may use the Community Room to conduct a meeting on any topic so long as it is not controversial, in which case the library requires the speaker to present the opposing view. This library policy would require meetings designed to show support for our troops to include anti-war protesters, like Cindy Sheehan. The government can not compel its citizens to violate their conscience in order to express their viewpoint.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Citizen Impact Canada, a group described as "dedicated to equipping Canadians for the effective expression of faith-based principles in the public square," has posted a very enlightening testimony on its Web site from a woman who grew up in a homosexual household. The testimony includes links to various sources and research to support the thesis that endorsement of same-sex marraige puts children in jeopardy. Here are some quotes from the article:
My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won't the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STD's due to sexual molestation, my father's high-risk sexual behaviours, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex."
"My name is Dawn Stefanowicz, I grew up in a homosexual household during the 60's and 70's in Toronto exposed to many different people, the GLBT subcultures, and explicit sexual practices. I am currently writing a book, soon to be published, on this experience. As well, I was a witness at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill C-250 (hate crimes), and I have presented at the local school board.
Click here for the entire article.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Liberty Counsel President and General Counsel, Mat Staver is scheduled as a guest on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC tonight. The topic is yesterday's bizarre ruling by the California Supreme Court stating that children can have two mothers. On the opposing side will be Joe Solomon of the Human Rights Campaign.
The show airs at 7:00 tonight and 3:00 a.m. tomorrow (ET). Transcripts of the show should be posted on MSNBC's web site within 24 hours.
To view our press release on the California Supreme Court ruling, go to http://lc.org/pressrelease/2005/nr082205.htm
Monday, August 22, 2005
In K.M. v. E.G., EG, with ova donated by KM, and inseminated by a sperm donor, gave birth to twins on December 7, 1995. KM signed the standard Consent Form for Ovum Donor, which states that she waives any claim to the children born from the donated eggs. At EG’s insistence, KM did not disclose to anyone that she was the donor. Nor did EG agree to permit KM adopt the child at birth. After the couple separated in March 2001, KM filed a petition to establish a parental relationship with the twin five-year old girls. The Supreme Court, in a 4-2 decision, found KM to be a parent. “A woman who supplies ova to be used to impregnate her lesbian partner, with the understanding that the resulting child will be raised in their joint home, cannot waive her responsibility to support that child. Nor can such a purported waiver effectively cause that woman to relinquish her parental rights.” Two of the justices filed dissenting opinions, criticizing the majority for creating new law that contradicted the plain language of the statute.
In Elisa B. v. Emily B., the Supreme Court adopted an “intent test” for determining parentage, concluding that a woman who agreed to raise children with her lesbian partner, supported her partner’s insemination, and received the resulting twin children into her home and held them out as her own, is considered a parent under the Uniform Parentage Act. As a result, Elisa B, as the non-biological partner, could not disclaim responsibility to financially support the children. The Court explained that there is no “reason why both parents of a child cannot be women.”
In Kristine H. v. Lisa R., the biological mother, while seven months pregnant, and the lesbian partner had obtained from the Superior Court a judgment declaring both of them parents of the unborn child. Two years after the child was born, the biological mother filed a petition to set aside the previous judgment. The lesbian partner filed a separate action for custody of the child. The California Supreme Court refused to invalidate the agreement. In this case, like the two companion cases, the Supreme Court explained that in California, a child can have two moms.
Today’s ruling defies logic and common sense. By saying that children can have two moms, the court has undermined the family. This ruling establishes a policy that essentially says moms and dads are mere surplus. Thousands of studies conclude that children need moms and dads, not two moms and two dads, but one of each. Gender does matter to children. Today’s ruling underscores the importance of amending California’s constitution to preserve marriage as one man and one woman. The people of California will not put up with such nonsense.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
A hearing is set for 1:30 p.m. PT tomorrow in Sacramento Superior Court before Judge Raymond Cadei on Liberty Counsel's lawsuit challenging the prejudicial title and summary issued by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer for the marriage amendment proposed by VoteYesMarriage.com. Liberty Counsel litigation attorney Mary McAlister will be presenting
The lawsuit, filed on August 1, argues that the Attorney General has a statutory duty to prepare an unbiased, accurate and nonprejudicial title and summary that reflects the chief purpose and points of the proposed amendment. Since the Attorney General is personally in favor of same-sex unions, it appears his office prepared an inaccurate and prejudicial summarydesigned to confuse the voters.
In legal papers filed in response to the suit, the Attorney General has already admitted that the ballot summary his office prepared is not entirely accurate. Still, his office is going to defendthe flawed title and summary.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Pa., to reinstate a "transgender" prison guard in light of the Allentown ordinance.
This week is new law student orientation for the second entering class at Liberty University School of Law. Last night we had the opportunity to meet some of the new students. Many of them expressed interest in practicing constitutional law after graduation. Later today, Liberty Counsel President and General Counsel Mat Staver will have the opportunity to address the entire entering class. Potential students (and anyone else interested in law) should read the archive of the Dean's Blog, where Dean Bruce W. Green has eloquently published "thoughts and observations on the progress of founding a new law school, comments and recommendations on preparing for law school, reading, and other insights."
Mat is also scheduled to appear on The O'Reilly Factor tonight, along with our client, Lisa Miller. This topic will be her case, which will impact how states treat custody issues in same-sex unions. The O'Reilly Factor airs at 8:00 and 11:00 p.m. ET.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
A hearing on the suit will soon be set. The Attorney General has a statutory duty to prepare a title and summary that is accurate, reflects the chief purpose and points, and is not prejudicial for or against the proposed amendment. He failed to carry out his responsibility in preparing this title and summary. Read Liberty Counsel's news release here. On Monday, the California Supreme Court ruled that a San Diego country club must allow domestic partners of members to play golf for free if it allows spouses to play for free. "Domestic partners registered under ... the current version of the (California) domestic partnership law are the equivalent of spouses for the purposes of the Unruh Act and a business that extends benefits to spouses it denies to registered domestic partners engages in impermissible marital status discrimination," said the Court's opinion.