Life, Liberty and Family

Penguins 'pray away the gay': Liberals admit that changing orientation is possible

2011-12-27T10:37:00.007-05:00

By: Matt Barber

Those bent on justifying the homosexual lifestyle often claim that there are umpteen million – or somewhere thereabouts – species of "gay" animals in the world. This begs a few questions:

• What?

• Then how do they procreate? If these animals forgo natural mating behavior to, instead, spend nights hooking up in Yellowstone's public men's rooms, march in critter "gay pride" parades and decorate their nest in fabulous Art Deco pastels, then wouldn't their species cease to exist after just one generation? So much for Darwinian evolution.

• Even if such nonsense were true, so what? There are plenty of species in the world that eat their young, too. Animals are animals. Does this mean we should act like them? (Besides, show me one species of animal that engages in the same kind of depraved homosexual conduct that can come only from the mind of man, and I'll be impressed.)

Still, whenever some animal displays atypical nesting behavior or exhibits quirks that can be remotely called "gay" (We've all seen that dog), moral relativists – who desperately seek to justify objectively immoral behavior – will cry: "Look! Animals are gay, too. It must be natural!"

So, it's not surprising that liberals have their feathers in a ruffle – that they're egg-cited over recent news that another pair of same-sex penguins has flown the "gay" coop. (I wrote about a second pair in 2009).

Famous "gay" penguins Buddy and Pedro from the Toronto Zoo are the latest chirpy birds with happy feet to begin eyeballing chicks. They're now "ex-gay" penguins. (Read about Buddy and Pedro's "reparative therapy.")

I know. For most of us this elicits little more than a chuckle. Yet there are those who actually believe this twaddle.

Unfortunately, this is all part of liberals' desperate attempt to dredge up some natural, biological rationalization – of which science has found none – to validate demonstrably unnatural behavior.

That's why we see such visceral hatred on the left for the ex-gay community. From a political and legal standpoint, it's strategically critical that these same liberals undermine and marginalize the very real-life experiences of untold thousands of former homosexuals.

This mean-spiritedness represents a profound lack of respect for other people's "right to choose." Their favorite dig is: "You can't pray away the gay." Once you've self-identified as – or been labeled – "gay," you're stuck with it, you see.

Ironically, these same liberals will suggest with a straight face (no pun intended) that something that is innate – a person's biological sex – can change. If you're a man who, today, feels like a woman, why then, snippity-snip and voila! You're a woman.

Many men and women with unwanted same-sex attractions have exercised sexual self-determination and have chosen to leave the homosexual lifestyle. As we make continuing advances in the science of human sexuality, it has become clear that "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are largely fluid, subjectively determined classifications. As to what may drive a person's "sexual orientation" and/or sexual appetites, the highly liberal American Psychological Association (APA) has concluded: "Many [scientists] think that nature and nurture both play complex roles."

The scientifically reinforced fluidity of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" may help to explain why, as even the liberal APA has admitted, thousands (if not millions) of people have "altered their sexual orientation" with "varying degrees of satisfaction and varying perceptions of success."

It is no longer open for serious debate. Despite tremendous political pressure to find otherwise, even the left-leaning APA has been forced to acknowledge that for people with unwanted same-sex attractions, change is possible. It's not always easy, but change is undeniably and conclusively possible.

Recently, the most comprehensive study ever done on the ex-gay phenomenon was released in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. In the study, researchers concluded that, for many who desire to leave the homosexual lifestyle, "change does indeed occur, although not for everyone."

Some of the study's conclusions:

• Success: Conversion: 23 percent of the sample reported substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and subsequent conversion to heterosexual attractions and functioning.

• Success: Chastity: 30 percent reported that homosexual attraction was still present, but only incidentally or in a way that did not seem to bring distress, allowing them to live contentedly without overt sexual activity.

• Continuing: 16 percent reported modest decreases in homosexual attraction, but were not satisfied with their degree of change and remained committed to the change process.

• Non-response: 7 percent reported no significant sexual orientation change; they had not given up on the change process, but some were confused or conflicted about which direction to turn next.

• Failure: Confused: 5 percent reported no significant sexual orientation change, and had given up on the change process, but without yet embracing a gay identity.

• Failure: Gay identity: 20 percent had given up on the change process and embraced a gay identity.

Most importantly, the study determined that, for those who struggle with same-sex attraction and wish to change, "some people can indeed move from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that harm is unlikely to result from such efforts."

But that's people. Penguins? They're probably just "bisexual" to begin with.

________________________________________
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Liberal Violence Rising: The prediction of increasing mayhem by secular-socialism followers

2011-11-22T12:52:00.002-05:00

By: J. Matt Barber

While necessity is the mother of invention, sloth and envy beget mediocrity and upheaval – the twin siblings of secular-socialism.

It is in this vein that a rebellious and increasingly violent spirit of incoherent anarchy continues to fester in urban centers across the nation. This is most evident in the form of the envy-driven "Occupy wherever" nonsense embraced by the "progressive" establishment.

Still, this Obama-supported effort to supplant, through lawless imposition, our free-market constitutional republic with some misguided conception of an outcome-based equalitocracy is rooted in much more than just good old-fashioned class warfare.

Part and parcel of secular-socialism is secularism. It's fascinating in its predictability. Wherever you find an entitlement-minded Marxist, you're likely to find a "progressive," counter-biblical moral relativist.

Case in point: The "Occupy D.C." protesters, who have squatted – in more ways than one – at Washington's McPherson Square, have posted a list of rules by which "occupants" are expected to abide. Rule No. 10 requires that folks not "assume anyone's gender," but, instead, "go with gender-neutral pronouns" like "comrade." (Who knew that a so-called "99 percent" of Americans were gender-bending commies?)

Indeed, the opposite of order is disorder. While rebelling against the natural order – whether related to economic liberty or issues surrounding transcendent moral values – many of the less stable elements on the left are exhibiting an increased willingness to move beyond mere disorder to outright violence.

Examples of such violence continue to mount. But beyond the fiery "Occupy" riots in Oakland, and the shootings, murders, rapes and thousands of arrests occurring throughout the dozens of disease-riddled "Occupy" chaos camps around the country, a less publicized example of left-wing violence took place last month in Illinois.

The "Gay Liberation Network" – a militant homosexual activist group of self-described "Trotskyites" – announced that it would be protesting an award ceremony held at the Christian Liberty Academy, an Arlington Heights, Ill., church and school. In the past, when GLN has protested this particular event, Christian attendees have been spat upon and even physically threatened by protesters.

This time, things got worse. The night before the event someone threw two paver bricks through the church's plate glass doors with a dire warning: "This is just a sample of what we will do if you don't shut down Scott Lively and AFTAH. … [F---] Scott Lively. Quit the homophobic [s---]!"

The Christian organization, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), was giving an award to Pastor Scott Lively, a pro-family advocate who, in recent years, has been falsely maligned by leftist groups and media-types like Rachel Maddow, for supposedly supporting the death penalty for homosexual behavior – a patently false charge.

The assailants later posted an al-Qaida-like statement on the "progressive" website IndyMedia.org, taking credit for the attack and calling it a "consequence for hatred and homophobia in our community." They further threatened the church, warning that "if this event is not shut down … the Christian Liberty Academy will continue to be under constant attack." Unbelievably, the threat remains posted to this day.

Fortunately, no one has yet been hurt; however, according to the FBI, by definition this attack meets all the elements of domestic terrorism.

But none of this is surprising. The flames of violence against Lively, AFTAH and Christian Liberty Academy were ignited long ago. On the other end of the fuse is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a hard-left outfit known in past years for monitoring true hate groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis.

After partnering with the admittedly communist GLN, the SPLC had declared, with much media fanfare, both AFTAH and Lively's organization, Abiding Truth Ministries, along with several other highly respected Christian organizations, official "hate groups."
This propagandist smear tactic has been increasingly used by the SPLC in an effort to marginalize Christian and conservative organizations with which the group disagrees. Unfortunately, however, we now see that this strategy to dehumanize, can also have unintended (presumably) consequences.

As in Illinois, the SPLC's dangerous and irresponsible disinformation campaign can embolden and give license to like-minded, though less stable, left-wing extremists, creating a climate of true hate. Such a climate is ripe for violence. After all, these "hate groups" are just like the KKK, right?

Despite all this, even today the SPLC has somehow managed to maintain some level of mainstream credibility. But as it quickly moves further from its left-of-center moorings toward the far fringes of left-wing extremism, its own deceptive activities threaten to undo much of the good for which the organization was once recognized.

After the anti-Christian attack, Bob Schwartz, cofounder of GLN, refused to condemn the violence noting precisely that the victims were "SPLC-designated hate groups." This comes as little surprise in that Schwartz once threatened to push AFTAH founder Peter LaBarbera into oncoming traffic.

Still, what is a bit surprising is that, like its GLN ally, the SPLC – a self-styled domestic terrorist watchdog organization – has additionally refused to condemn this overt act of domestic terrorism.

Instead, the SPLC released a statement, dripping with sarcasm, that piled on the victims. Rather than denouncing the attack, the organization simply lamented that the violence "only strengthened the absurd argument, promulgated by many [Christians]" that left-wing extremists "want to take over America and persecute Christians."

Yes, it's official. The SPLC has abandoned all pretense of objectivity.

And so, as left-wing violence continues to spike in coming months, not only should we expect to hear little about it from a sympathetic mainstream media; we should also expect little help from the once-respected Southern Poverty Law Center.
Indeed, it's hard to do much about the problem when you're a driving force behind it.

________________________________________
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Conservative -- the new cool

2011-05-19T17:03:00.001-04:00

By: Matt Barber

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive. – C.S. Lewis

Comedian Jim Wiegand -- aka "Jim Wiggins, the last hippie in America" -- is a throwback to a bygone era. The hilarious 70-year-old wisecracker is known for, among other things, a quite liberal worldview. He's also known for raising Joe Wiegand, his rebellious, good-for-nothing son. Apart from sharing both a sharp sense of humor and mutual love and admiration, father and son see eye to eye on little else.

Joe, a good friend of mine, isn't a rebellious good-for-nothing in the conventional sense. He's a 40-something Illinois-based GOP strategist, a Teddy Roosevelt impersonator without equal and a buttoned-up evangelical Christian.

The elder Mr. Wiegand can't figure out where he went wrong. He jokes that when Joe was a youngster, he once discovered magazines hidden under the boy's mattress. He was shocked to find his son looking at such smut: National Review.

Hippies once were the counterculture. Liberals were the nonconformist rebels, boldly wearing unwashed anarchy on tattered sleeve. They loudly and proudly raged against the establishment machine.

Today, they are the establishment machine.

All of our ruling-class institutions -- academia, courts, government, media and entertainment industries -- are teeming with closed-minded, hard-left ideologues who seek to "fundamentally transform America."

Consider that, according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, self-identified liberals outweigh their conservative counterparts in the mainstream media by a 5-1 margin.

Likewise, a 1999 North American Academic Study Survey (NAASS) of students, faculty and administrators in colleges and universities throughout the United States determined that five times as many college faculty members vote Democratic as Republican. In fact, 72 percent described themselves as "to the left of center," while a mere 15 percent identified themselves as "right of center."

One can only imagine that in the ensuing decade, the ideological disparity has increased. Ask any kid in the halls of academia, and he'll tell you, with few exceptions, that professor so-and-so is a liberal so-and-so.

Still, liberals -- or "progressives," as they prefer to be called -- persist in laboring under an embarrassing misconception: They honestly believe they remain the nonconformists. It's precious.

In fact, today's liberals are nothing of the sort. They compliantly conform -- like little windup, patchouli-daubed lemmings -- to a carnival-prize caricature of what they imagine nonconformity to look like. You know, the usual stuff: neo-Marxism, environmentalist activism, sexual relativism, big-government nanny statism, an actions-without-consequences rendering of reproductive rights, and other such populist nonsense. Simply put, today's progressive nonconformist conforms.

Indeed, the "Stepford Wives" have become the "Stepford Lesbians." The prudish, judgmental church lady has swapped spots with the easy -- yet somehow self-righteous -- birth-bashing feminist.

So what is a young person -- brimming over with that instinctive, defiant impulse to rebel against "the man" -- to do?

Well, in this up-is-down, spend-money-to-save-money world, conservatives have become the contemporary nonconformists. Today's rebellious youth are telling the progressive establishment to put its moral-relativist, redistributionist party-line pig swill in its well-used chamber pipe and smoke it.

Kids: Really want to get under your obnoxiously "tolerant," Volvo-driving, MSNBC-watching folks' skin? Try this: Go to church, abstain from premarital sex, join the Young America's Foundation, attend a Tea Party rally, enroll at Liberty University, listen to Rush Limbaugh and vote Republican.

You'll have them writhing in their Birkenstocks.

I've often said that President Obama could either be the best thing to happen to America or the worst. The best insofar as this man's policies are so radical, so extreme that, in keeping with Newton's third law of motion, the "opposite reaction" might well trigger Republican rule in perpetuity.

First, the bad news: So far, Mr. Obama is the worst. Now, the good news: I believe he has awakened a sleeping giant in the millennial generation (ages 18 to 29). Today's counterculture is rejecting the tired progressive policies pushed by this president and his secular-socialist sycophants.

For instance, a 2010 Marist Institute for Public Opinion poll determined that nearly 60 percent of millennials believe abortion is "morally wrong," a nearly 10-point increase over the more progressive baby-boomer generation. The tide is turning.

Similarly, a recent survey from Harvard University's Institute of Politics found that millennials are worried sick about their futures. Yet President Hopey Changey and Democrats in Congress continue to play back-alley dice with their lives via incomprehensible deficit spending and a national debt that swells annually by the trillions.

Do you think these kids won't rebel as the clouds quickly darken?

Winston Churchill once observed, "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain." Liberalism is emotion-based and rooted in soaring, knee-jerk notions of "social justice." Conservatism is logic-based and rooted in reality.

Today's rebellious youth have the heart part down. I'm glad to see they're developing some brains.

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law, and author of the book "The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War." He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.

Pulling the plug on ObamaCare

2011-05-09T16:07:00.003-04:00

By: Matt Barber

ObamaCare is like turnip greens: bitter and hard to swallow, but Mommy made you choke them down anyway. The difference is that turnip greens are constitutional (though perhaps they shouldn't be). They're also likely to extend your life rather than cut it short.

As demonstrated by the 2010 Election Day massacre, the government takeover of healthcare -- the euphemistically tagged "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" -- infuriated voters as Democrats cooked it up and force-fed it to America for Christmas Eve dinner.

Despite being assured by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, that we needed to "pass the bill so [we] can find out what's in it," a recent Rasmussen poll reveals that a majority of Americans -- having since found out what's in it -- continue to favor its repeal.

Indeed, by granting more than 1,000 ObamaCare waivers (read: payoffs) to a host of unions and corporations, the Obama administration has tacitly admitted this socialized medical monstrosity is neither "affordable," nor does it "protect patients."

Still, while Republican rooks maneuver to checkmate King Obama via legislative repeal, others have gone the judicial route. On Tuesday, in fact, Mathew D. Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, will be the first to challenge the constitutionality of ObamaCare at the federal court of appeals level. He will argue the case of Liberty University v. Geithner before the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.

The Liberty Counsel officially represents both Liberty University and two private individuals in the lawsuit. Unofficially, it represents the majority of Americans.

Later that day, the Court of Appeals will also hear the case of Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, filed by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II. The cases will be argued seriatim (in succession) by each counsel, respectively.

The Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate ambitiously maintains -- against considerable evidence to the contrary -- that Democrats' particular brand of healthcare reform is so important, so unique that the U.S. government is justified -- for the first time in history -- in forcing every American citizen to purchase his own untenable, unsustainable and demonstratively defective product under penalty of law. ObamaCare categorically lays the groundwork for universal healthcare. They didn't just sell us a lemon, they squeezed it in our eyes and said, "pay up or else."

This is a case of first impression. That is to say, no Supreme Court case has ever allowed the federal government to force people into the stream of commerce. Neither has the high court ever permitted the federal government to compel its citizens to buy a government-defined product. If government has the authority to force unwilling citizens to purchase health insurance, then there is simply no limit to the power this mushrooming centralized mammoth can wield.

On Tuesday, Virginia will challenge the individual mandate, while the Liberty Counsel will go after both the individual and employer mandates. As with Virginia's case, the Liberty Counsel argues that Congress lacks authority under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Taxing and Spending Clause to implement this unparalleled power-grab.

The Liberty Counsel also raises other constitutional objections, including issues relative to the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, and the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Mr. Staver commented on the case in advance of Tuesday's historic oral arguments: "It is the hope of many Americans that this lawsuit is a fast track to the ultimate demise of this overreaching health insurance law. This law represents an astonishing extension of the federal government into the personal and business decisions of Americans. If ObamaCare should be upheld by the courts, then there are no limits on what Congress can do. I think it is clear that Congress far exceeded its authority under the Constitution."

Indeed, when one's stated goal is to "fundamentally transform America," the U.S. Constitution, as intended by our nation's founding visionaries, becomes a significant encumbrance rather than an instrument of freedom.

It's little wonder that exceeding constitutional authority has become the defining hallmark of this, the most radical presidential administration in American history.

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law, and author of the book "The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War." He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.

ACLU v. Religious Liberty

2011-03-24T08:58:00.000-04:00

By J. Matt Barber

Irony is defined as "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning." The term doublespeak means "evasive, ambiguous language that is intended to deceive or confuse."

There is perhaps no greater example of ironic doublespeak than inclusion of the phrase "civil liberties" within the inapt designation: "American Civil Liberties Union."

Indeed, few leftist organizations in existence today can compete with the ACLU in terms of demonstrated hostility toward what the Declaration of Independence describes as "certain unalienable rights" with which Americans are "endowed by their Creator."

Consider the doublespeak inherent throughout the "progressive" Goliath's flowery self-representation:

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

Now contrast that depiction with ACLU founder Roger Baldwin's candid vision:

I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

Ironic, isn't it? So much for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." By combining straightforward segments from each ACLU rendering we arrive with an accurate portrayal. One that cuts through the doublespeak:

The ACLU is...working daily in courts, legislatures and communities. Communism is the goal.

In 1931, just eleven years after the ACLU's inception, the US Congress convened a Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities. On the ACLU it reported:

The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists.

To be sure, the "main function of the ACLU" is entirely counter-constitutional.

A shared objective between both Communism generally, and the ACLU specifically is the suppression of religious liberty; principally, the free exercise of Christianity.

Karl Marx, high priest of the ACLU's beloved cult of Communism, once said: "The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion."

Even the ACLU's own promotional materials overtly advocate religious discrimination: "The message of the Establishment Clause is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion."

Utter hokum.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause -- a mere 10 words -- says nothing of the sort. Its message is abundantly clear, requiring severe distortion to stuff within the ACLU's Marxist parameters. It merely states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That's it.

Now let's break it down. What do you suppose the Framers of the US Constitution -- a document expressly designed to limit the powers of federal government -- intended with the word "Congress"? Did they mean State government? Municipal government? Your local school district? Your third grade teacher?

Of course not. They meant exactly what they said: Congress. As in: The United States Congress! It takes someone with a distinctly disingenuous ulterior motive to derive anything else.

Now what did they mean by "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?"

Well, in a letter to Benjamin Rush, a fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson -- often touted by the left as the great church-state separationst -- answered that question. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was singularly intended to restrict Congress from affirmatively "establishing," through federal legislation, a national Christian denomination (similar to the Anglican Church of England).

Or, as Jefferson put it: "[T]he clause of the Constitution" covering "freedom of religion" was intended to necessarily preclude "an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States."

How far removed we are today from the original intent of our Founding Fathers. The ACLU is largely responsible for creating the gulf between the Constitution's original construction and its modern misapplication.

The ACLU remains one of America's most powerful secular-socialist political pressure groups. It relentlessly tramples underfoot the First Amendment, which guarantees sweeping and absolute liberty for all Americans -- including government employees -- to freely exercise their faith both publicly and privately without fear of reprisal: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Examples of its constitutional abuses are manifold, but one of the most recent involves an ACLU assault against a group of Christians in Santa Rosa County, FL. Liberty Counsel represents those Christians.

An ACLU-crafted Consent Decree has been used as a weapon to threaten school district employees with fines and jail time for merely praying over a meal, and for exercising -- even while away from school -- their sincerely held Christian faith. You read that right. The ACLU is literally seeking to criminalize Christianity.

In August of 2009, Liberty Counsel successfully defended staff member Michelle Winkler from contempt charges brought by the ACLU after her husband, who is not even employed by the district, offered a meal prayer at a privately sponsored event in a neighboring county.

Liberty Counsel also successfully defended Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman against criminal contempt charges, after the ACLU sought to have the men thrown in jail for blessing a lunch meal served to about 20 adult booster club members.

Under the Consent Decree teachers are considered to be acting in their "official capacity" anytime a student is present, even at private functions off campus.

Liberty Counsel describes this unconstitutional decree:

Teachers cannot pray, bow their heads, or fold their hands to show agreement with anyone who does pray. Teachers and staff cannot 'Reply' to an email sent by a parent if the parent's email refers to God or Scripture. Teachers either have to delete such references from the original email or reply by initiating a new email. Teachers and staff are also required to stop students from praying in their own private club meetings.

During witness testimony, Mrs. Winkler sobbed as she described how she and a coworker, who had recently lost a child, literally had to hide in a closet to pray.

Although the case continues, on Monday the ACLU suffered a tremendous setback while freedom took a significant step forward. Federal District Court Judge M. Casey Rodgers granted in part a Preliminary Injunction in favor of Liberty Counsel's twenty-four Christian clients.

Judge Rodgers concluded that even though "a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy," one aspect of the Consent Decree -- its attempt to prohibit school employees from fully participating in private religious events -- is so flawed that it must be immediately halted.

The Court thus enjoined the School Board "from enforcing any school policy that restrains in any way an employee's participation in, or speech or conduct during, a private religious service, including baccalaureate" pending a trial on the merits.

"Progressives" are nothing if not consistent. As they gain confidence, they invariably rush across that bridge too far. They engage wild-eyed efforts to "fundamentally transform America" to reflect their own secular-socialist self-image.

I'm certain that both the bare-knuckle spirit of the American people and Liberty Counsel's enduring 92 percent win record against the ACLU will maintain a durable safeguard - an "impenetrable wall of separation" if you will - between our constitutionally guaranteed liberties and a subversive "progressive" agenda built upon the distinctly un-American creed: "Communism is the goal."

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.
Facebook/jmattbarber
Twitter/@jmattbarber
(This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

When metaphors attack!

2011-01-24T09:59:00.002-05:00

Guns don’t kill people, metaphors do. It’s true. Words have consequences. I tested it: I used a sports analogy yesterday and a pick-up game of hoops broke out.

This is liberal-think. Silly, isn’t it?

Yes, words can have consequences. Except for when they don’t. As we soon learned — and as officially “not stupid” people already knew — the horrific shootings in Tucson on January 8 had exactly nothing to do with “tone,” “political discourse” or “incendiary rhetoric,” and had everything to do with mental illness, individual responsibility and raw evil.

Not only did Jared Lee Loughner turn out not to be a Sarah Palin-loving, Tea Party-attending, “right-wing” talk radio hound; he ended up being a Bush-hating, “lefty pot-head,” 9/11 “truther” whose favorite books include the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.

So does this mean that liberals are “accomplices to mass murder” due to their well-documented history of “dangerous political rhetoric”? Well, yes, if you apply liberal-think. No, if you apply reality.

Still, this hasn’t stopped the dinosaur media, left-wing politicos and bloggity-blah-blahs in PJs from using this tragedy to whip together a frothy mix of feigned indignation, slimy politicking and “progressive” puerility.

In a not-so-thinly veiled effort to lay blame at the feet of all things — and all people — conservative, they’ve baked-up a steamy meme of “violent rhetoric” pie. It’s been ugly.

That said, we’re now at the point where the left’s disgraceful political exploitation of this national tragedy has sunk to such low-rent absurdity that it’s worthy of little more than ridicule.

Conservative pundits and mental health experts have broadly and effectively diagnosed, deconstructed and discredited this obtuse “blame-everyone-but-the-bad-guy” pablum to the point where reasonable America — left, right and center — has shared a collective eye-roll. It’s backfired magnificently.

Yet there are people, entire “news networks” in fact, who evidently believe that using metaphorical war imagery in the game of politics — something done since Eve first lobbied Adam to put the seat up — is likely to cause some nutcase to go postal (although I suppose that could be why Cain went off on Abel).

Take CNN, for instance: In a recent broadcast, CNN anchor John King issued an immediate apology after a guest used, on air — and appropriately so — the word “crosshairs” in a political discussion about the Chicago mayoral race.

Said King:
We were just having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race. Just a moment ago, my friend Andy Shaw… used the term “in the crosshairs,” in talking about the candidates out there. We’re trying — we’re trying to get away from that language. … We won’t always be perfect. So, hold us accountable when we don’t meet your standards.

Alright, Mr. King, I’m holding you accountable. Where’s your apology? After all, when you begged forgiveness for airing the word “crosshairs,” you repeated the word “crosshairs.” Shouldn’t you have said “the CH word” or some other such nonsense?
This is political correctness. Silly, isn’t it?

But apparently Republicans have also caught the PC bug. While publicly addressing the now-passed House version of the officially tagged “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act,” they’ve dropped the words “job killing” and now use “job destroying.”

Seriously, guys?

Here’s an idea: Rather than capitulating to its dictates, perhaps the best way to “destroy” political correctness is to place it in your “crosshairs” (um, metaphorically) and then “pull the trigger” (er, figuratively).

Political correctness is a barrier to truth and honest debate. It’s the soft-sell, beat-around-the-bush catalyst for our escalating American wussification. We’re now lectured by the left as ironically as possible that it’s “insensitive” to use such war imagery and “incendiary rhetoric” in political discourse.

Well, Nancy-boy, life’s insensitive. Truth’s insensitive. Politics are insensitive. This isn’t badminton. We’re at war here. It’s a war for our culture — a war of ideas. It’s a battle for the heart and soul of a still great nation.

Conservatives, now’s not the time to play touchy-feely. It’s the time for a full-on, no-holds-barred, shock-and-awe frontal assault. Because when the good guys self-censor in the name of political correctness, the bad guys win.

I know its cliché, but guns don’t kill people. If they do, then my nine-iron sucks at golf. Neither do metaphors kill people. No, evil people kill people. And if you think words are to blame, then brush your teeth.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is the Director of Cultural Affairs for Liberty Counsel.

Email: jmattbarber@comcast.net.
Facebook: jmattbarber
Twitter: jmattbarber.

This article printed in The Daily Caller

SPLC: Medical science, Christianity = 'hate'

2010-12-20T10:06:00.003-05:00

By: J. Matt Barber

Sometimes the most effective way to deal with a bully is to simply pop him in the chops. While it may not shut him up entirely, it usually gives him pause before he resumes flapping his toxic jaws. It also has the effect of showing the other kids in the schoolyard that they have nothing to fear. Though the bully struts about projecting the tough-guy image, he's typically the most insecure pansy on the block.

Such is the case with the bullies over at the fringe-left Southern Poverty Law Center. Having been recently "popped in the chops," if you will, for a series of hyperbolic and disingenuous "anti-gay hate group" slurs against a dozen-or-so of America's most well respected Christian and conservative organizations – the SPLC now finds itself publicly struggling, outside of an extremist left-wing echo chamber, to salvage a modicum of mainstream credibility.

In response to the SPLC's unprovoked attacks, a unified coalition of more than 150 top conservative and Christian leaders across the country has launched a shock-and-awe "Start Debating, Stop Hating" media blitz to educate America about the SPLC's ad hominem, politically driven smear campaign.

The mainstream pro-family conglomerate already includes presumptive Speaker of the House John Boehner, former presidential contender Mike Huckabee, four current U.S. senators, three governors, 20 current or newly elected members of the House of Representatives and many more.

As the controversy wears on and the facts become public, the moribund SPLC has understandably become increasingly defensive, strongly suggesting that it has come to regret this gross political overreach. Catch the tiger by the tail, you get the teeth.

Still, lazily labeling its ideological adversaries "hate groups" has yet to satisfy the anti-Christian law center. It's taken the slander even further down petty path, launching a succession of amateurish personal attacks against a number of individual Christian advocates (to include yours truly). This is a clear sign that the sexual relativist left recognizes that it's losing the debate on the merits.

Indeed, the SPLC's poorly constructed analysis bears deconstructing, but first I'll make a prediction. The center has yet to pin its official "SPLC designated hate group" badge of honor on either me or Liberty Counsel, the civil rights group with which I'm affiliated.

Somehow we were able only to earn the equally deceptive lower ranking of "anti-gay." I suspect this is because I've been a primary public critic of the center's feeble "hate group" crusade. Even the far-left understands that premature retaliation would betray dishonest political motives.

Still – and you heard it here first – within the next year or two (maybe less) the SPLC will move to even the score by tagging Liberty Counsel an "official hate group." At that point – and beyond the question: "If the SPLC calls you a 'hate group' in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" – any remaining media outlet that may wish to treat the center as an objective arbiter of "hate" will do so at grave risk to its own credibility.

Nonetheless, the SPLC has begun to grease the skids. Quotes cherry picked, taken out of context and misapplied are a powerful tool of the propagandist. Such are the Maoist techniques of the SPLC. Among other things, here's what the group has said about me:

"Barber suggested against all the evidence that there were only a 'miniscule number' of anti-gay hate crimes …"

Let me be clear: I didn't "suggest" there were a "miniscule number of anti-gay hate crimes" in 2007. I proved it. I merely cited the FBI's own statistics which demonstrate the fact beyond any serious debate. Let's look at "all the evidence" to which the SPLC refers. Here's what I actually wrote in the Washington Times:

"Consider that according to the latest FBI statistics, out of 1.4 million violent crimes in 2007; there were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) reportedly motivated by the victim's sexual orientation or gender identity. There is zero evidence to suggest that, where appropriate, perpetrators were not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in every instance."

A bit different than the SPLC portrayal, no? Let's do the math:

Approximately 247 aggravated "hate crime" assaults, taken within the context of 1.4 million violent crimes means that exactly 0.017643 percent of violent crimes in 2007 were "anti-gay hate crimes." A miniscule number? You be the judge.
Continued the SPLC:

"Barber had argued that given 'medical evidence about the dangers of homosexuality,' it should be considered 'criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative.'"

Note that the SPLC neither identifies nor addresses the "medical evidence about the dangers of homosexuality." It's no wonder. Again, the evidence proves the case beyond any serious debate.

For instance, a recent study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that, as a direct result of the demonstrably high-risk and biologically incongruous act of male-male anal sodomy, one-in-five "gay" and "bisexual" men in American cities have been infected with HIV/AIDS.

If five people got into a car and were told that one of them wasn't going to survive the drive, how quickly do you suppose they'd scatter? Yet we systematically promote celebration of homosexual conduct in our public schools.

Criminally reckless? You be the judge.

Or consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka "gays") from donating blood. Further studies conducted by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

According to the FDA: "['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

The FDA further warns: "['Gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population."

A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Again I ask: Is it "criminally reckless" to indoctrinate children into this potentially deadly lifestyle?

Again I say: You be the judge.

So, according to its own "hate group" standard, the SPLC is left one of three possible choices: Either it remains consistent, tagging the CDC, the FDA and the FBI with its pejorative "hate group" moniker; it offers a public retraction and apology for its attacks against me and other Christians; or it remains silent while its credibility continues to swirl down the toilet bowl of irrelevancy.

Still, the SPLC has done a significant disservice to its homosexual propagandist and sexual relativist allies. My friend Gary Glenn with the American Family Association of Michigan (a "hate group" target of the SPLC) sums it up nicely:

"The SPLC's demonization of groups that tell the truth about the public health implications of homosexual behavior may be the biggest boon we've seen in years to efforts to publicize those health consequences. We welcome this opportunity. The SPLC has provided a public service by focusing attention and discussion on the severe public health consequences of homosexual behavior."

Indeed, the SPLC and its allies are flailing violently as they swim upstream against a torrent of settled science, thousands of years of history and the unwavering moral precepts of every major world religion.

It's little wonder they've resorted to childish name calling.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of "The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War" and serves as director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel.

“Gay” Lobby Shamelessly Exploits Teen Suicides

2010-10-07T11:00:00.008-04:00

By: Matt Barber

Anyone with a heart grieves deeply over these needless suicides. Taking one’s own life is never the right choice. There are thousands of teen suicides each year. Some kids just don’t seem to understand the permanence of it, or how it destroys the lives of those they leave behind.

We all agree: harassment and bullying of children should always be dealt with immediately and firmly. And if laws are broken, offenders should be prosecuted – period. This is true whether kids are targeted because they’re perceived to be homosexual, conservative, Christian or for any other reason.

Unfortunately – though not surprisingly – extremist "gay" pressure groups, like the incongruously named "Human Rights Campaign," Ellen DeGeneres and other liberal activists are shamelessly exploiting these tragedies as a means to achieve their own selfish political ends.

In a recent statement, Ms. DeGeneres said: "There are messages everywhere that validate this sort of bullying and taunting and we need to make it stop. We can't let intolerance and ignorance take another kids life."

Indeed, actual bullying and taunting must not be tolerated. But what "messages" is Ms. DeGeneres referring to, and how do "we…make [them] stop?" I’ll translate from liberalese to plain English. What Ellen meant was this: Public defense of God's express, self-evident and unequivocal design for human sexuality must be stopped under force of law. Proponents of the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic are murdering "gay" kids with their words.

Not only is this propagandist line of reasoning disingenuous, offensive and Orwellian, it’s utter nonsense.

Joe Solmonese, president of HRC, took it a step further, directly blaming for these suicides Christians and the Mormon Church. To him, opposition to so-called "same-sex marriage," and defense of biblical sexual morality are the culprits: "Words have consequences," said Solmonese, "particularly when they come from a faith leader. This is exactly the kind of statement that can lead some kids to bully and others to commit suicide."

As Rahm Emanuel famously said: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. [I]t's an opportunity to do things you could not do before." It makes me physically ill to watch as the HRC and other "gay" militants lick their chops and rub their hands together over the tragic suicides of these troubled, sexually confused young men. Before they were even laid to rest, the radical homosexual lobby pounced leveraging these suicides to demand that government codify each of their extremist, social engineering demands. This is political exploitation at its slimiest and it pours salt on the wounds of loved ones.

God’s message to young people struggling with same sex temptation or to those who feel the shame that naturally accompanies sexual sin is that suicide is never the way out. But there is a way out. It comes first through belief in Jesus Christ, and then through confession of sin; finally, repentance. As Jesus said to the repentant sexual sinner at the well, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

The families of these precious young people should know that Christians around the country are praying for them and will continue to pray for them in their time of loss. Scripture says "blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted."

But Christians are also praying that these wicked and callous political vultures who seek to exploit these suicides become confounded and fail fantastically. Their mission is not one of "tolerance" or "diversity." Quite the opposite: Their goal is to fan flames of anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination, evangelizing on behalf of their own perverted god: moral relativism. We simply won’t let them get away with it.

J. Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and also serves as Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law.

Obama’s Real Title: The Hypocrite-in-Chief

2010-07-30T13:37:00.003-04:00

by: Mandi Campbell, Esq.

The President should recognize his role. He was elected to a position of power for the purpose of serving the people, and he was elected on the promise of transparency with the people. Since his move to the White House, he has proven to be a hypocrite, if not a liar and deceiver as well. Lately, he and his employees have gotten into the habit of blocking press access to issues and events of public concern, and there are multiple reports brewing about the Administration’s attempts to bribe congressmen into voting in accordance with the will of the Administration.

News flash: the President and the members of Congress are accountable to the American people! The American people have the right to know what the Administration is attempting to coordinate off camera and behind closed doors.

Not too long ago, the Administration limited media access to the Gulf waters, refusing to allow journalists to get closer than sixty-five feet from the clean-up efforts. Remember when Obama restricted access to Gitmo? Remember when he refused to allow the press to talk to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s brother – the brother who inspired her to delve into socialism? Remember the numerous closed-door sessions Obama had during the course of the healthcare debate? It makes you wonder what, other than the construction of a new age of government-imposed mandates on businesses and individuals, goes on behind the doors of the White House. It has to make you wonder what the man who ran his campaign on promises of transparency is hiding from the American people.

One thing is certain: he never intended to inform the general public about his attempts to bribe members of Congress and candidates for positions in Congress. Americans have good reason to be skeptical about the integrity of Obama and the members of his Administration.

During his time in the White House, Obama and the members of his Administration have held multiple closed-door sessions about important issues. Last year these closed-door sessions led to questions about whether Obama was attempting to entice or threaten, for example through the closure of military bases, members who opposed him. A few months ago, multiple sources stated that Jim Messina, President Obama’s deputy chief of staff, offered Andrew Romanoff a position in the Obama Administration if he dropped his bid for a Colorado Senate seat, which Romanoff declined. Two months ago, Representative Joe Sestak said that an unnamed official in the Obama White House offered him a federal appointment if he would drop his bid against Senator Arlen Specter. Last month, while Jim Matheson was still on the fence as to whether to vote for the healthcare bill, his brother, Scott Matheson Jr., was conveniently nominated for a lifetime appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Based on the recent announcement of Bart Stupak’s retirement, many have speculated that Obama bought Stupak’s healthcare vote with promises of rainbows and butterflies, and maybe some obscure position in his Administration. And now, many reporters are wondering if Senator Specter has traded his vote to confirm Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court Justice (the same Kagan he voted against confirming as Solicitor General) for a position in the Obama Administration (because he lost his Senate seat in the primary).

As President of the United States of America, Obama does not get to suppress political and cultural expression (though he expressed his desire to do so in his State of the Union reference to the Citizens United case), and he does not get to exercise absolute, centralized control over all aspects of the lives of Americans. As Abraham Lincoln said, this is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The United States of America is not a totalitarian regime!

If Obama, the President that ran his campaign based on promises of transparency, continues these corrupt practices of putting road blocks up for the media and usurping the powers and conscience of the legislature by buying and bribing members of Congress, perverting the legislative process, his four-year term will be cut short. The American people will be hungry for the impeachment of Obama, the Hypocrite-in-Chief, and in January of 2011, they just might have the representation in Washington to see an impeachment through.

Ms. Campbell is a graduate of Liberty University School of Law and serves as Legal Director for Liberty Center for Law and Policy.

Kupelian's "How Evil Works" Shines Bright (Book Review)

2010-06-28T13:10:00.002-04:00

By: Matt Barber

I’m a tremendous fan of author and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis. Rarely does one find a writer who can elucidate so profoundly, as could he, the stark contrast between secular humanism – “materialism” as Lewis called it – and the Judeo-Christian worldview. Seldom does one come across a wordsmith capable of so effectively, objectively and concisely distinguishing between good and evil.

I’ve found that wordsmith.

My wife Sarah and I were listening to the radio a few months back as Sean Hannity interviewed an author about his latest publication. The book was “How Evil Works,” but we were unable to ascertain, for some time, its author’s identity. We were immediately drawn into the discussion as this mystery guest waxed wise about what he called man’s “millennia-old blind spot” – namely, the existence of evil, how it works and why it destroys us.

I was amazed by the speaker’s insights into this “radioactive topic.” “Wow, this guy really get’s it,” I told Sarah. She nodded in agreement either unwilling or unable to take her attention away from the show long enough to answer. Finally – and for the benefit of us late arrivals – Sean divulged the identity of his guest: It was best-selling author and award-winning journalist David Kupelian.

I was no longer surprised.

David continued. He spoke of how America – once the moral guidepost to the world – had, “over time…abandoned its original principles,” only to now suffer from great “moral confusion.”

He spoke of a president, “wearing a mask,” who is “deceptive from morning ‘till night.” A president who, “taking us where we don’t want to go – has to lie about where he’s taking us.”

“Those in power talk an awful lot like those we used to fight,” he said.

That was it. “We’ve got to get this book,” I insisted. Sarah agreed.

I don’t often do book reviews (this is my first in fact), but after reading “How Evil Works,” I felt compelled to put pen to paper. Whereas Kupelian’s conversation with Hannity stopped me in my tracks, his book took it to the next level. It was simply outstanding.

I guess the best way to describe it is to say that “How Evil Works” has the same effect on your brain that yawning has on your ears at high altitude. Things just suddenly pop with crystal clarity.

Throughout “Evil’s” pages David meticulously unpacks today’s most pressing issues providing unassailable answers to some of our most critical questions. For instance:

• Where have all the statesmen gone and why do politicians lie?

• Why are so many Americans abandoning their Christian roots and embracing atheism and the occult?

• What drives terrorists to kill?

• How are psychological and spiritual problems linked, and why do we medicate ourselves into zombies?

• Why do people who seem to have everything so often self destruct and end up with nothing?

• How can we turn it all around and return this great nation to her God fearing ways?

And many more...

In recent days I was on a flight to Oklahoma City, OK. As I read the last page of “Evil” and placed it in the seat flap in front of me, a 15 year-old girl sitting to my side asked: “So how does evil work?” What an opening! “Well, this book explains it a lot better than I can,” I replied.

For several minutes we discussed worldview and our horribly failing culture. Turns out she was on her way to a missions trip in Jamaica. She mentioned that, like me, C.S. Lewis was one of her favorite authors. I chuckled and asked: “You’re homeschooled, aren’t you?”

Indeed she was, but explained that in the fall she was attending public school for the first time. “I want to get in there and be salt and light,” she said.

“Well then,” I replied, “take this with you. If you love C.S. Lewis, you won’t be able to put it down.” I handed her “How Evil Works.” She smiled ear-to-ear, thanked me and we went our separate ways. I’m quite certain that for it, her salt will be that much saltier and her light just a bit brighter.

J. Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and also serves as Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law.

Kagan a lesbian? Why it matters.

2010-06-11T08:36:00.004-04:00

By: J. Matt Barber

I don't see how liberal media-types can write, what with those uncalloused, milky-soft little digits all bundled in bulky kid gloves and all. Oh, when the target of their "reporting" is a conservative politico, or even Tea Party Joe, off come the gloves. But when it's one of their own — when circumstances require that a fellow liberal undergo a modicum of journalistic scrutiny — its simpatico most sublime. Out with the inquiry; in with the Huggies and tushie powder.

Media, here's your question: "Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?" Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: "Yes" or "no."

Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant. Most liberals would disagree, but despite "progressive" protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter. A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality — or a lack thereof — a pertinent factor in contemplating one's fitness for any public service — chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.

Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology have established that homosexual conduct is among other volitional behaviors rightly filed under "sexual immorality." Indeed, the majority of folks around the world — billions, actually — count this a timeless truth.

But the controversial nature of homosexuality is but one point of concern. Another involves potential conflicts of interest, "real or perceived." If we had a judicial nominee — widely believed a compulsive gambler — tapped to preside over gambling cases, would it not matter? If we had a nominee credibly rumored to use medical marijuana who might someday rule on the legality of medical marijuana, wouldn't such information be germane?

And before you liberals throw out that favorite red herring: "By this logic, Clarence Thomas shouldn't rule on cases involving race or sexuality because he's a black heterosexual male" — remember: skin color is a neutral, immutable characteristic. Being black is what someone is.

On the other hand, being "gay" is what someone does. It involves feelings and changeable behaviors. Homosexual conduct is more akin to the aforementioned gambling or pot smoking behaviors than it is to skin color (and for those in the lifestyle, especially men, sodomy most definitely involves rolling the dice). To compare "black" or "heterosexual" to "gay" is to compare apples to oranges. Understandably, many African Americans find this disingenuous comparison tremendously offensive.

Moreover, "heterosexual" is the state of sexual normalcy. It's our God-given design. There remains no credible or replicated scientific evidence to the contrary. Homosexual conduct is but one of many sexually deviant behaviors. Even Darwin's theory of evolution, which imagines "survival of the fittest," would seem to bolster this self-evident truth. You can choose political correctness. I choose moral and biological correctness.

Still, Kagan's "sexual orientation" remains the pink elephant in the room: Can a sitting justice, potentially engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, be trusted to rule on cases that might well grant special preferred government status to some — including that very justice — while, at the same time, eliminating certain free-speech and religious-liberties rights enjoyed by others? (i.e., hate-crimes laws; the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act; constitutionality of "don't ask don't tell," etc.)

In April, CBS News published an online column identifying Kagan — should she be confirmed — as the "first openly gay justice." The White House pounced, demanded CBS remove the article and called the assertion "false charges." CBS dutifully complied, tail twixt legs, whimpered away and curled-up behind the rest of Obama's slobbering media lapdogs.

Whereas every liberal hack on the planet tripped over one another to demand Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard and, most recently, George Rekers divulge the most intimate details of their own bizarre (allegedly) sexual appetites, with Kagan, they've suddenly lost interest.

Although the mainstream media refuse to do their job, some in the homosexual-activist press are stepping-up to fill the vacuum.

Homosexual blogger Andrew Sullivan, for instance, writing in The Atlantic, opined: "In a free society in the 21st century, it is not illegitimate to ask [whether Kagan is gay]. And it's cowardly not to tell."

But Kagan ain't tellin', and the media ain't askin'. Of course, even if they were inclined to ask, they'd have a difficult time doing so. The White House has Kagan wrapped-up tighter than Barney Frank in a bustier.

The question is important for context. The answer, for instance, might explain why Kagan drop-kicked our brave men and women of the armed services in the solar plexus, during a time of war, by banning military recruiters from Harvard while dean of the law school. She did so in protest of the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy, calling it "a profound wrong" and "a moral injustice of the first order."

As it turned out, Kagan's actions were illegal, and the very Supreme Court upon which she hopes to serve slapped her down with its 8-0 decision upholding the Solomon Amendment, which would have allowed the Department of Defense to withhold federal funding to Harvard if it failed to reverse its discriminatory policy.

Ed Whelan, head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said of Kagan's activism: "At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses, Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists."

Newt Gingrich took his criticism a step further. While addressing the controversy, he bluntly said of Kagan's nomination: "That is an act so unbecoming of an American that she should be disqualified from the very beginning."

I agree.

Indeed, whether or not Elena Kagan self-identifies as a lesbian, she has proven herself a radical anti-military, pro-homosexual ideologue and activist. There's little doubt that she would take this activism with her to the high court.

So, Ms. Solicitor General, if in fact you are "totally not gay," as some of your friends and your president claim, then it's my hope that a few Republican U.S. senators might take the time to introduce you to a nice fellow by the name of Phil A. Buster. Believe me, it's a match made in heaven.

© J. Matt Barber

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

2009-05-23T20:21:00.001-04:00

Follow our latest activities at www.twitter.com/libertycounsel

Join our Facebook group at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=24430422058

Follow the latest on Liberty Live, our live interactive audio/video at www.twitter.com/libertylive

See archived programs for Liberty Live at http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=18207

Protecting Against Sex-Selection and Race-Selection Abortion

2008-10-08T11:14:00.003-04:00

On September 23, 2008, Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) introduced H.R. 7016, the Susan B. Anthony Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act. If enacted, the bill would prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race.

"Sex-selection and race-selection abortions trivialize the value of the unborn on the basis of sex or race, reinforcing sex and race discrimination, and coarsening society to the humanity of all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting--indeed it must act--to prohibit sex-selection abortion and race-selection abortion."

The bill states that "Whoever knowingly performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child; uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion, or attempts to do so; or solicits or accepts funds for the purpose of financing a sex-selection abortion or a race-selection abortion; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Currently, this bill is before the House Judiciary Committee. Please contact members of this Committee and ask them to vote for the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act. A complete list of members can be found at http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html.

Proposed Legislation to Repeal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

2008-10-07T16:28:00.003-04:00

On September 16, H.R. 6870, the Payment System Protection Act, passed out of the House Financial Services Committee by a vote of 30-19. This bill prevents enforcement of pending regulations for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act ("UIGEA") and requires any interim regulations of Internet gambling to only block sports betting. A similar attempt to repeal UIGEA was rejected by the Committee earlier this year.

Internet gambling has always been illegal, but prior to UIGEA, state and federal law could not be enforced because the sites offering the gambling services were located outside of the country. UIGEA aids in the control of the socially adverse effects of Internet gambling, and strengthens our national security. Internet gambling sites can be havens for drug traffickers and terrorist financiers, as well as contribute to gambling addictions. UIGEA is a very pro-family piece of legislation that must not be repealed.

The Payment System Protection Act is an attack on family values and encourages illegal gambling. This bill may come before the House next month, so please contact your Representative and ask that he or she vote against this piece of legislation. A complete list of members of the United States House of Representatives is available at www.house.gov.

Protecting Religious Freedom in the Home

2008-10-07T15:48:00.002-04:00

H.R. 6932, the Freedom of Religious Expression in the Home Act of 2008, was introduced by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) on September 17, 2008 and has received bipartisan support in the House. The bill aims to amend the Fair Housing Act in order to prevent discrimination related to the displaying of religious symbols.

If passed, the bill would make it an unlawful practice “to establish a rule or policy that prevents a person from displaying, on the basis of that person's religious belief, a religious symbol, object, or sign on the door, doorpost, entrance, or otherwise on the exterior of that person's dwelling, or that is visible from the exterior of that dwelling, unless the rule or policy is reasonable and is necessary to prevent significant damage to property, physical harm to persons, a public nuisance, or similar undue hardship.”

This bill is currently before the House Judiciary Committee. A complete list of Committee members can be found at http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html. Please contact these members and ask them to protect religious freedom by favorably passing this piece of legislation out of committee.

Proposed Regulations Issued to Protect Right of Conscience of Health Care Professionals

2008-09-11T16:22:00.002-04:00

On August 21, the Department of Health and Human Services issued proposed regulations that would clarify and enforce existing laws that afford protection to members of the health care community who have moral or religious objections to the practice of abortion. The proposed regulations also include accountability measures which would require recipients of federal funding appropriated through the Department of Health and Human Services to certify compliance with laws protecting the right of conscience.

These regulations have not yet taken effect and are open for public comment for a period of thirty days. Following the comment period, the Department of Health and Human Services will consider the comments before issuing the final regulations. The deadline for public comment is September 25, 2008. You can comment on this issue in one of three ways:

1. Official comments may be submitted at www.Regulations.gov. Enter key word ‘provider conscience’ and click on the link ‘Comment or Submission.’ You can submit your entry in the space provided or add an attachment (Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, Word Perfect, or Excel; Microsoft Word is preferred). The subject line must read ‘Provider Conscience Regulation.’

2. Official comments may also be submitted via email at consciencecomment@hhs.gov. The subject line must read ‘Provider Conscience Regulation.’

3. General comments may be submitted to the blog for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services at http://secretarysblog.hhs.gov.

The core issue underlying these regulations is conscience protections and they must be codified in order to enforce existing federal law and ensure that health care professionals have the right to refuse to perform services due to moral, ethical, or religious objections.

Republican Dedication to American Values

2008-09-04T10:45:00.003-04:00

Both the party platform and legislation introduced by Members of Congress reflect the dedication to American values by the Republican Party.

Freedom of Speech and the Press

The GOP “supports the freedom of speech and freedom of the press and opposes attempts to violate or weaken those rights, such as reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.”

One of the measures taken to ensure this constitutional right is the Broadcaster Freedom Act, H.R. 2905. The Act would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which would require all broadcast licensees to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues. H.R. 2905 was first introduced by Representative Pence (R-IN) on June 28, 2007 and is currently before the House Committee on Energy, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. Congressman Pence filed a discharge petition on October 17, 2007 to bring the Act to the House floor without a Committee report. A discharge petition requires 218 signatures, and as of July 24, 2008, 202 signatures have been collected.

Maintaining the Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

The GOP “supports a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

The Sanctity of Human Life Act, H.R. 4157, states that “the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” The Act was introduced by Representative Broun (R-GA) on November 13, 2007 and has been before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties since February 25, 2008.

Protecting Our National Symbols

The GOP “condemns decisions by activist judges to deny children the opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school.”

The Pledge Protection Act, H.R. 699, affirms the current text of the Pledge of Allegiance and, by the power vested in Congress by the Constitution, removes jurisdiction to hear a case pertaining to the Pledge from any court created by Congress. The bill also exercises Congress’ Article III, Section 2 power to withhold appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court in dealing with this matter. H.R. 699 was introduced by Representative Akin (R-MO) on January 29, 2007 and has been before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties since March 1, 2007.

A complete list of Members of the United States House of Representatives is available at www.house.gov. Please contact your representative and ask that he or she support our American values by voting for the Broadcaster Freedom Act, the Sanctity of Human Life Act, and the Pledge Protection Act.

Republicans Work to Defend Rights as Members of United States Senate

2008-07-30T09:12:00.003-04:00

On July 28, 2008, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), attempted to weaken the rights of his Republican colleagues. The Leader brought to the floor what came to be known as the "Coburn Omnibus Bill," a package of 36 bills, combined into one omnibus bill.

Typically, there is little debate on bills in the Senate and measures pass through unanimous consent. Senator Coburn (R-OK) exercised his right as a member of the United States Senate to put a hold on several bills, meaning that he did not give unanimous consent. A hold simply means that, since unanimous consent implies support for a bill, a senator is essentially voting “no” on passage of a bill.

The Majority Leader is still able to pass a bill with a hold on it by bringing it to the Senate floor for public debate; however, this takes up valuable time that could be spent on more high profile measures. As a result, the effect of a hold often works to postpone consideration of a measure indefinitely, and as such, is one of the single most effective tools available to Senate conservatives for stopping legislation.

One additional procedure the Majority Leader has used to great effect is called “filling the tree.” Under this procedure, the Leader can block Republicans from offering amendments to legislation on the floor by offering several amendments that do not change the substance of the bill, but which under the rules, fill all of the available places to amend the bill. He then uses his special right of recognition as Majority Leader to prevent consideration on any amendments other than his own.

In an effort to thwart procedural safeguards available to members of the Senate, the Majority Leader brought an omnibus bill to the floor ironically entitled "A bill to advance America's priorities." Senator Coburn had placed a hold on a number, but not all, of these bills, because of the billions of dollars of authorized spending included in the proposed legislation. Due to the inevitable increase of the national deficit at the hand of these bills, Senator Coburn withheld unanimous consent, in order to have full debate on these pieces of legislation.

In a motion for cloture on July 28, Senate Republicans stood together and defended their rights as members of the United States Senate. The motion failed by a vote of 52-40-8, sending a message to Harry Reid that he cannot use his power as Majority Leader to stifle the procedural rights of his Republican colleagues.

Immediate Action Needed to Help Philadelphia Boy Scouts

2008-07-30T08:05:00.003-04:00

This year is the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America. For a century, the mission of the Boy Scouts has been to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

The Scout Oath states, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and to my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."

As part of its core values and dedication to morality, the Boy Scouts have an internal leadership policy of not hiring known or avowed members of the homosexual community. This policy has recently come under attack in the City of Philadelphia.

Serving 87,000 boys and men, the Cradle of Liberty Council, located in Philadelphia, is the third largest local council in the country. Of the estimated 69,000 youth that participate, many benefit from mentoring and educational services, in addition to the traditional service projects and character building activities.

Since 1928, the Cradle of Liberty Council has rented its headquarters from the City for $1 per year. However, the City of Philadelphia made a decision to penalize the Boys Scouts because of its adherence to long-held moral beliefs by raising the rent to $200,000 per year after May 31, 2008.

In response, Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA) has authored a letter to Mayor Nutter and City Council President Verna asking the City of Philadelphia to reconsider its decision and instead continue its support for the Boy Scouts of America.

Please contact your Representative immediately and request that he or she sign on to this letter by close of business Thursday, July 31. A full list of Representatives is available at www.house.gov.

At Time Of Olympics, China's Population Control Policy Not Medal Worthy

2008-07-25T11:30:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, H. Res. 1370, was passed out of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The Resolution calls on "the Government of the People's Republic of China to immediately end abuses of the human rights of its citizens, to cease repression of Tibetan and Uighur citizens, and to end its support for the Governments of Sudan and Burma to ensure that the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games take place in an atmosphere that honors the Olympic traditions of freedom and openness."

Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) offered an amendment to the bill to address China's one-child policy. The amendment calls on the Chinese government to abandon its coercive population control policy, which includes forced abortion and involuntary sterilization. Smith's amendment passed by a voice vote and became part of H. Res. 1370.

This Resolution will likely go before the full House sometime next week. With both the Congressional summer recess and the 2008 Summer Olympics fast approaching, this is a very important vote. Please contact your Representative and request that he or she support this Resolution. A full list of members of the United States House of Representatives is available at http://www.house.gov.

Although this Resolution is very important and will send a message that the United States does not support China's coercive population control policy and condemns its human rights violations, words are not enough. Congress must back this up with action, specifically by defunding groups who work to further China's abhorrent practice of coerced and forced abortions.

On April 23, 2007, National Public Radio, in an article entitled, "Cases of Forced Abortions Surface in China, reported that women in China have been forced to have abortions, as late as nine months into their pregnancies. The full article can be found at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9766870.

Last week, both the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and the Senate Appropriations Committee considered a FY09 Foreign Operations Bill which creates an exception to the more than two decades old Kemp-Kasten provision. The new language creates a special carve-out for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations population agency that has assisted the Chinese government with their coercive population control program since its inception in 1979.

The Kemp-Kasten provision gives the President the authority to deny U.S. funding to an organization or program that supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Representative Dave Weldon (R-FL) said of last week's action by the House Subcommittee, “For years we have sought to protect women and children in China because it was morally wrong to support China’s forced abortion program. Now the Democrat Majority in the House has voted to change existing law and send millions of dollars to UNFPA and turn a blind eye to the egregious human rights violations that UNFPA promotes in China. This is a despicable policy change."

The FY09 Foreign Operations Bill could come before both Houses of Congress prior to the August recess. Please contact your Senators and Representatives and ask them to uphold the Kemp-Kasten provision in order to prevent the furtherance of China's forced abortion policy.
A full list of Senators and Congressmen can be found at: http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov.

Abstinence Education Safe for Another Year

2008-07-18T10:45:00.002-04:00

Title V, the program that provides $50 million in grants for abstinence education expired on June 30 of this year; however, an extension of the program was included in a recent Medicare bill. The President vetoed this bill due to concerns unrelated to abstinence, but both the Senate and the House voted to override the Presidential veto. Therefore, funding for abstinence has been extended for a period of twelve months!

California Supreme Court Upholds the People’s Right to Vote on Marriage in Upcoming Election

2008-07-16T17:16:00.001-04:00

Today the California Supreme Court rejected the case brought by same-sex marriage advocates, who intended to prevent California voters from voting on the California Marriage Protection Act (“Amendment”) in November. The court’s decision means the Amendment will stay on the ballot. It also allows the Secretary of State to print voter information pamphlets on the issue.

Last month Liberty Counsel filed a motion to intervene in this lawsuit, asking the court to allow the people to vote on the Amendment. Liberty Counsel represents the Campaign for California Families, Randy Thomasson, and Larry Bowler. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three voters and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the ACLU and Equality California against California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, who certified the Amendment.

On June 2, 2008, the Amendment was certified by the Secretary of State for the November ballot. The Amendment states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." If passed, the Amendment would nullify the 4-3 ruling of the California Supreme Court issued on May 15 and would ban same-sex marriage in California.

The same-sex marriage advocates were seeking to remove the Amendment from the November ballot, erroneously arguing that "the rules for revising the California Constitution were not properly followed." Their brief claimed that an initiative was not enough to put the Amendment on the ballot, since it must also be approved by two-thirds of the legislature. The suit also alleged that petitions for the initiative, which were circulated prior to the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, were misleading because they stated the Amendment would not change existing law and would not have a financial impact on the state. Liberty Counsel's motion to intervene disproved these claims.

Most Californians want the Amendment. A poll conducted on May 30, 2008, by ccAdvertising shows that 56% of California residents support marriage as one man and one woman. Another poll by the Los Angeles Times similarly revealed that 54% of those polled supported the Amendment and only 35% opposed it.

If the people have an opportunity to participate in the democratic process, they will vote for marriage as one man and one woman. Those who push for same-sex marriage are willing to destroy both marriage and democracy to achieve a selfish result. Marriage between a man and a woman is best for our children and for our country.

Liberty Counsel Holds Joint Press Conference to Address McDonalds’ Anti-Christian Attacks

2008-07-15T15:31:00.000-04:00

On Wednesday, July 16, at 10:00 a.m., Liberty Counsel will participate in a joint press conference with the American Family Association (AFA), Americans for Truth and the Illinois Family Institute in front of the McDonalds restaurant across from McDonalds' corporate headquarters in Oakbrook, IL. Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel, will address the media.

Recently, the McDonalds Corporation contributed thousands of dollars and joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, a radical homosexual activist organization that pushes the homosexual agenda, including calling for legalization of so-called "same-sex marriage." In so doing, McDonalds has publicly sided in the ongoing culture war against the majority of Americans who hold traditional family values. For this reason, AFA called for the boycott against McDonalds.

"Unfortunately, McDonalds has chosen to side with militant homosexual activists over people with traditional values," said Matt Barber. "The company has further escalated the controversy by lodging a personal attack against the tens of millions of Americans who support traditional sexual morality and legitimate marriage. While referring to Christians and other people with traditional values, McDonalds spokesman Bill Whitman arrogantly told the Washington Post that, 'Hatred has no place in our culture,' thereby suggesting that people who support the historical definition of marriage are simply motivated by 'hate.' This insult is highly offensive, and anyone who supports traditional marriage should boycott McDonalds and tell the company why they’re doing so."

McDonalds should focus on food quality and safety issues instead of attacking the values held by the majority of people worldwide. Marriage between a man and a woman is the norm throughout the world. McDonalds' personal attack against those who support the traditional definition of marriage, while siding with a narrow group that promotes a radical redefinition, shows that company executives are out to lunch. McDonalds might as well change their signs to read 'billions and billions insulted.'

Future of Christian Radio at Risk

2008-07-11T10:56:00.003-04:00

The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required broadcast licensees to present issues deemed controversial in a fair and balanced manner. In 1987, the Doctrine was abolished by the FCC because "intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters . . . and actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."

Since 1987, several attempts have been made by Congress to restore the Fairness Doctrine; however, a presidential veto or threat thereof, has thwarted these efforts. As early as last year, over 300 Democrats and Republicans actually stood together to oppose further efforts to revitalize this harmful doctrine. As a result, Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 2905) on June 28, 2007, to ensure that no future president could bring back the Fairness Doctrine without an act of Congress.

Currently, the bill has 207 co-sponsors and has been before the House Committee on Energy, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, since October 3, 2007. Congressman Pence filed a discharge petition on October 17, 2007 to bring the Act to the House floor without a Committee report. A discharge petition requires 218 signatures, and as of July 10, 2008, 201 signatures have been collected.

On June 24, 2008, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi told a meeting a the Christian Science Monitor that the Broadcaster Freedom Act would not receive a vote because "the interest of my caucus is the reverse." In response, Congressman Pence said, "so far, not one single House Democrat has signed our petition for an up-or-down vote on broadcast freedom . . . and now we know why."

Please contact your Representative and request that he or she sign this discharge petition and allow of the Broadcaster Freedom Act to go to the House floor for a vote. A complete list of the members of the United State House of Representatives can be found at http://www.house.gov.

85 Members of the House Urge the Supreme Court to Reconsider Child Rape Decision

2008-07-11T09:33:00.007-04:00

Patrick Kennedy, a 43-year-old man from suburban New Orleans was sentenced to death after being convicted of raping his eight-year-old stepdaughter. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled on May 22 that the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision barring capital punishment for rape (Coker v. Georgia) does not apply when the victim is a child under age 12.

Patrick Kennedy’s lawyers appealed his case to the Supreme Court on Sept. 11, 2007, raising two issues: first, whether the death penalty for rape of a child was “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and, second, whether Louisiana’s law did not narrow the class of those eligible for that penalty because it applied whenever a rape was committed, and the victim was under 12 years of age.

The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 16, 2008 and was decided June 25, 2008. In an opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, the court held 5-4 that the Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death. The Court based its decision on what it deemed a "national consensus" against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.

On Thursday, July 10, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), along with 84 other members of the United States House of Representatives sent a letter asking the Justices of the Supreme Court to sua sponte withdraw its June 25, 2008 opinion and reconsider the case.

In 2005, Congress enacted the death penalty for child rapists under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The measure passed the House by a vote of 374-41 and passed the Senate 95-0. That provision – Section 552(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (became Public Law No. 109-163 on January 6, 2006) – provides that until the President otherwise provides, the punishment for the rape of a child may not exceed “death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.” In September 2007, President Bush issued Executive Order 13447 that codified the provisions of Public Law 109-163, including the provision of the death penalty for child rape, into the 2008 edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial.

The Congressmen are bringing this to the attention of the Justices to show that federal law allows for the death penalty in the case of child rape and to prove that adoption of that provision by such overwhelming majorities in both chambers of Congress clearly demonstrates a "national consensus" in favor of implementation of the death penalty in the case of child rape.

Alaska Court Upholds Religious Teachers’ Housing Exemptions Against ACLU Attack

2008-07-07T15:28:00.000-04:00

The Alaska Superior Court has ruled that Alaska can continue to allow tax exemptions for housing of parochial school teachers. The ACLU filed suit to take away property tax exemptions for housing that is owned by religious organizations and used by private parochial school teachers, alleging that the tax exemption violates equal protection and establishment clauses of the state and federal constitutions. Liberty Counsel represents Anchorage Baptist Temple (ABT) and Pastor Jerry Prevo in defense of the exemption. The case is Coonrod v. State of Alaska.

Superior Court Judge Mike Spaan ruled that a 2006 state law exempting organization-owned homes of religious educators is constitutional. The decision says tax exemptions are provided to religious and charitable organizations because they perform services that would otherwise have to be funded from tax revenues and because they foster the moral and intellectual development of the community.

The exemption given by the Alaska legislature applies to the homes of ABT's teachers. Nonreligious educational institutions already enjoyed an exemption for teacher housing before the legislature added the religious institution exemption. Without the exemption, ABT and other religious institutions would not be able to provide quality education to Alaska’s children, where educational opportunities are limited because of the rural nature of much of the state.

ABT operates a number of ministries, including alcohol and drug abuse recovery programs, community outreaches, children’s programs, a bus transportation service, music programs, and Anchorage Christian School, a K-12 school serving approximately 700 students. ABT owns six residences that house teachers. These residences are integral to ABT’s educational mission.

This is a great victory for the children and families of Alaska. Many of these children living in remote areas will benefit from the opportunity to attend a local religious school, where a qualified teacher will give them the key to open the door to their future. The ACLU tried to educationally imprison these children. With its defeat, the children are the winners.

The Declaration of American Values Reflects Basis of America's Greatness

2008-07-03T16:19:00.001-04:00

In releasing the Declaration of American Values today, Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, stated:

"The Declaration of American Values reflects the consensus of the shared values that form the basis of America’s greatness. The values affirmed in this Declaration are transgenerational and foundational. They are what make America a great Nation. At this crucial time in history as we celebrate the birth of this revolutionary experiment in self-government, we believe it is necessary to declare the values that unify us and that form the fabric of the United States of America."
On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, which announced the colonies' separation from Great Britain. One of the signers, John Adams, believed that the day would be celebrated as a day for remembrance with "solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty."

It is fitting that we contemplate these shared values on this 232nd anniversary of American independence.

Read the Declaration of American Values on Liberty Counsel's web site.

Summit Ministries Students Study the Law and Christian Worldview at Liberty University

2008-07-02T10:16:00.000-04:00

On July 4, about 60 high school teenagers will complete a two-week intensive training program at Liberty University sponsored by Summit Ministries, where Dr. David Noebel serves as president. Students attending the Summit program learn from national experts about significant religious, moral, cultural, legal and political issues. They learn about the Christian worldview and how to reason from a Christian intellectual perspective.

Summit Ministries, based near Colorado Springs, Colorado, endeavors to educate Christian youth about today’s post-Christian culture and to equip them with the practical knowledge and tools necessary to stand firm in their faith. During its summer program, Summit offers comprehensive lectures by leading experts on a variety of topics, including apologetics, history, theology and popular culture. Students learn how to articulate a reasoned and biblically sound Christian response on issues such as abortion, postmodernism and popular culture. Summit has dual goals of instilling in those students a steadfast Christian worldview and a meaningful understanding of why they believe what they believe.

During the two-week program, Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, conducted a three-hour interactive dialogue with the eager students in the Supreme Courtroom at Liberty University School of Law. Staver covered topics that included abortion, marriage and the Foundations of Law. Over the course of the two weeks, the students learned from leading national experts such as Dr. Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School, Dr. Gary Habermas, an expert on apologetics at Liberty University, and many others.

With proponents of moral relativism and postmodernism taking our system of education hostage, it is encouraging to know that organizations like Summit Ministries are making a positive difference by equipping a new generation to think biblically. As the largest and fastest-growing evangelical university in the world with a premier law school, Liberty University is proud to partner with Summit Ministries in an effort to prepare this generation of young people to apply a Christian worldview in achieving desperately needed cultural reform.

For more information about Liberty University School of Law, visit www.law.liberty.edu. For information on Summit Ministries, visit www.summit.org.

Liberty Counsel Defends California’s Right to Vote on Marriage in Upcoming Election

2008-06-30T09:20:00.000-04:00

Today Liberty Counsel filed a motion to intervene to defend against a lawsuit brought by same-sex marriage advocates intended to prevent California voters from voting on the California Marriage Protection Act (“Amendment”) in November. Liberty Counsel represents the Campaign for California Families, Randy Thomasson, and Larry Bowler. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three voters and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the ACLU and Equality California against California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, who certified the Amendment.
On June 2, 2008, the Amendment was certified by the Secretary of State for the November ballot. The Amendment states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." If passed, the Amendment would nullify the 4-3 ruling of the California Supreme Court issued on May 15.

The same-sex marriage advocates are seeking to have the Amendment removed from the November ballot. They erroneously argue that "the rules for revising the California Constitution were not properly followed." Their brief claims that an initiative is not enough to put the amendment on the ballot, since it must also be approved by two-thirds of the legislature. The suit also alleges that petitions for the initiative, which were circulated prior to the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, were misleading because they stated the amendment would not change existing law and would not have a financial impact on the state. Liberty Counsel's motion to intervene disproves these claims.
Most Californians want the Amendment. A poll conducted on May 30, 2008, by ccAdvertising shows that 56% of California residents support marriage as one man and one woman. Another poll by the Los Angeles Times similarly revealed that 54% of those polled supported the Amendment and only 35% opposed it.

If the people have an opportunity to participate in the democratic process, they will vote for marriage as one man and one woman. The advocates of same-sex marriage want to trample the will of the people and force same-sex marriage with an iron hand, akin to what a dictator would do over his subjects. Those who push for same-sex marriage are willing to destroy both marriage and democracy to achieve a selfish result. Marriage between a man and a woman is best for our children and for our country.

Law School Hosts 2008 TeenPact Judicial Program

2008-06-27T10:33:00.003-04:00

Liberty University School of Law and Liberty Counsel are honored to host the 2008 TeenPact Judicial ("TPJ") program this week. TeenPact is an organization that allows students to learn the principles of law from those who know them best – practitioners and professors of law. This is the eleventh year TPJ has presented its judicial program at a national law school. This is the first time Liberty University School of Law and Liberty Counsel have hosted this program.

David Barber, Program Director for TeenPact, describes the week-long conference as "a hands-on, on-site program that teaches high-school students about law and the judicial system from a distinctly Biblical worldview. Throughout the week students participate in presentations from expert professors at Liberty University School of Law and some of the nation’s most experienced religious liberty attorneys from Liberty Counsel as they prepare oral arguments for a moot court tournament at the end of the week."

The week long program includes lectures on a broad range of legal subjects. Topics include foundations of law, property, contracts, civil procedure, family law, legal writing and oral advocacy, and the court system. Many of the topics presented not only provide the students a good introduction to these areas of law, but many of these topics are core legal topics tested on many state bar exams.

The second half of the week is dedicated to the TPJ Moot Court tournament. In TPJ Moot Court, students argue a case before a variety of judges and apply what they have learned during the week.
Barber explains that "the goal of the program is to inspire the next generation of Christian leaders to be passionate about their faith and give them the tools they need to proactively engage the culture for the glory of Jesus Christ."

My passion is to train a new generation of leaders in the rule of law from a Christian perspective to use law as a fulcrum to do good. I cannot muster enough superlative words to describe the TeenPact Judicial program. These young students are energetic, bright, and eager to become world leaders. In a few short years, they will begin shaping world history.

Gideon Bible Distribution Case Briefed at the Federal Court of Appeals

2008-06-27T10:30:00.000-04:00

Liberty Counsel filed its Initial Brief with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in defense of an equal access policy of the South Iron School District ("District") that permits the Gideons to distribute Bibles in the same manner other non-religious organizations are permitted to distribute secular literature. Liberty Counsel represents the District.

In September 2006, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the District to stop the Gideons from providing Bibles for public school students. Federal district Judge Catherine Perry issued an order prohibiting the distribution of any Bible, which she described as an "instrument of religion." Although the District has an equal access policy that treats the distribution of secular and religious literature outside of class on an equal basis, Judge Perry also ruled the District's open access policy unconstitutional. The ruling presented a novel (and unconstitutional) theory that a private third party (like the ACLU) must have the opportunity to veto the distribution request of the private applicant. The veto power, the judge wrote, must be provided to veto religious, but not secular, literature.

The District has a long-standing open access policy that allows many community groups to present literature and information to students at its schools, outside the classroom during non-instructional time. The many diverse groups include the Army Corps of Engineers, Red Cross, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Iron County Health Department, Missouri Water Patrol, Missouri Highland Healthcare, and Union Pacific Railroad. The distribution of Bibles or religious literature is treated the same as secular literature under the policy, but Judge Perry ruled that religious literature, particularly the Bible, may not be treated the same. If a private third party, like the ACLU, cannot veto the request before the distribution, then, she ruled, the policy must be stricken. No court in the country has provided a private right of veto over private religious speech.

The ACLU might not like the fact that equal access also means equal treatment for religious speech, but the Constitution requires equal treatment. The First Amendment protects private religious viewpoints. Hecklers may heckle but they may not veto private religious speech. The Bible is not radioactive. Religious viewpoints have Constitutional protection.

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition! Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

2008-06-26T10:42:00.000-04:00

Today, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional right to bear arms by striking down the Washington, D.C. gun ban. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The majority opinion confirms that the Second Amendment protects "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissented.

The Court did not imply that all limits are invalid, stating: "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

The case was started by Dick Heller, who was joined by six other D.C. residents who wanted to keep handguns in their private homes. The gun ban prohibited ownership of handguns that were not registered with the District before 1976. It also required that all guns already registered be disassembled, unloaded, or secured by a trigger lock. The District of Columbia Court of Appeal ruled the ban was unconstitutional; holding the right to own handguns was protected by the Second Amendment. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral argument in March. Thirty-one states submitted amicus briefs. Some federal courts have ruled that the Second Amendment did not create an individual right, but only applied to state militias. The last time the Court ruled on the Second Amendment right to bear arms was in 1939.

'Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition' is the best way to describe today’s decision. The right to self-defense is a liberty at the core of the American Revolution. It was ordinary people who defended life and liberty against organized tyranny. The King of Great Britain sought to disarm the colonists because he, like any criminal, knew that a disarmed people are a weak people who can easily be overcome. The Second Amendment stands as an impenetrable wall between tyranny and freedom.

Liberty Counsel Law Clerks and Interns Enjoy Action-Packed Day at the Nation's Capital

2008-06-25T10:48:00.000-04:00

A select group of Liberty University School of Law students recently took part in a valuable educational experience that included a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, a tour of the Court and the Department of Justice. The law students attending the events are participating in a summer externship conducted by Liberty Counsel and the Liberty Center for Law and Policy, a joint partnership between Liberty Counsel and Liberty University School of Law.

Accompanying the students and organizing the trip were Mathew Staver, Dean of the School of Law and Founder of Liberty Counsel; Anita Staver, President of Liberty Counsel; Sarah Seitz, Legal Director, Liberty Center for Law & Policy; and David Corry, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel.

After a observing a session of the Court and hearing the delivery of three opinions, the students attended a lecture by Clerk of the Court Gen. William Suter. David Corry, Senior Litigation Counsel of Liberty Counsel commented on the lecture, saying that Gen. Suter was "engaging" as he answered the students' questions.

The students later toured the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building. Some of the points of interest included portraits of Jesus amidst other famous lawgivers such as Moses, which are displayed in the entry foyer of the Great Hall.

Capping off the day, the students attended a reception in the beautifully decorated West Room of the United States Supreme Court.

Commenting on the overall experience, Corry, said, "This invaluable trip brought to life the Supreme Court’s work and the Department of Justice in way our students could never have appreciated otherwise."

The opportunity to visit the United States Supreme Court, to see how it works, and to meet the Chief Justice is a remarkable experience. We are training a new generation of lawyers, judges, policymakers, educators and world leaders in the rule of law. Today we train young men and women. Tomorrow these men and women will be world leaders.

Liberty Counsel Files Brief at High Court in Free Speech Case Involving the Ten Commandments

2008-06-23T10:50:00.000-04:00

Today, Liberty Counsel is filing an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum. Liberty Counsel's brief is being filed in support of Pleasant Grove City, which refused to display Summum's Seven Aphorisms. Summum argues that its Seven Aphorisms should be displayed, since the city displays a Ten Commandments monument donated by The Fraternal Order of Eagles.

Pleasant Grove City has 11 displays and monuments in Pioneer Park. The displays and monuments were donated by private persons or organizations over a period of more than 80 years. The displays and monuments have come from local people or organizations and depict the history of Mormonism and the city. In 1971, the city accepted a donated monument of the Ten Commandments from The Fraternal Order of Eagles. The city owns, maintains and controls the displays and monuments. The city may remove, modify, remake, or sell the monuments.

Summum is a religion and philosophy that began in 1975, as a result of Claude "Corky" Nowell’s alleged encounter with certain "beings" he describes as "Summum Individuals." Summum practices "Modern Mummification." The Seven Aphorisms include what Summum calls Psychokinesis, Correspondence, Vibration, Opposition, Rhythm, Cause and Effect, and Gender. Summum states that its teachings are similar to Gnostic Christianity.

When Pleasant Grove City rejected Summum's Seven Aphorisms on the basis that Summum was not a local organization nor was the gift associated with any history of the city, Summum filed suit, claiming the city must permanently display the Seven Aphorisms because the city displayed other donated monuments, including the Ten Commandments donated by The Fraternal Order of Eagles some thirty years ago. Incredibly, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Summum and ruled that the city must permanently display Summum's Seven Aphorisms. The American Center for Law and Justice represents the city and requested the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.

By accepting donated displays, the city did not open a forum for everyone wishing to display a monument in the public park. The city owned the donated displays, and the city could remove, modify, remake or sell any of the displays. If the government were required to accept any conflicting message anytime the government spoke through a donated display, then the Statue of Liberty would need to make room for the Statue of Tyranny or perhaps a statue of Stalin or Adolf Hitler. It would not make sense to force the government to include a display devoted to atheism every time it displays a Nativity scene.

The Summum group has no legitimate interest in displaying its Seven Aphorisms. If the government had to display conflicting and confusing messages every time it displays a donated message, the Statue of Liberty would have to make room for the Statue of Tyranny.

California Homeschool Case Argued On Behalf of Parents and Members of Congress

2008-06-20T13:54:00.000-04:00

On Monday, the homeschooling case known as In re Rachel L. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles will be argued at the California Court of Appeal. On February 28, 2008, the Court of Appeal ruled that parents who lack teaching credentials do not have the right to school their children at home. The decision immediately became the subject of sharp criticism across the Nation, and a U.S. House resolution called for reconsideration of the case. The California Court of Appeal agreed to rehear the case, and oral argument is scheduled for Monday.

Earlier this month, Liberty Counsel filed a 57-page brief in the case on behalf of 19 members of the United States Congress. The brief overviews home education laws of all fifty states and the District of Columbia, where it is legal. In 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the rights of parents to direct the education of their children, stating: "The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

Congressional members represented by Liberty Counsel include: Ken Calvert (CA-44), John Campbell (CA-48), David Davis (TN-1), John Doolittle (CA-4), Tom Feeney (FL-24), Randy Forbes (VA-4), Trent Franks (AZ-2), Robin Hayes (NC-8), Wally Herger (CA-2), Jim Jordan (OH-4), Doug Lamborn (CO-5), Dan Lungren (CA-3), Thaddeus McCotter (MI-11), Gary Miller (CA-42), Marilyn Musgrave (CO-4), Ed Royce (CA-40), Pete Sessions (TX-32), Mark Souder (IN-3), and Howard McKeon (CA-25), who introduced H. Res. 1076, calling on the courts to uphold the fundamental and constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

Parents have a fundamental right to decide how to educate their children. The government does not always know best. Parents have educated their children successfully at home since the founding of this country. Some of the brightest minds in American history were homeschooled. As an attorney who was homeschooled until the seventh grade, I know the value of parent-directed education.

Termination and Eviction Over Art With a Scripture Reference Results in Federal Lawsuit

2008-06-20T12:23:00.000-04:00

Today, a couple who worked and lived at Thornwood Terrace Apartments in Lake City, Florida, a government-subsidized facility owned and operated by The Hallmark Companies and Hallmark Management, is filing suit in federal court against Hallmark after they were terminated and evicted for displaying artwork referencing a Scripture verse in their office. Daniel Dixon was manager and lead maintenance technician at the apartment complex where he lived with his wife, Sharon, who was also a manager.

Liberty Counsel represents Daniel and Sharon Dixon in the case of Dixon v. Hallmark Companies. Hallmark owns and manages an apartment complex, which contains units that are government-subsidized by the USDA Rural Development program. Under the USDA program, Hallmark is required to comply with federal employment and housing antidiscrimination laws.
For at least eight years before they were fired and evicted, the Dixons had a 50"x26" piece of stained glass artwork featuring flowers hanging on the wall in the management office where they worked. On the glass was a partial Scripture verse in 1-1/4 inch letters that read: "Consider the Lilies…Matthew 6:28."

In September 2007, Christina Saunders, regional manager for Hallmark, asked Sharon if the words on the artwork referred to Scripture. After Sharon said they did, Sanders told her to remove the artwork. Sharon replied that she needed to discuss it with her co-manager husband, Daniel, and left the office to find him. While Sharon was gone, Sanders consulted her supervisor, Norine Lewis, and then took the artwork and put it inside Daniel and Sharon's apartment. When Sharon returned, Sanders said that Sharon and Daniel were "too religious." She fired them and demanded they vacate their apartment within 72 hours.

The Dixons were granted unemployment compensation over the objection of Hallmark, because Hallmark did not substantiate its claims of misconduct by the Dixons. The Dixons are filing suit today, claiming violations of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of religion. The lawsuit requests punitive damages against Hallmark for reckless indifference to the federal laws.

For eight years, without any complaint, Daniel and Sharon Dixon displayed floral artwork containing a citation to Scripture in their office. They were suddenly terminated as a result of the religious bigotry of one supervisor, even though no one objected to the picture. The Dixons lost their jobs and were booted out on the street, solely because artwork in their office made reference to the Bible. The Constitution and federal law prohibit religious discrimination. There must be ‘room in the inn’ for religious viewpoints.

California Court of Appeal Denies Petition for Stay of Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

2008-06-17T17:35:00.001-04:00

Today the California Court of Appeal denied Liberty Counsel's Petition to stay the decision legalizing same-sex marriage. The Court of Appeal has now sent the case back to the Superior Court. A stay would have delayed the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses, allowing the legislature to rewrite statutes that conflict with the ruling, and allowing the voters to amend the state constitution in November when they vote on the California Marriage Protection Act.

Yesterday at 5:01 pm (PT), the first same-sex marriage licenses were issued. This happened despite the fact it is well settled in California that "the Legislature has full control of the subject of marriage and may fix the conditions under which the marital status may be created or terminated...." McClure v. Donovan (1949) 33 Cal.2d 717, 728, 205 P.2d 17. The California Family Code specifies that "[a]n unmarried man of 18 years or older and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older" may marry. Family Code Section 301 (e). As a part of the marriage license, "the form shall include an affidavit, which the bride and groom shall sign." Family Code Section 505(c). Bride and groom clearly refer to a man and a woman. There is no provision for "Party A" and “Party B.” These statutes, and many others like them, are still in effect.

A recent poll conducted on May 30, 2008 by ccAdvertising shows that 56% of California residents support marriage as one man and one woman. A poll a few weeks ago by the Los Angeles Times similarly revealed that 54% supported the marriage amendment and only 35% opposed it. In November, the people of California will have the opportunity to pass a state constitutional amendment and overrule the 4-3 decision of the California Supreme Court.

The justice system has not been just to the people or the democratic process. Marriage between a man and a woman is universally in the best interest of children. The definition of marriage transcends language barriers and is understood by infants. A few judges may not respect the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, but the common person understands its importance. The people will have the final word on marriage in November. When the people speak for marriage in November and amend California’s constitution, judges will have to listen.

Liberty Counsel Files Petition to Stay Same-Sex Marriage Licenses at California Court of Appeal

2008-06-12T12:40:00.000-04:00

Today Liberty Counsel filed a petition on behalf of Campaign for California Families requesting the California Court of Appeal to stay the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples following remand from the California Supreme Court. A stay would delay the implementation of the California Supreme Court’s orders in the May 15 ruling.

On May 16 at 5:00 p.m. PT, the Court of Appeal will regain jurisdiction over the same-sex marriage cases. The Supreme Court decision directs the Court of Appeal to take "further action consistent with this opinion." The Supreme Court did not and cannot actually remove the language from the statutes, which must be done by the legislature. See Kopp v. Fair Pol. Practices Comm. (1995) 11 Cal. 4th 607, 675 (Werdegar, J., concurring)(Stating that the power to write laws belongs to the people and political branches of government, not the judiciary). Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision addressed only two statutes in §300 and §308.5 – Proposition 22). There are many more relevant statutes that were not before the Supreme Court and were not within that Court’s power to address. The Supreme Court cannot rewrite statutes and cannot remove language from the statutes; such must be done by the legislature. The power to write laws belongs ! to the people and political branches of government, not the judiciary.

Many Family Code sections which govern state agencies and government employees were not addressed and are still binding. The Supreme Court held in an earlier related case that local officials cannot refuse to enforce those statutory provisions based upon a belief that they are also unconstitutional. See Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 1055, 1074.

Since neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Appeal has declared unconstitutional the myriad of other statutes regarding marriage, local government officials do not have the power to issue marriage licenses until the legislature addresses these statutes. Liberty Counsel asks that the Court of Appeal order that no marriage licenses be issued to same-sex couples until the language cited by the Supreme Court is stricken by the legislature and until there is a judicial determination that the other statutes are unconstitutional.

Liberty Counsel also argues that same-sex marriage licenses should not be issued until after the November 2008 general election, in order to preserve the people’s right to vote on the Marriage Protection Act.

The Supreme Court’s decision has created a mess of the law regarding marriage. Hundreds of laws apply to marriage. The Supreme Court addressed only two. It is inconceivable that by striking down two statutes, the myriad of other marriage laws are automatically changed. They are not. The legislature must act before same-sex marriage is authorized, and the people should be permitted to vote before the legislature acts.

Anti-Christian Group Files Suit over Free Use of School Facilities for Christian Party Club

2008-06-11T14:42:00.000-04:00

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) filed a lawsuit against Elizabeth Burmaster, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Mark McGuire, District Administrator of the Rio Community School District, for providing a Christian ministry equal access to meet in school facilities free of charge. Liberty Counsel has now filed a motion to intervene in the case, in order to defend the constitutional rights of Child Evangelism Fellowship of Wisconsin (CEF). Liberty Counsel is siding with the school district against the erroneous claims of FFRF.

CEF sponsors the Good News Club for children ages 5 to 12 and also sponsors the Party Club, which is a monthly after-school function for students to enjoy games, crafts, songs, Bible lessons, and scripture memorization. The Rio School Board policy allows all nonprofit organizations to use the school facilities free of charge. Since CEF is a nonprofit organization, this entitles them free usage along with other nonprofits, such as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. The open-access policy also permits CEF and other secular groups to post and distribute information announcing the availability of the after-school opportunities. After receiving a threatening letter, the school district refused to give in to pressure from Annie Laurie Gaylor and the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

FFRF erroneously argues that the free use of classrooms after school by CEF violates the Wisconsin constitution, which states: “Nothing in this constitution shall prohibit the legislature from authorizing, by law, the use of public school buildings by civic, religious or charitable organizations during non-school hours upon payment by the organization to the school district of reasonable compensation for such use.” However, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which preempts state law, requires that CEF and other religious organizations be accorded equal treatment with Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar secular organizations.

If the district bowed to the pressure from FFRF and denied access to CEF on account of its religious viewpoint, the district would violate the United States Constitution’s protection under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clauses.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation pushes the most antireligious agenda of any organization in the country. The goal of the Foundation is a religion-free society. The First Amendment provides freedom of religion and not eradication of religion. The school district’s policy providing equal access is clearly constitutional. Religious viewpoints are fully protected under the First Amendment.

California Supreme Court’s Denial of Stay Ignores the Will of the People

2008-06-04T15:26:00.000-04:00

Today the California Supreme Court by a 4-3 vote denied the Petition for Stay and for Rehearing in the California marriage cases. The decision was split along the same lines as the original May 15 ruling with Chief Justice George and Justices Kennard, Werdegar and Moreno in the majority. Justices Baxter, Chin and Corrigan dissented. Today’s ruling states that the May 15 "same-sex marriage" decision will become final on June 16, 2008, at 5:00 pm (PT).

Liberty Counsel filed a Petition on behalf of the Campaign for California Families requesting the California Supreme Court to stay its opinion pending the November election. On Monday, the California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, certified the California Marriage Protection Act ("Amendment") for the November 2008 ballot. The Amendment to the California Constitution states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Thus, neither the courts nor any governmental agency will be permitted to validate or recognize any same-sex marriage license.

The cases now will return to the California Court of Appeal for the Supreme Court's order to be implemented. Liberty Counsel is considering filing a petition with Court of Appeal requesting a stay pending the outcome of the November vote on the Amendment. The Court of Appeal panel previously upheld the state’s marriage laws.

Denying a stay in light of the certification of the Marriage Protection Act for the November ballot reveals the political agenda of a handful of judges. Judges acting as judges and not as legislators would have granted the stay. The battle over marriage is far from over and will not be decided by four judges. The people will decide in November. If any same-sex marriage licenses are issued before November, the passage of the constitutional amendment will make them invalid and invisible.

The People of California Will Have the Final Say in Protecting Traditional Marriage

2008-06-03T14:48:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, the California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, certified the California Marriage Protection Act ("Amendment") for the November 2008 ballot. The Amendment to the California Constitution states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Liberty Counsel recently filed a Petition requesting the California Supreme Court to stay its opinion pending the vote in November. The Petition also requests the Court to reconsider its decision. Liberty Counsel represents the Campaign for California Families.

A recent poll conducted on May 30, 2008 by ccAdvertising shows that 56% of California residents support marriage as one man and one woman. A poll a few weeks ago by the Los Angeles Times similarly revealed that 54% of those polled supported the Amendment and only 35% opposed it.

Almost two months after the March 4 oral argument, 1,120,590 signed petitions were submitted to the Secretary of State. Only 694,354 petitions were needed to place the Amendment on the November ballot. Unlike Proposition 22, which passed by a margin of 61.4 percent in 2000, but was not a constitutional amendment, the Amendment would amend the state constitution so that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In light of the certification of the Amendment for the November ballot, the Court must stay its May 15 decision. The Amendment would overrule the Court’s decision and nullify any licenses issued between the end of June and November.

If the Court's ruling goes into effect without modification, individuals could create polygamous and polyamorous relationships. Liberty Counsel has a chart explaining this problem in its Petition and on its web site at www.LC.org. The Court has inadvertently created a system that hopelessly entangles property, custody, visitation and other rights. The decision should therefore be stayed.

Now that we know for certain the California Marriage Protection Act will appear on the November ballot, the California Supreme Court must stay its decision. Issuing a stay is the only course of action. The people of California will have the final say on marriage. I have no doubt that when the people vote, they will affirm marriage as one man and one woman.

Liberty Counsel Requests the California Supreme Court to Rehear and Stay its Marriage Decision

2008-05-29T10:05:00.000-04:00

Today, Liberty Counsel filed a Petition requesting the California Supreme Court to stay and to reconsider its decision that sanctioned same-sex marriage. Liberty Counsel represents the Campaign for California Families.

Liberty Counsel's Petition requests that the Court stay its opinion pending the upcoming vote in November on the California Marriage Protection Act ("Amendment") ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"). Unlike Proposition 22, passed by a margin of 61.4 percent in 2000, but which was not a constitutional amendment, this ballot initiative will amend the state constitution and thus overrule the Court’s decision. Between April 24 and May 13, 2008, almost two months after the March 4 oral argument, 1,120,590 signed petitions were submitted to the Secretary of State. Only 694,354 petitions are needed to place the Amendment on the November ballot. The Court should stay its decision pending this vote. A stay would avoid the circus-like atmosphere that occurred in 2004 when “same-sex marriage” licenses were issued by San Francisco and then later voided. The Amendment would similarly overrule this Court&! rsquo;s decision and nullify the licenses issued between the end of June and November.

Liberty Counsel's Petition also requests that the Court rehear the case because of unforeseen and unintended consequences of the decision. If the Court's ruling goes into effect without modification, individuals could create polygamous and polyamorous relationships. Parties A and B, C and D, and E and F, who are in a Vermont (or New Jersey and Connecticut) civil union, could all become interconnected when Parties A and C obtain a California same-sex marriage. At the same time B and F and D and E could get married, all at the same time. These polygamous and polyamorous relationships are made possible by this Court’s decision, which opens up marriage to same-sex couples while retaining the AB 205 Domestic Partnership law. This law provides the same rights and benefits as provided to spouses in marriage. It is parallel to marriage except in name. Liberty Counsel has a chart ! explaining this problem in the Petition and on it website at www.LC.org. Liberty Counsel’s Petition points out that the Court has unwittingly created a system that hopelessly entangles property, custody, visitation and other rights. If not stopped, this fiasco will travel like a tsunami, wreaking havoc on couples in California and other states.

The California Supreme Court has created a Gordian Knot that even Alexander the Great could not undo. This case illustrates why judges should leave lawmaking to the legislature. The decision has created unintended and unforeseen consequences, including polygamy and group marriage. Polygamy violates federal law and policy. The Court should stay the case until the people vote in November on the Marriage Protection Amendment, which, when passed, will overrule this outrageous decision.

Read the 29-page petition (in PDF) that has been submitted to the California Supreme Court.
View Liberty Counsel's chart (in PDF) showing how polygamy and polyamory (group marriage) can be recognized in California because of the California same-sex marriage ruling.

Administering Hormone-Blocking Drugs to Seven-Year-Old Children Pushes Ethical Limits

2008-05-27T16:04:00.000-04:00

Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Boston Children's Hospital, has launched a clinic where he administers hormone-blocking drugs to children as young as seven years of age. Gender Identity Disorder (GID), which these children allegedly experience, is classified as a mental disorder. A GID diagnosis involves someone whose biology and physiology is indisputably male or female, but subjectively this person has a desire to be the opposite sex. Children that are diagnosed with GID later in life often abandon the desire to be the opposite sex.

Dr. Spack administers either luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) or medroxyprogesterone, which blocks estrogen or testosterone to delay the onset of puberty. The result would stop girls from developing their menstrual cycle, breasts, and other normal female characteristics, and it would stop boys from developing a deeper voice, facial hair, and other normal male characteristics. The dangers involved in children taking these drugs include permanent infertility, increased risk of breast cancer, and more confusion about who they are.
Shortly after stopping children from reaching puberty, cross-hormones are taken to simulate the puberty of the opposite sex. Estrogen is given to boys and testosterone is given to girls, physically transforming these children into the gender they want to be. The final step would involve removal of male or female organs and plastic surgery.

In 1966, Johns Hopkins University started performing the nation’s first "sex reassignment" surgery in its Gender Identity Clinic. In 1979 the university hospital stopped performing these surgeries when it was discovered that the patients' well-being did not improve and the procedures were destroying healthy organs. The hospital decided the best treatment was through psychology, focusing on healing the mind.

Seven-year-old children are thinking about video games and riding their bicycles, not about artificially transitioning to the opposite gender. Since Gender Identity Disorder is purely subjective, it is dangerous and unethical to give drugs to children to block the onset of puberty. Gender Identity Disorder is a mental, not a physical disorder. We do not treat anorexia with liposuction and we should not treat gender confusion with plastic surgery.

Appeals Court Considers State Responsible for Illegally Strip-Searching Children

2008-05-20T11:51:00.001-04:00

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of two Wisconsin children who were strip-searched by a state social worker at a private Christian school. In Michael C. v. Gresbach, the appeals court panel unanimously ruled that the social worker, Dana Gresbach, violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the children to be free from an unreasonable search.
The eight-year-old boy, his nine-year-old sister and their parents are represented by Stephen Crampton, Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel for Liberty Counsel, and Wisconsin attorney Michael D. Dean.

The court stated that "it is a violation of a child’s constitutional rights to conduct a search of a child at a private school without a warrant or probable cause, consent, or exigent circumstances." The court held the social worker personally responsible for violating the students’ rights, because the law in this area is so clear that she should have known her actions were unconstitutional. Although the school principal allowed the social worker to interview the students, the social worker never even mentioned that she intended to require the children to remove their clothing. In addition, the social worker refused to allow the principal to contact the parents before the interview or to be present when she forced the children to strip.

The case arose when social services received a bogus report of suspected abuse from the sister of the estranged father of the children, who did not like that the children were spanked. A previous report of suspected abuse by the same aunt two weeks earlier was dismissed out of hand.
Gresbach was an employee of the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare. In a previous case, Doe v. Heck, the Bureau was found to have violated the constitutional rights of a child at a private Christian school, and also the rights of the school and the child’s parents under remarkably similar circumstances. Crampton and Dean also represented the parents in that case.

Decades ago, the United States Supreme Court emphatically ruled that the child is not the mere creature of the state. Unfortunately, social workers repeatedly ignore that fact and routinely trample parents' rights under the guise of protecting the children. This ruling sends the message that the Constitution is still in effect protecting law-abiding families from the overreaching arm of the state, both in the home and in private schools.

Liberty Counsel Files Brief in California Homeschool Case on Behalf of Members of United States Congress

2008-05-19T09:00:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow, on behalf of 19 members of the United States Congress, Liberty Counsel will file a 57-page brief with the California Court of Appeal in the homeschooling case known as In re Rachel L, et al. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles.

On February 28, 2008, the California Court of Appeal ruled that parents who lack teaching credentials do not have the statutory or constitutional right to school their children at home. The decision immediately caught the attention of the Nation and was the subject of sharp criticism.
Representative Howard McKeon (CA-25) introduced H. Res. 1076, calling on the courts to uphold the fundamental and constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. On March 25, 2008, the Court of Appeal agreed to rehear the case.

The brief by Liberty Counsel on behalf of members of Congress overviews home education laws of all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Homeschooling is legal in every state and the District of Columbia. In 1925, the United States Supreme Court recognized the rights of parents to direct the education of their children. The High Court stated: "The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

The members of Congress represented by Liberty Counsel include: Ken Calvert (CA-44), John Campbell (CA-48), David Davis (TN-1), John Doolittle (CA-4), Tom Feeney (FL-24), Randy Forbes (VA-4), Trent Franks (AZ-2), Robin Hayes (NC-8), Wally Herger (CA-2), Jim Jordan (OH-4), Doug Lamborn (CO-5), Dan Lungren (CA-3), Thaddeus McCotter (MI-11), Howard McKeon (CA-25), Gary Miller (CA-42), Marilyn Musgrave (C0-4), Ed Royce (CA-40), Pete Sessions (TX-32), and Mark Souder (IN-3).

Parents have a fundamental right to direct the education of their children. This right includes the decision to school their children at home. We must assume that parents will act in the best interest of their children and that parents, not the government, know what is best for their children. Homeschooling has become phenomenally successful. Homeschooled children routinely out-perform children educated in the public schools. Some of the brightest minds in American history were homeschooled.

Read the Brief.

United States Supreme Court Allows Federal Law Against Child Pornography To Stand

2008-05-19T08:30:00.000-04:00

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-2 ruling upholding a federal law that makes it illegal to knowingly offer to provide or request to obtain child pornography. In United States v. Williams, the Court upheld the law known as the "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003."

In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the law does not violate the First Amendment, noting that offers to engage in illegal transactions are not protected by the First Amendment. Justices Souter and Ginsburg dissented, arguing that porn peddlers who trick purchasers with fake child porn should not be prosecuted.

The Court has already ruled in an earlier case that laws may prohibit obscene material depicting actual or computer-generated images of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and any other material depicting actual children engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

In 2002, the Court struck down an earlier law passed by Congress that would also prohibit materials that were not really child pornography, such as photos of youthful adults. As a result, Congress reacted by passing the current law that the Court upheld today, which provides for a mandatory 5-year sentence for promoting or attempting to obtain child pornography.

We applaud the Supreme Court’s common sense decision to allow Congress to ban the spread of child pornography. The Department of Justice needs to start vigorously enforcing this law and other anti-obscenity laws that are necessary protect our children from online criminals who would profit from their images and steal their innocence. Pornography is a destructive force that degrades its subjects and twists the minds of the masses of viewers who become hooked on perverted images.

Liberty Counsel Protests Lack of Enforcement of Federal Obscenity Laws

2008-05-19T08:00:00.000-04:00

Today, pro-decency and pro-family organizations held a prayer breakfast and a conference at the National Press Club to draw attention to the lack of current enforcement of obscenity laws by the United States Department of Justice and the FBI.

The lack of enforcement undermines the family, subjects children to pornography and increases sexual exploitation and trafficking of children. Following the conference, an orderly demonstration was held at the Department of Justice on Pennsylvania Avenue to draw attention to the enforcement problem.

Sarah Seitz was one of the speakers at the conference. She is Legal Director of the Liberty Center for Law & Policy, a partnership between Liberty Counsel and Liberty University School of Law.
Seitz spoke about Liberty Counsel's case on behalf of librarian Brenda Biesterfeld, who was fired from a library in Tulare County, California, for reporting a patron viewing child pornography. She also discussed the involvement of students at Liberty University School of Law with "Blue Ridge Thunder," an Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) taskforce at the Bedford County, Virginia, Sheriff's Office.

Sixteen other prominent pro-family speakers and leaders were featured at the event, including: Ted Baehr, President, Christian Film & TV Commission; Janice Crouse, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Beverly LaHaye Institute; Bill Johnson, President, American Decency Association; Rabbi Yehuda Levin, Spokesperson, Rabbinical Alliance of America; Arthur Taylor, Past President, CBS, Inc.; Pat Trueman, former Chief, Justice Dept.’s Child Exploitation & Obscenity Section; and Wendy Wright, President, Concerned Women for America.

Today's event highlighted the necessity for enforcement of obscenity laws by the Department of Justice and FBI. We must hold the federal government accountable in order to protect the children of this Nation.

Liberty Counsel Will Ask California Court To Stay Opinion Until Californians Vote On Marriage

2008-05-16T08:55:00.002-04:00

Liberty Counsel intends to file a motion asking the California Supreme Court to stay its opinion pending the outcome of a vote in November on a state constitutional amendment that could preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman and overturn the Court's opinion.
Californians may have the chance to overturn the Court's order by amending the state constitution. Over one million signatures in favor of the California Marriage Protection Act are being certified and voters will soon know whether more than 700,000 are valid so that the Act will appear on the November, 2008 ballot.

A stay of the Court's order is needed so that California does not create confusion by recognizing same-sex "marriage" for five months and then suddenly stop after the amendment passes and the Court loses jurisdiction over the issue.

The White House issued a statement about the Court's decision: "President Bush has always believed marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. It’s unfortunate when activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage by court order – without regard for the will of the people. Today's decision by the California Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment is the best way for the people to decide what marriage means. President Bush remains firmly committed to protecting the sanctity of marriage."

House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (MO) also issued a statement regarding the Court's decision: “Today, the decision of unelected judges to overturn the will of the people of California on the question of same-sex marriage demonstrates the lengths that unelected judges will go to substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people. The Supreme Court of California chose today to legislate from the bench without any concern or deference for the democratic process. "

Please pray that the Court agrees to stay the order so that the people of California can have the last word on protecting marriage in that state.

The California Supreme Court Rewrites the Definition of Marriage- California voters may have the last word

2008-05-15T15:50:00.002-04:00

San Francisco, CA – Today, the California Supreme Court abandoned the rule of law and common sense when it handed down a 4-3 decision that rewrote the definition of marriage. This ruling will unite the people of California and will propel their efforts to amend the state constitution. Liberty Counsel represents the Campaign for California Families (CCF) in the defense of the state’s marriage laws.

Chief Justice George wrote the majority opinion overturning the marriage laws, joined by Justices Kennard, Werdegar and Moreno. Concurring and dissenting opinions were issued by Baxter, Chin and Corrigan.

Justice Baxter (joined by Justice Chin), wrote: "I cannot join the majority’s holding that the California Constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry. In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error,” wrote Baxter and Chin. In a concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Baxter dissented in the conclusion, stating: “I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference."

California residents have submitted petitions to place a state constitutional marriage amendment on the November ballot. If the requisite number is certified in the next few weeks, California voters will have the opportunity to amend their state constitution so that it expressly defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Such an amendment is necessary to protect marriage from being undermined by a mere majority of four justices of the California Supreme Court.

On March 4, 2008, Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, presented oral argument at the California Supreme Court in defense of the marriage laws. The court hearing lasted more than three hours, as each side debated the issue. Liberty Counsel became involved in February 2004.

This ruling defies logic. It is a gross departure from the rule of law. It is outrageous. Traditional marriage is common sense. Yet, this decision is nonsense. No matter how you stretch California’s Constitution, you cannot find anywhere in its text, its history, or tradition that now, after so many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn. Same-sex marriage is not part of our history nor is it woven in the fabric of fundamental freedom. The California Supreme Court has defied logic, undermined the will of the people, and weakened our future. This decision will ignite California voters to amend their state constitution to protect marriage and prevent judges from wrecking marriage.

Read the Court's opinion: PDF or MSWord.

Historic Conference on How to Defend Family Values Kicks Off in Hong Kong

2008-05-08T15:07:00.001-04:00

Today marks the beginning of a strategic relationship between pro-family organizations and educational institutions in the United States with Chinese leaders who are concerned about family values. The Hong Kong International Conference on Family Values at Hong Kong Baptist University runs from May 9-12. Conference presenters are meeting today with Chinese lawyers, legislators and governmental leaders.

Rena Lindevaldsen will give six presentations that include topics such as: The Family in Civil Society, Teen Sexual Activity, AIDS and Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Same-Sex Marriage, and The Threat of the Homosexual Agenda on Free Speech and Freedom of Religion. Lindevaldsen is an Assistant Professor of Law at Liberty University School of Law and of Counsel for Liberty Counsel.

The purpose of the conference is to provide Chinese Christians an opportunity to learn from international experts on how to defend family values. Sponsors include the Family Values Foundation, the Society for Truth and Light, Hong Kong Sex Culture Society, and local churches. About 1,000 Chinese Christians from Hong Kong, Macau, Mainland China, Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia are expected to attend.

Hong Kong currently suffers from high abortion, divorce and teen pregnancy rates. Hong Kong currently allows for greater religious expression in public places than in the United States. There is still prayer in schools, and judges still have crosses displayed in judicial chambers. On the other hand, the public officials really cannot say anything religious related to their official decisions.

The International Conference on Family Values has been in the planning stages for more than 2 years. In 2006, Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, arranged a training and educational conference at the school of law in Lynchburg, Virginia, for some of the organizational leaders from Hong Kong. Speakers at the conference included attorneys from Liberty Counsel and faculty of Liberty University School of Law.

This International Conference on Family Values provides an historic opportunity to equip the Chinese people to strengthen and to defend marriage and family values.

The launch of the International Conference on Family Values in Hong Kong is the beginning of a strategic partnership between Chinese leaders and American pro-family organizations. Liberty University School of Law and Liberty Counsel are pleased to be a part of this historic event.

Liberty Counsel Launches Annual “Friend or Foe” Graduation Prayer Campaign

2008-05-06T13:52:00.000-04:00

May is the annual launch of Liberty Counsel’s “Friend or Foe” Graduation Prayer Campaign. Liberty Counsel seeks to educate and, if necessary, litigate to ensure that prayer and religious viewpoints are not suppressed during graduation ceremonies.

Liberty Counsel has published a free legal memo on graduation prayer which is available online at www.LC.org. Students are encouraged to wear Liberty Counsel’s red “I WILL PRAY” wristbands as a reminder to pray. Students have the constitutional right to wear religious jewelry and to pray during noninstructional times during the school day.

In a precedent-setting case against the ACLU, Adler v. Duval County School Board, Liberty Counsel won the right of students to pray or give religious messages at graduation. The case went before a federal appeals court five times and to the U.S. Supreme Court twice. The case established the legal principle that public schools are safe to adopt a policy allowing students or other speakers to present either secular or religious messages, including prayer.

In 2007, Liberty Counsel filed suit on behalf of Erica Corder, a valedictorian in Denver, Colorado, who mentioned Jesus Christ during a 30-second graduation message. Her principal threatened to withhold her diploma unless she issued a written apology to the entire school community. The case is still in litigation.

In 2006, Liberty Counsel represented Megan Chapman, a graduating senior and class chaplain in Russell Springs, Kentucky, who found herself the subject of a court order forbidding her from praying during graduation. The order was obtained by the ACLU. The entire senior class reacted to the controversy by standing and reciting the Lord’s Prayer, after which Megan stepped to the podium and shared about what God meant in her life. After hearing about the situation, Dr. Jerry Falwell gave both Megan and her twin sister, Mandy, full scholarships to Liberty University. Their story was featured on a segment of CNN’s God’s Christian Warriors. The twins are finishing their second year at Liberty. Mandy volunteers with Liberty Counsel and plans to attend Liberty University School of Law.

The purpose of Liberty Counsel’s ‘Friend or Foe’ Graduation Prayer Campaign is to protect religious viewpoints at graduation. Liberty Counsel will be the friend of schools that recognize the free speech rights of students and invited speakers and the foe of those that violate their constitutional rights. The key to graduation prayer is that the school should neither command nor prohibit voluntary prayer or religious viewpoints.

How Long Will America Have A Prayer?

2008-04-30T22:15:00.000-04:00

President Bush has proclaimed Thursday, May 1, 2008 as the 57th annual National Day of Prayer. All across the Nation, there will be privately-sponsored prayer breakfasts, prayer walks and prayer gatherings at state capitol buildings, city halls, churches, schools and parks. In Washington, D.C., there is a 90-hour prayer and Bible-reading marathon outside of the Capitol building leading up to the National Day of Prayer.

Similar events will be held in many cities and towns. Public events have been organized by churches and religious organizations in all 50 states. Liberty Counsel will be participating in the 41st annual Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast in Orlando, Florida, which is a Kick-Off Event for National Day of Prayer events throughout Central Florida.

It sounds like a serene and unifying time for Americans to be reminded of our deep and historical religious roots. However, whenever God is mentioned in this society, controversy cannot be far behind. Some groups like the pro-Muslim group, CAIR (Counsel on American Islamic Relations), complain that prayer events organized by Christians on that day are slanted towards Christianity, rather than being “inclusive” of other faiths. They want to hijack the traditional Christian prayer events and turn the national focus from a time of intersession into a watered-down version with moments of silence and reflection.

A California chapter of the anti-Christian group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is trying to undermine Christians by petitioning Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger not to support events hosted by evangelical Christians. The ultra-liberal Interfaith Alliance of Central California is actually holding a protest at a Christian prayer event in that state.

One radical group is insisting that “other faith traditions” be included in any public observances that are organized by the National Day of Prayer Task Force, which is a private Christian group that was started in order to coordinate events on the National Day of Prayer. The prayer coordinators sign a statement of faith in Jesus. There are recent indications that some with the Task Force may be bowing to pressures to try not “offend” non-Christians by praying in Jesus’ name. Honorary Chairman Ravi Zacharias plans to deliver a prayer at an interdenominational National Day of Prayer event in Washington, D.C. Instead of invoking Jesus’ name, his written prayer concludes, “In God’s Holy Name.”

Zacharias’ prayer stands in stark contrast to the first prayer of the Continental Congress, which was delivered on September 7, 1774 by Reverend Jacob Duché. That distinctly Christian prayer ended with the words: “All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen.” It is the name of Jesus that separates the Christian faith from non-Christian faiths.

This nation was birthed by Christianity and national prayers have traditionally recognized that fact. The National Day of Prayer was established by an act of Congress in 1952, but the origin of prayer proclamations pre-date Congress.

Here is a list of a just a few of this Nation’s many prayer proclamations:

• On June 12, 1775 the First Continental Congress issued a proclamation for a national day of “Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer,” held on July 20. This event set the precedent for future proclamations.

• Congress set May 17, 1776, as a “day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer” throughout the colonies. Congress urged Americans to “confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his [God’s] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness.”

• John Adams continued the practice of issuing fasting and prayer proclamations, when he declared May 9, 1798 for that purpose.

• Congress set the first Thursday in May, 1779 as a day of “Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer to Almighty God.”

• President George Washington declared Feb. 19, 1795 a day for prayer and public thanksgiving.

• President John Adams proclaimed May 9, 1798 a national day of “Solemn Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer.”

• President James Madison proclaimed a day of “public humiliation and prayer” in August, 1812 in response to a joint resolution of Congress calling for the proclamation.

• President James Buchanan proclaimed a national day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer for January 4, 1861.

• President Abraham Lincoln signed a Congressional Resolution calling for a Day of Prayer on March 30, 1863.

• President Harry Truman signed legislation in 1952 proclaiming a National Day of Prayer. The bill had widespread support and passed unanimously by Congress.

• In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed Public Law 100-307 which was passed by Congress to fix the annual National Day of Prayer permanently on the first Thursday of May. Vonette Bright, Co-founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, who headed the National Prayer Committee, proposed the legislation that was unanimously approved by both houses of Congress.

Days of prayer and fasting are a traditional and important part of American history. Prayer and spiritual renewal are necessary to sustain liberty. We need leaders in all sectors, both public and private, who are not afraid to acknowledge Jesus Christ. Christians should never forget Who gave us our freedom. Without Him, this Nation will not and cannot long endure.

Liberty Counsel Asks Court to Stop School Board’s Discrimination Against Christian Club

2008-04-21T10:49:00.000-04:00

Today at 11:30 a.m., Liberty Counsel will appear in federal court on behalf of Child Evangelism Fellowship of Virginia (CEF) to request an injunction against the Williamsburg-James City County Public Schools. The school board is engaged in unconstitutional discrimination against CEF’s after-school programs for children.

The school board charges CEF a facilities usage fee for holding its free after-school Good News Clubs, while granting free use to Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other organizations the board has deemed patriotic and community service groups.

School board policy also gives the superintendent unfettered discretion to waive usage fees for "nonprofit organizations in direct support of public school students or staff." Although CEF is an organization that directly supports public school students through its Good News Clubs, the superintendent refused to grant CEF a fee waiver. By requiring the fee, the school district has imposed a discriminatory burden on CEF that prevents the Good News Clubs from expanding to all the schools in the district.

After-school Good News Clubs teach children respect, good citizenship, moral values and character development from a biblical perspective. The school board recognizes the Boy Scouts and other youth-focused groups as providing beneficial community services, but discriminates against the Good News Club by refusing to provide equal access.

The United States Supreme Court has already ruled that Good News Clubs must have the same access to school facilities as other after-school programs. A school cannot reject CEF’s use of facilities because of its identity or religious viewpoint. Liberty Counsel has obtained victories for CEF in numerous states from coast to coast and frequently litigates when school districts do not reverse unequal treatment of Good News Clubs.

Equal access is the law, and equal access means equal treatment in every respect, including equal cost. Parents should be allowed to choose whether to send their children to a Good News Club, just as they can choose Boy Scout or Girl Scout programs. It is absurd that any school official would disfavor an organization that promotes good citizenship, responsibility and character development. These are qualities that children need to develop. Of all places where public schools ought to respect the First Amendment, it ought to be in Williamsburg and Jamestown, Virginia, where our forefathers planted the seeds of liberty.

VA Supreme Court Hears Arguments Regarding Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Unions

2008-04-17T09:00:00.000-04:00

Today, Liberty Counsel presented oral argument at the Virginia Supreme Court in a case that highlights the conflict between states that recognize same-sex civil unions and those that do not. The case of Miller v. Jenkins involves a conflict between the laws of Virginia and Vermont. Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, presented the oral argument on behalf of Lisa Miller and her six-year-old daughter, in an attempt to protect Lisa’s parental rights from her former same-sex partner.

Lisa is the fit, biological mother of a six-year-old daughter, with whom Janet Jenkins has neither a biological nor an adoptive relationship. In 2000, while living in Virginia, Lisa and Janet traveled to Vermont and entered into a civil union. Shortly after Lisa gave birth to her child through artificial insemination, Janet became abusive and Lisa became a Christian, ending their relationship.

In Virginia, where Lisa and her daughter reside, the Constitution and its statutes do not recognize same-sex marriage and civil unions. Virginia has one of the strongest laws in the country prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriage and civil unions. However, on March 14th the Vermont Supreme Court granted parental rights to Janet based upon the civil union law as though she were in a marital relationship. If the Virginia Supreme Court decision conflicts with the Vermont Supreme Court, the case will automatically go to the United States Supreme Court.

This case is exceptionally important because the future of Isabella hangs in the balance. Her future will be to either remain with her biological mother, Lisa Miller, or potentially be ripped away from her mom and placed in a lesbian household and paraded as a political trophy of the homosexual agenda. This case is also important because states must also have the sovereign authority to maintain their marriage policy as the union of one man and one woman, while rejecting same-sex unions. Virginia’s Constitution compels the state supreme court to not recognize out-of-state, same-sex marriages and civil unions. But if Virginia loses its sovereignty, then the sovereignty of every other state is put in jeopardy.

The opinion of the court will be posted on the Virginia Supreme Court’s Web site, http://www.courts.state.va.us/scv/home.html, once a decision is released.

Hearing Questions The Importance of Abstinence Education

2008-04-08T10:05:00.003-04:00

On April 23, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), will hold a hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss abstinence education, but the debate is likely to be critical of abstinence, rather than focus on its vital importance.

Currently, the majority is slated to have five witnesses, while the minority will only have one. This disproportionate list of witnesses can be seen as a blatant attempt by the majority to skew the debate in opposition of abstinence.

Please encourage members who support abstinence education to not only attend the hearing, but also to be prepared to respond to the criticism of abstinence education. A complete list of committee members can be found at http://oversight.house.gov/about/members.asp.

Ten Commandments Weekend

2008-04-07T09:09:00.002-04:00

On March 13, 2008, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KA) introduced S.Res. 483 to designate the first weekend in May of 2008 as Ten Commandments Weekend. Senator Brownback said, “It is important for Americans to remember the importance the Ten Commandments have in our nation. The Ten Commandments are the cornerstone to the faith of millions of Americans of many faith traditions, and are a cornerstone to a fair and just society. We as a nation should take a weekend to reflect on the impact the Ten Commandments have had on the foundation of America’s national life.”

Currently, the Resolution is before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Please contact these members and ask them to pass S.Res. 483 out of committee. A complete list of committee members can be found at http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm.

A similar resolution (H.Res. 598) was introduced by Representative Todd Akin (R-MO) on August 1, 2007, but it has been stalled in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform since the date of introduction.

The full text of each Resolution can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov by typing the resolution number into the bill search box.

Parental Rights to Home School Children

2008-04-04T09:44:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, Representative Howard McKeon (R-CA) introduced H. Res. 1076, which supports parental rights in education, including the rights of parents to home school their children.

The Resolution notes that the initial decision of the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District in Los Angeles, California, on February 28, 2008, would have had an adverse impact on approximately 166,000 children who are currently being home schooled in that state. Further, the House commends the California court for allowing a rehearing of this matter and calls upon the court to uphold United States Supreme Court precedent which recognizes the fundamental and constitutional rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

This Resolution has 32 co-sponsors and was referred the House Committee on the Judiciary. The full text of the Resolution can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov by typing H.Res. 1076 into the bill search box.

Please contact members of the House and urge them to vote for this important Resolution that supports the rights of parents to home school their children.

Vermont Supreme Court Considers Granting Parental Rights To Unrelated Third Party

2008-03-13T13:02:00.001-04:00

Today Liberty Counsel presented oral argument in a case that highlights the conflict between states that recognize same-sex civil unions and those that do not. The case of Miller v. Jenkins involves a conflict between the laws of Virginia and Vermont. David Corry, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, presented the oral argument on behalf of Lisa Miller and her five-year-old daughter, in an attempt to protect Lisa’s parental rights from her former same-sex partner. The court proceedings will be archived on the Court’s web site, http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/audioindex/index.htm.

Lisa is the fit, biological mother of a five-year-old daughter, with whom Janet has neither a biological nor an adoptive relationship. Vermont court granted parental rights to Janet because Lisa and Janet traveled from Virginia to Vermont and entered into a civil union. After Lisa gave birth to her child, the relationship ended when Janet became abusive and Lisa became a Christian. In Virginia, where Lisa and her daughter reside, state law does not recognize same-sex “marriage,” civil unions, or domestic partnerships.

In April, Liberty Counsel will argue the same case before the Virginia Supreme Court. If the Virginia Supreme Court decision conflicts with the Vermont Supreme Court, the case will automatically go to the United States Supreme Court.

Same-sex unions disrupt the traditional family structure and pit one state against another. Children are the collateral damage of those pressing the same-sex union agenda.

Liberty Counsel Argues at Vermont Supreme Court Tomorrow Over Same-Sex Civil Union

2008-03-12T12:22:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow, Liberty Counsel is scheduled to present oral argument in defense of Lisa Miller and her five-year-old daughter at the Vermont Supreme Court. The case is Miller v. Jenkins and concerns the right of Lisa Miller to decide that Janet Jenkins, her former same-sex partner, should not be declared a parent to Lisa’s child. This is a precedent-setting legal battle between Virginia and Vermont over same-sex unions and the right of fit, biological parents against unrelated third parties.

Lisa is the fit, biological mother of a five-year-old daughter, with whom Janet Jenkins has neither a biological nor an adoptive relationship. Under the Vermont civil union law, the Vermont Supreme Court granted parental rights to Janet, who continues in her lesbian lifestyle. In 2000, while living in Virginia, Lisa and Janet entered into a Vermont civil union. Lisa gave birth to her child through artificial insemination from an anonymous donor, but the relationship ended when Janet became abusive and Lisa became a Christian. In Virginia, where Lisa resides, the state law and constitutional amendment do not recognize any rights associated with same-sex “marriage,” civil unions, or domestic partnerships.

The oral argument is scheduled to begin at 10:45 a.m. EST and end approximately at 10:55 a.m. EST. The arguments will be recorded and archived at http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/audioindex/index.htm. David Corry, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, will be presenting the argument and will be available for interviews following the Court’s dismissal in the lobby area of the Supreme Court building.

Next month, Liberty Counsel will be arguing a different aspect of the case at the Virginia Supreme Court. If the Virginia Supreme Court decision clashes with the Vermont Supreme Court, the case will go directly to the United States Supreme Court. The Virginia argument will focus on Virginia’s Marriage Affirmation Act and the state constitutional amendment, both of which declare that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and further state that Virginia does not recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships. That case will also focus on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which is designed to protect one state from being forced to recognize another state’s same-sex union.

This case illustrates that when one state sanctions same-sex unions, other states will be affected. One state should not be allowed to write the marriage policy of another state and export same-sex unions beyond its borders.

Mental Health Bill Update

2008-03-11T09:05:00.002-04:00

On March 3, we told you about H.R. 1424, the the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007. This measure passed the House on March 5 by a vote of 268-148.

A Motion to Recommit the bill to committee was offered by Republicans in an effort to amend the bill “forthwith” by replacing it with the bipartisan Senate-passed Mental Health Parity bill (S.558) and clarifying language on abortion-related coverage.

The Senate mental health parity bill does not include any of the references to the DSM-IV that were included in the House bill and removes the employer mandate regarding coverage. Therefore, the Motion to Recommit would resolve concerns regarding conscience protections for employers and health insurance groups.

A conference will be held on both the Senate and House versions in order to resolve differences between the bills. Members must be aware that the language in the House version is dangerous. Not only does it cover such mental disorders as gender identity disorder and pedophilia, but it does not include a conscience clause. Further, abortion proponents have asserted there can be "therapeutic abortions" done to "preserve women's mental health."

Mat Staver Argued Key First Amendment Case At Florida Supreme Court Today

2008-03-06T14:12:00.000-05:00

Today, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Rapp v. Jews for Jesus, a case which will have a broad impact on the ability of churches, nonprofit groups, individuals and the media to publish without fear of retribution for offending the subject of the report. Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, presented oral argument on behalf of Jews for Jesus.

Today’s arguments were presented before the Florida Supreme Court to address the sole question of whether the tort of "false light invasion of privacy" should be recognized in Florida. Staver argued on behalf of Jews for Jesus that such claims have never been allowed in Florida, suppress too much First Amendment speech by having a chilling effect, and that defamation claims (where published statements must be false) are sufficient to protect persons from injury by media reports. False light claims by definition are not defamatory and may involve true statements. The seven justices asked many questions. They clearly expressed concerns that false light invasion of privacy could seriously impair free speech.

Staver argued that the key consideration for the Court is to assess the need for new tort versus its risk of censoring speech. Staver argued that existing defamation torts protect people from harm to their reputation. Thus there is no need for a new tort. He also argued that the common law, statutes, and the state and federal constitutions protect freedom of speech. He stated that a new tort of false light invasion of privacy is unnecessary and will throttle free speech.

Under a false light invasion of privacy, the statement made would not be defamatory, would not injure a person’s reputation and may be true, but if the statement caused the subject of the statement to be highly offended, the person could bring suit. Such a tort would have a chilling effect on the media and publication.

The Rapp v. Jews for Jesus case involves a lawsuit over a newsletter report that a stepmother of Bruce Rapp, a Jews for Jesus missionary, had "repeated the sinner’s prayer." The newsletter also requested prayer for "new Jewish believer Edie and salvation for her husband, Marty." After Bruce’s father (Marty) died, Edith Rapp (Edie) sued Jews for Jesus for printing the information about her. The lawsuit read like a polemic against Christianity. The case was dismissed several times at the trial court. On appeal, the court upheld the dismissal but then certified to the Florida Supreme Court whether Florida law recognizes the tort of false light invasion of privacy.

The First Amendment needs breathing room. Whatever is added to the field of speech restrictions to protect individuals takes away from free debate. To permit ‘false light invasion of privacy’ would smother free speech. The First Amendment recognizes that speech may be robust and protects speech that may offend.

Liberty Counsel Will Argue Major Free Speech Case At The Florida Supreme Court

2008-03-05T11:27:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow, the Florida Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Rapp v. Jews for Jesus, a case which will have a broad impact on First Amendment rights. Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, will be presenting oral argument on behalf of Jews for Jesus.

The issue before the Court is one of first impression – whether Florida courts will allow lawsuits claiming “false light invasion of privacy” which is similar to the claim of defamation, a tort recognized in Florida. While truth is a defense to defamation, it is not a defense to false light invasion of privacy, where someone can face liability for reporting even truthful information about a person if it offends that person. Some states do not recognize false light invasion of privacy because of its detrimental impact on freedom of speech and of the press.

In July 2002, Jews for Jesus sent a newsletter to its supporters and friends in which Bruce Rapp, a Jews for Jesus missionary, wrote in a “Praise Report” that his Jewish stepmother had “repeated the sinner’s prayer with me – praise God!” The newsletter also contained a prayer request for “grace and strength for new Jewish believer Edie and salvation for her husband, Marty.” After her husband’s death, Edith Rapp (Edie) sued Jews for Jesus for printing the information about her.
The lower court dismissed all of the claims raised in the lawsuit against Jews for Jesus, including the defamation and false light claims. Rapp appealed and the appeals court asked the Florida Supreme Court to answer the question of whether false light invasion of privacy is recognized in Florida. If such a claim is recognized, it will have a chilling effect on free speech, whether spoken or printed. Ministries and media outlets will be afraid of publicizing any news about any person that might possibly offend that person.

Major media organizations, including the New York Times Company, Orlando Sentinel, Sun Sentinel, Florida Press Association, ABC, Inc., ESPN, Inc., Scripps, Association of American Publishers, and Cox Enterprises, have submitted briefs to the Court in support of Liberty Counsel’s position. A brief opposing Liberty Counsel was submitted on behalf of a man who wants millions of dollars in damages from a newspaper that printed an article about him. The newspaper stated that the man killed his wife with a shotgun but did not mention until two sentences later that the shooting was ruled an accident.

The oral arguments will begin at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. Florida State University will show the proceedings live online at http://www.wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/index.php.

False light invasion of privacy claims simply serve to fuel unnecessary litigation and will have a chilling affect on free speech and on the press. Determining what might be offensive to someone, even if truthful, would be a daunting task for a publisher. Recognizing false light claims would disproportionately impact independent media outlets and small ministries, which would lack the funds to defend themselves from even frivolous claims.

The California Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument In A Most Significant Marriage Case

2008-03-04T16:39:00.001-05:00

Today’s oral argument at the California Supreme Court has considerable implications regarding marriage. Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, presented the oral argument on behalf of the Campaign for California Families (CCF). The court hearing lasted approximately three hours. A decision is expected within the next 90 days.

This case involves a four-year-old dispute over the constitutionality of California’s marriage laws. In February 2004, Liberty Counsel filed suit on behalf of CCF and its executive director, Randy Thomasson, to stop San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The California Supreme Court eventually ruled that the mayor did not have authority to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Meanwhile, several same-sex couples and the City and County of San Francisco filed several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the marriage laws. Those lawsuits and Liberty Counsel’s original action were consolidated and have gone through several court hearings and appeals, until finally reaching the California Supreme Court.

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

Marriage is more than a private relationship between two people who love each other. While it is a private relationship, marriage serves a public purpose to preserve society’s interest in procreation and to provide the optimal environment for children. The state has an interest in protecting an institution that predates government in order to encourage responsible procreation among opposite-sex couples. Among opposite-sex couples, procreation is sometimes planned and sometimes unplanned. Children are thus the natural consequence of opposite-sex relationships. Providing for the next generation is essential to any society, but providing an environment that encourages stable relationships for the well-being of children is critically important. Marriage thus provides encouragement for opposite-sex couples to unite for the sake of children. Same-sex couples do not need marriage to encourage their unions, because such relationships never produce unplanned children.

Mental Health Legislation

2008-03-03T10:37:00.003-05:00

On March 9, 2007, Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) introduced H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007. This bill would incorporate into federal law the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) classification definitions as parameters of mental health treatment for health plans. Further, this legislation mandates that employers offering mental health benefits cover all diagnoses under the DSM-IV. Under the current language of the bill, there is no exemption for groups to exclude coverage of mental disorders, particularly psycho-sexual disorders, for which they have religious or moral objections.

The DSM-IV is published by the American Psychiatric Association and covers all mental health disorders for both children and adults. Examples of such disorders include, gender identity disorder, pedophilia, and transvestic fetishism. A complete list of mental disorders can be found online at http://allpsych.com/disorders/disorders_alpha.html.

Currently, this bill has 273 co-sponsors and is scheduled to be on the House floor either Wednesday or Thursday of this week. Of these 273 co-sponsors, 29 members voted against hate crimes legislation on May 3, 2007, yet they are supporting this bill. H.R. 1424 could easily be used as a stepping stone in order to pass hate crimes legislation. These members must be held accountable for their decision to co-sponsor this dangerous bill. Please contact the following 29 members of the House of Representatives and ask them not to support H.R. 1424:

Rodney Alexander (R-LA)
Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
Marion Berry (D-AR)
Jo Bonner (R-AL)
Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
Christopher Carney (D-PA)
Vernon Ehlers (R-MI)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)
Paul Gillmor (R-OH)
Bart Gordon (D-TN)
Ric Keller (R-FL)
Steven LaTourette (R-OH)
John McHugh (R-NY)
Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
Charlie Melancon (D-La)
John Mica (R-FL)
Patrick Murphy (R-PA)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Charles Pickering (R-MS)
Jim Ramstad (R-MN)
Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
Heath Shuler (D-NC)
Christopher Smith (R-NJ)
John Sullivan (R-OK)
Fred Upton (R-MI)
Zach Wamp (R-TN)
Frank Wolf (R-VA)
Don Young (R-AK)

Liberty Counsel Defends Religious Teachers’ Housing Exemptions Against ACLU Attack

2008-02-27T13:39:00.001-05:00

Tomorrow, Liberty Counsel will argue on behalf of Anchorage Baptist Temple (ABT) in Alaska Superior Court to defend religious teachers’ housing exemptions. The ACLU filed suit to take away property tax exemptions for housing that is owned by religious organizations and used by private school teachers.

Steve Crampton, General Counsel for Liberty Counsel, will argue the case on behalf of ABT, which is pastored by Dr. Jerry Prevo. The ACLU and other plaintiffs allege that the tax exemption violates equal protection and establishment clauses of the state and federal constitutions.

The exemption given by the Alaska legislature applies to the homes of ABT’s teachers, as well as similar properties owned by other religious organizations. Nonreligious educational institutions already enjoy an exemption for teacher housing. Without the exemption, ABT would have to divert approximately $23,000 per year from its other services to pay property taxes. That continuing tax liability would force ABT to choose between recruiting and retaining teachers and providing services to the community.

ABT operates a number of ministries, including alcohol and drug abuse recovery programs, community outreaches, children’s programs, a bus transportation service, music programs, and Anchorage Christian School, a K-12 school serving approximately 700 students. ABT owns six residences that house teachers at Anchorage Christian School. These residences are integral to ABT’s educational mission, in that they enable ABT to recruit and retain a well-qualified teaching staff, despite being unable to offer the wage and benefit programs offered by public schools.

The ACLU seeks to eliminate any exemption for religious institutions, regardless of the harm that would result to thousands of Alaskan children receiving quality education at no cost to the state. This exemption does nothing more than equal the playing field between religious and nonreligious educators. The ACLU and its ilk should be ashamed at even filing this baseless action.

College President Is Forced To Resign Amid Controversy Over Cross and Offensive Art Show

2008-02-13T12:20:00.001-05:00

Gene R. Nichol, president of the College of William and Mary, submitted a resignation letter yesterday after receiving notice that his contract would not be renewed by the college’s Board of Visitors. Several appointees to the board, who were pending reconfirmation, recently appeared at hearings before the Virginia House of Delegates’ Privileges and Elections Committee.

During the hearings, Nichol was strongly criticized for controversial decisions during his short reign as president. Committee Chairman Mark Cole stated that “a set of recent events warranted a more thorough review” of the Board of Visitors. The events cited as concerning were Nichol’s removal of the cross from Wren Chapel, the resulting loss of a $12 million gift and allowing a “Sex Workers’ Art Show.”

The confirmation hearings focused mainly on Nichol’s controversial actions. “If any university president in the Commonwealth has put a bad light on the Commonwealth … it’s Mr. Nichols,” said Del. Jeffrey Frederick. Del. Clarence Phillips asked the appointees for a commitment to ensure the college is known for “all right and good things,” to “do what’s necessary through your leadership and through your good name.” Committee Chairman Cole warned the appointees: “Everything that happens at William and Mary will rest on your shoulders.”

The controversies began in October 2006, when Nichol announced that the brass cross that had stood in Wren Chapel for 75 years would be removed. The decision ignited controversy among alumni, students and others across the Nation. Liberty Counsel sent a letter to President Nichol and the university chancellor, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, stating that the removal was unnecessary and unconstitutional and urging that the cross be returned. In December 2006, Nichol announced that the cross would be returned on Sundays, during Christian religious services or when requested by a visitor. Although this was a step in the right direction, college officials underestimated the fallout from their failure to return to the traditional display of the cross.

Following the decision to remove the cross from Wren Chapel, I said that the loss of confidence in President Nichol by alumni and donors could only be restored if he apologized for his role in removing the cross from the chapel where it has stood for the last 75 years. Now that President Nichol has stepped down, perhaps the rich religious heritage of the Nation’s oldest college can be restored to the rightful and historic place that it deserves. The Board of Visitors should appoint a president who will respect the religious heritage of the College of William and Mary.

Liberty Counsel To Argue Landmark Marriage Case At California Supreme Court

2008-02-06T16:38:00.000-05:00

The California Supreme Court has set oral argument for March 4 in a case involving the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Liberty Counsel, which represents the Campaign for California Families (CCF), will participate in the three-hour oral argument. The Court could ultimately decide whether same-sex couples in California have the right to enter into same-sex “marriages.”

This case involves a four-year-old dispute over the constitutionality of California’s marriage laws. In February 2004, Liberty Counsel filed suit on behalf of CCF and its executive director, Randy Thomasson, to stop San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The court ruled that the mayor did not have authority to issue the licenses based upon his personal belief that the marriage laws were unconstitutional. Meanwhile, several same-sex couples and the City and County of San Francisco filed several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the marriage laws. Those lawsuits and Liberty Counsel’s original action were consolidated and have gone through several court hearings and appeals, until finally reaching the California Supreme Court.

California has many common sense reasons for preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Marriage is a universally recognized social institution that forms the bedrock of every civilized society. Allowing same-sex couples to claim marital rights will destroy the unique institution that provides a stable cultural environment for children and their families.

American Religious History Week

2008-02-05T10:05:00.000-05:00

On December 18, 2007, Representative Randy Forbes (R-VA) introduced H.Res. 888, to designate the first week in May as American Religious History Week. The purpose of this Resolution is to affirm the rich, spiritual and religious history of our nation's founding and subsequent history, and to show appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.

This Resolution recognizes and acknowledges America's religious foundations rather than promoting attempts to remove or obscure such history from our schools and the public square. The full text of the Resolution can be read at http://thomas.loc.gov.

Currently, this Resolution is before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. A complete list of the Committee members can be found at http://oversight.house.gov/about/members.asp.

Joint Resolution to Protect Marriage

2008-02-04T11:45:00.000-05:00

On December 19, 2007, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) introduced H.J.Res. 74, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution relating to marriage. The text of the proposed amendment states that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of a legal union of one man and one woman."

On January 14, 2008, this resolution was sent to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. A complete list of the Subcommittee members can be found at http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx?committee=7.

Upon approval of such a resolution by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, it is sent directly to the Administrator of General Services for submission to the individual states for ratification. This resolution specifically calls for ratification by conventions in three-fourths of the states. If ratified, it will become a valid amendment to the Constitution and does not have to be presented to the President for approval.

Cloning and Stem Cell Legislation

2008-02-04T10:05:00.000-05:00

Currently, there are five important bills that have been introduced before the 110th Congress involving cloning and stem cell research.

H.R. 322, The Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act of 2007, was introduced by Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD). The purpose of the bill is to derive human pluripotent stem cell lines using technology that does not harm human embryos. The bill is before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Health. Contact the members of this committee at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Subcommittees/health.shtml.

H.R. 2807, The Patient's First Act of 2007, was introduced by Representative Randy Forbes (R-VA). The purpose of this bill is to intensify stem cell research showing the evidence of substantial clinical benefit to patients. This bill is also before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Health.

S.2358, The Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2007, was introduced by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KA). The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the development of human-animal hybrids. This bill is before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A complete list of committee members can be found at http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm.

S.1036, The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007, was also introduced by Senator Brownback. Its purpose is to prohibit human cloning. This bill is before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The Committee's members can be found at http://help.senate.gov/About.html. Representative Dave Weldon (R-FL) introduced the corresponding bill on the House side. H.R. 2564, also titled The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007, is House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. A list of members can be found at http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx?committee=6.

The full text of each of the five bills can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov.

Division of Elections Certifies Florida Marriage Protection Amendment for 2008 Ballot

2008-02-02T09:00:00.000-05:00

Late last night the Florida Division of Elections announced that the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment is now certified for the November 4, 2008 ballot with a total of 649,346 petitions. Within the last two weeks, 92,000 petitions were collected in order to exceed the 611,009 required before the February 1 deadline.

The amendment defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and would prohibit polygamy, group marriage, and same sex marriage from being recognized in Florida. The fight to bring this amendment to the ballot has been a coordinated effort by many individuals, organizations and churches. John Stemberger, State Chairman of Florida4Marriage.org, the official sponsor of the amendment, is to be commended for his extraordinary work in coordinating the petition drive. No marriage amendment effort in any state has gathered as many signatures.

In December, the Florida Division of Elections web site reported that more than enough petitions had counted and verified by the Supervisors of Elections, but then indicated in January that approximately 30,000 of the petitions were thrown out causing a shortage of approximately 22,000 petitions. With only two weeks remaining, groups and individuals all over the state rallied to collect more signatures to meet the February 1 deadline.

The process to amend the state constitution to protect marriage began in 2005 after a series of lawsuits were filed challenging Florida’s Defense of Marriage Act (which Mat Staver drafted) that was passed in 1997. A coalition of groups joined together and agreed on the language of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment that was drafted by Mat and Anita Staver. In January 2006, Mat Staver presented oral argument in defense of the language, and on March 23, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court in a 7-0 opinion rejected the ACLU’s challenge to the marriage amendment. Following the ruling by the Court, the task became obtaining the required number of signatures.

The marriage amendment states: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

When I heard the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment was certified for the ballot, words could not express my exhilaration. I am thankful that so many pastors and community leaders came together in a coordinated effort to accomplish the largest grassroots petition initiative in Florida’s history. The fact that so many people poured their hearts into this marriage amendment underscores the broad support to protect traditional marriage. The wave of citizens will turn into a tsunami of voters who will go to the polls in November to pass the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment. This is a victory for the family, for the children and for the future of Florida.

Liberty Counsel Files Brief at Iowa Supreme Court to Protect Traditional Marriage

2008-01-31T11:07:00.000-05:00

Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief at the Iowa Supreme Court in a case that will ultimately either protect or destroy the definition of marriage in Iowa, which has always been the union between one man and one woman. Liberty Counsel’s brief, written by Senior Litigation Attorney Mary McAlister, argues that the fundamental constitutional right to marry includes rights and obligations that cannot be eliminated because they come from the inherent nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, rather than from a state-sanctioned union of any two people who love each other.

In Varnum v. Brien, at various times in 2004 and 2005 six couples applied for marriage certificates to the Polk County Recorder and Polk County Registrar, Timothy Brien, who denied their applications for marriage on the basis of Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. Trial court Judge Robert Hanson ruled the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Brien appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Liberty Counsel submitted an Amicus Brief in support of Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. In previous cases the Iowa Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed that marriage – the union of one man and one woman – is a “most vital social institution.” State marriage laws do not create a bundle of rights called “marriage,” but instead regulate a social institution upon which society has been built and the future of society rests. Society is not obligated to recognize and bestow benefits upon any group of individuals who profess to love each other. The opposing side is actually trying to deconstruct the institution of marriage at the same time that they are asking to become a part of it. Furthermore, the definition of marriage neither discriminates on the basis of sex or sexual orientation nor deprives anyone of the fundamental right to marry.

Virtually every court that has considered challenges to traditional marriage has correctly concluded that the matter of marriage should be decided by the people, not by the courts. Courts are not proselytizing engines of radical social change. Marriage between one man and one woman is a historically shared value that transcends time and cultures. Untying the knot that holds together traditional marriage will unravel the family, destabilize the culture, and hurt children.

California School Board Accepts Community Service Hours Earned at Church

2008-01-29T08:50:00.000-05:00

The Long Beach District School Board has approved a settlement agreement with Christopher Rand, a high school student who was denied credit for community service hours he completed at his church. Chris has now received full credit for the hours. The district administration also rewrote its community service learning policy to allow students to complete mandatory community service hours at either secular or religious organizations, including churches, on the same terms.

In October 2007, Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit against the district because Chris’s school refused to grant credit for more than 70 hours of community service, solely because it was performed at Long Beach Alliance Church. He interacted with the children in the church’s programs, answered questions, assisted with crafts and art projects, supervised activity time to help ensure safety, and performed other duties.

After Chris submitted the required documentation regarding his volunteer service, he was denied credit because the district’s prior community service learning policy stated, “Service to your religious community does not count.” If Christopher had given the same service in a secular school or in a nonreligious childcare program, his service would have been credited. Shortly after Liberty Counsel filed suit, the district agreed to award Chris credit for the full 72.5 hours that had previously been rejected.

In addition to giving Chris credit for his community service, the district accepted input from Liberty Counsel in revising its policy to comply with the First Amendment. Under the new policy, religious organizations will receive the same treatment as other nonprofit organizations in terms of the types of community service work that is permitted. Students are expressly allowed to supervise and assist with leading organized children’s activities, such as those performed by Chris. The district also agreed to pay attorney’s fees and costs to Liberty Counsel.

When community service is a graduation requirement, schools cannot limit service to secular venues. Discrimination against performing community service for religious organizations violates the First Amendment and offends the rich religious heritage that made this country great.

Lawsuit Filed Against School Board For Discrimination Against Christian Club

2008-01-28T08:56:00.000-05:00

Liberty Counsel has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Child Evangelism Fellowship of Virginia (CEF) against Williamsburg-James City County Public Schools (“WJCC”), aimed at halting discriminatory treatment against the Christian organization.

The WJCC School Board insists on charging the Good News Club a facility usage fee, while granting Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and other “patriotic” and community service organizations a waiver for usage fees. CEF of Virginia’s initial request for a fee waiver was denied, and Liberty Counsel sent a letter informing the board that the First Amendment requires that CEF be accorded equal treatment with Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar service organizations. WJCC officials still denied CEF a fee waiver. WJCC policy gives the superintendent discretion to waive usage fees “in consideration of services rendered by public institutions or nonprofit organizations in direct support of public school students or staff.” Although CEF falls into that category, WJCC’s superintendent refused to grant CEF a fee waiver.

CEF is a nonprofit organization, and its after-school Good News Clubs provide lessons on responsible citizenship, including character development, respect for authority and community service from a Biblical viewpoint. These lessons complement the goals set forth in the school board’s policy under the heading “Educational Philosophy.” That policy states, “[T]he most important challenge facing the school is to provide each student with experiences for meeting his/her needs as a participating, responsible citizen in a democratic society.” The policy further provides that “to accomplish these goals, all available resources in the community, the home and the school must be used.”

WJCC recognizes the Boy Scouts and other youth-focused groups as beneficial community resources but continues to segregate the Good News Club by imposing the facility usage fee in violation of the U.S. Constitution. WJCC has attempted to justify its discriminatory treatment by saying that it is required to give free access to patriotic organizations, but that it’s not required under the No Child Left Behind Act to give free access to Good News Clubs. This argument is absurd. If anything, the Act strengthens the argument that Good News Clubs should receive free access to the facilities like the scouts and other patriotic organizations.

Equal access is the law, and equal access means equal treatment in every respect. Good News Clubs are one of the most positive influences that public schools can offer to parents and their children. It is absurd that anyone would want to reject an organization that promotes morality, responsibility, and character development. These are qualities that young children need to learn about and develop.

Two-Year Battle Finally Ends: FL District Changes Discriminatory Policy

2008-01-24T09:01:00.000-05:00

After two years, Liberty Counsel has settled a dispute with the Orange County School Board and Child Evangelism Fellowship of Central Florida (CEF) regarding discriminatory treatment against the Christian organization. The school district had been charging CEF facility usage fees, while allowing free access to other groups such as the Boy Scouts. After receiving a demand letter from Liberty Counsel, the school district has stopped charging CEF for access. The school board also adopted a new policy giving CEF equal access and refunded nearly $2,500 in prior fees collected under the unconstitutional policy. Liberty Counsel represents CEF of Central Florida, which offers its Good News Clubs after school.

In December of 2005, Liberty Counsel wrote Orange County Superintendent Ron Blocker, requesting that Good News Clubs be permitted to use facilities free of charge in light of the free use by the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and 4-H. Liberty Counsel received no response. In September of 2006, Liberty Counsel wrote Blocker again, asserting the unconstitutionality of the differential fee schedule and demanding equal access as well as a reimbursement of all fees. The school district’s attorney requested cases supporting CEF’s position. While the matter was being resolved, the district suspended charging CEF further fees. Liberty Counsel then began a long process of working with the district to revise the school board’s facility usage policy.

The policy had classified five types of user groups with different facility usage fees. In the first group for no charge were descriptions of various private organizations serving students, ending with “including Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and 4-H.” Another more expensive fee category included churches and religious organizations. Good News Clubs was classified as a religious organization. Orange County Schools’ attorney ultimately recommended a revised policy to delineate categories that expressly describe Scouts and Good News Clubs in the same category to eliminate the prior policy’s religious discrimination problems.

As part of the revision process, the district staff revisited other aspects of the facility use policy, and comprehensive revisions finally came before the board in the summer of 2007. In the fall, CEF offered to give up its court claims if all its fees were fully refunded within two months. The day before the offer expired, it was accepted and a refund check from the district was received. The attorneys then negotiated a settlement and release agreement which was signed on January 11.

After-school Good News Clubs teach children respect, good citizenship and moral values from a biblical viewpoint. Liberty Counsel has obtained victories for CEF in numerous states from coast to coast and frequently litigates when school districts do not correct unfair treatment of Good News Clubs.

The law is crystal clear. Christian viewpoints are constitutionally protected. Public schools must provide equal access for Christian viewpoints and Christian clubs.

"Facing The Giants" Faces Discrimination At School

2008-01-21T09:02:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday, following a complaint from an unidentified person, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) sent a demand letter to Tuscaloosa City Schools and Paul W. Bryant High School, asking that all teachers be told not to show the film, Facing the Giants. Liberty Counsel has offered its assistance to the school district and any of its officials or employees to defend them against AU’s claims.

Two classes at Paul W. Bryant High School watched Facing the Giants during class before Christmas break. The movie is an inspirational film about a high school football team which overcomes many obstacles to become a winning team. The film was produced by Sherwood Pictures, associated with Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia. SONY Pictures was the major funder and distributor of the inspirational film. The movie is family-friendly and has been distributed around the world.

AU claims that showing the movie in a public school classroom somehow establishes a religion. In response to the complaint, the school suspended further viewing of the movie to investigate the matter. Liberty Counsel has explained to the school district that claims made by AU are not legally sound. Liberty Counsel has offered to represent the school at no cost.

There is no constitutional violation when public school teachers include, within the mix of curriculum or assemblies, various symbols, music, art, drama or literature that has overtly religious themes. If the school is providing exposure to a variety of viewpoints on a given subject matter or an array of cultural narratives, there is no violation of the First Amendment.

Here we go again with another bogus threatening letter from an antireligious organization which has a truncated view of the world. In the worldview of Americans United, there is no room for religion. The problem with that view is that it is contrary to our heritage, history and the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not require that public schools become religion-free zones.

Facing the Giants is an inspirational, family-friendly movie that is available everywhere in DVD format. Mat and Anita Staver had the privilege of meeting the writers and producers, and they recommend the movie for family viewing.

No Fear: Pastors and Churches May Actively Support the Federal Marriage Amendment

2008-01-11T09:11:00.000-05:00

Pastors and churches should not be intimidated by baseless threats seeking to silence them. They may actively support the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment and state initiatives designed to preserve traditional marriage. Liberty Counsel provides free representation to pastors and churches regarding political activity.

History does not support the baseless threats hurled against conservative churches. Since 1934, when the lobbying restriction was added to the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”), not one church has ever lost its tax-exempt status. Since 1954, when the political endorsement/opposition prohibition was added, only one church has ever lost its IRS letter ruling, but even that church did not lose its tax-exempt status. That case involved the Church at Pierce Creek in New York, which placed full-page ads in USA Today and the Washington Times opposing then-Governor Bill Clinton for President. The ads were sponsored by the Church and donations were solicited. The IRS revoked the Church’s letter ruling, but not its tax-exempt status. The Church sued, and the court ruled that churches are tax exempt without an IRS letter ruling. The Court noted that “because of the unique treatment churches receive under the Internal Revenue Code, the impact of the revocation is likely to be more symbolic than substantial.” Not even this Church lost its tax-exempt status, and not one donor was affected by this incident.

While churches may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office, pastors can preach on biblical and moral issues, such as traditional marriage and abortion, can urge the congregation to register and vote, can overview the positions of the candidates, and may personally endorse candidates. Churches may distribute nonpartisan voter guides, register voters, provide transportation to the polls, hold candidate forums, and introduce visiting candidates.

Churches may promote and endorse pending legislation or marriage amendments or initiatives. The only limitation is that the churches do not devote more than a substantial part of their overall activity toward lobbying. No church has every lost its tax exemption for engaging in too much lobbying.

Pastors should throw away the muzzles that some wish to impose on them and replace them with megaphones. It was sermons of pastors that fueled the American Revolution. America needs her pastors to once again speak up and address the religious and moral issues of the day. It is far more likely to be struck by lightening twice than for churches to lose their tax-exempt status over political issues.

Pastors, Churches and Politics and the Primaries

2008-01-11T09:07:00.000-05:00

As the presidential race continues, the focus now turns to Michigan. Evangelicals are expected to play an influential role in this and other upcoming primaries. In Iowa, some pastors received anonymous letters saying they should not preach on religious or political issues because they might land in the “slammer.” Such threats are baseless, but they do illustrate the increasing role that pastors play in politics and the attempts by some to silence them.

History does not support the baseless threats hurled against pastors and churches. Since 1934, when the lobbying restriction was added to the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”), not one church has ever lost its tax-exempt status. Since 1954, when the political endorsement/opposition prohibition was added, only one church has ever lost its IRS letter ruling, but even that church did not lose its tax-exempt status. That case involved the Church at Pierce Creek in New York, which placed full-page ads in USA Today and the Washington Times opposing then-Governor Bill Clinton for President. The ads were sponsored by the Church and donations were solicited. The IRS revoked the Church’s letter ruling, but not its tax-exempt status. The Church sued, and the court ruled that churches are tax exempt without an IRS letter ruling. The Court noted that “because of the unique treatment churches receive under the Internal Revenue Code, the impact of the revocation is likely to be more symbolic than substantial.” Not even this Church lost its tax-exempt status, and not one donor was affected by this incident.

While churches may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office, pastors can preach on biblical and moral issues, such as traditional marriage and abortion, can urge the congregation to register and vote, can overview the positions of the candidates, and may personally endorse candidates. Churches may distribute nonpartisan voter guides, register voters, provide transportation to the polls, hold candidate forums, and introduce visiting candidates.

Churches may promote and endorse pending legislation or marriage amendments or initiatives. The only limitation is that the churches not devote more than a substantial part of their overall activity to lobbying. No church has every lost its tax exemption for engaging in too much lobbying.

Pastors should throw away the muzzles that some wish to impose on them and replace them with megaphones. It was sermons of pastors that fueled the American Revolution. America needs her pastors to once again speak up and address the religious and moral issues of the day. It is far more likely to be struck by lightening twice than for churches to lose their tax-exempt status over political issues.

Inside the ACLU's Pro-Illegal Alien Agenda

2007-08-21T09:59:00.000-04:00

Liberty Counsel President Anita Staver recently participated in a lengthy interview on the Andrea Shea King show, with Hazelton, PA mayor Lou Barletta. The issues was the illegal alien problem in that city and the immigration crisis in America.

Andrea Shea King has posted some information on her "Radio Patriot" blog today, including the recorded interview.

There is also an important Petition to President Bush at www.libertyaction.org

CNN Presents: God's Warriors, Featuring Mathew Staver and Rev. Jerry Falwell

2007-08-20T09:57:00.000-04:00

CNN visited Liberty Counsel, Liberty University and its School of Law recently as part of an extensive documentary regarding the effect of Christianity on politics, culture, and public life. CNN will debut "God's Warriors," a three-night documentary premiering tomorrow, which investigates three faiths: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Each faith is featured separately, from 9 to 11 pm ET, beginning with Judaism on Tuesday and ending with "God's Christian Warriors" on Thursday night.

"God's Christian Warriors" will lead off with the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder of Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University, the world's largest evangelical university. Christiane Amanpour flew from London to conduct the interview, which was Rev. Falwell's last media appearance before he died on May 15.

Following Rev. Falwell are interviews with Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, and Megan and Mandy Chapman. Staver spoke about training a new a generation of lawyers, judges and policymakers to influence law and public policy from the perspective of a Christian worldview. He also spoke of Liberty Counsel's success defending religious freedom in the courts. Megan and Mandy were Liberty Counsel clients, whom Liberty Counsel successfully defended against the ACLU regarding graduation prayer. They both now attend Liberty University, and Megan is an intern with Liberty Counsel.

CNN spent eight days filming Liberty Counsel and Liberty University. One of the interviews with Dean Staver was done against the backdrop of the School of Law's unique Supreme Courtroom, where the central features reflect an exact replica of the U.S. Supreme Court.

CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour traveled to six countries on four continents with the intention of discovering how three major religions impact people's lives and the world around us. As Amanpour explains, "There are millions of people around the world who feel that their faith is being ignored - pushed aside - and they are certain they know how to make the world right. We cannot and should not ignore them. And, with this report, we've tried to explain them."

The Christian worldview animates everything we do. We are training a new generation of lawyers, judges, policymakers and world leaders to have a positive impact on law and policy. Our faith does matter. Silence and apathy are not an option. Prayer and action will change the culture for good.

California Supreme Court Considers Conflict Over State Defense Of Marriage Act

2007-08-17T09:52:00.000-04:00

Today Liberty Counsel filed briefs at the California Supreme Court in the ongoing battle to protect marriage laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Liberty Counsel represents the Campaign for Children and Families (CCF). Opposing parties include San Francisco and several pro-homosexual groups. The California Supreme Court is expected to hold oral argument in this case early next year and could ultimately decide whether or not same-sex couples have the right to enter into same-sex "marriages."

The constitutionality of California's marriage laws was challenged more than three years ago. In February 2004 Liberty Counsel filed suit on behalf of CCF and its executive director, Randy Thomasson, to stop San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The court ruled that the mayor did not have authority to issue the licenses based upon his personal belief that the marriage laws were unconstitutional. Meanwhile, several same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco filed four separate lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the marriage laws. Those four lawsuits and Liberty Counsel's original action were consolidated and have gone through several court hearings and appeals, until finally reaching the California Supreme Court.

In this case, Liberty Counsel argues that the rights of married couples cannot be given to same-sex couples unless the California constitution is amended. California's Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed overwhelmingly by voters in 2000, means that same-sex "marriages" are not legally recognized in California, whether performed in state or out of state. Any other interpretation of the Act would violate both the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution.

Marriage is a universally recognized social institution, and not even the legislature can change the meaning of the relationship. Allowing same-sex couples to claim marital rights will destroy the unique institution that forms the bedrock of every civilized society.

Read the briefs in PDF format:

Supplemental Brief

Reply Brief

Renowned Constitutional Attorney Joins Liberty Counsel's Legal Team

2007-08-13T09:51:00.000-04:00

Steve Crampton Becomes Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel

Stephen M. Crampton has joined Liberty Counsel as Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel. Crampton previously served for several years as Chief Counsel of the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy in Tupelo, Mississippi.

Crampton has practiced constitutional and civil rights litigation since 1993. He has served as lead counsel in numerous cases, many of which have resulted in reported decisions in state and federal district and appellate courts. In his role as a policy advisor, Crampton has assisted in drafting legislation and advising lawmakers on constitutional issues at both state and national levels.

Crampton frequently speaks around the country on current events and social issues. He has appeared as a guest on nationally televised news programs on CNN, FOX News and MSNBC. He has been quoted in major publications such as The Washington Post, The Washington Times and the National Law Journal. He has authored columns appearing on Alan Keyes' RenewAmerica.com, WorldNetDaily.com, AFA.net, and ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com, among others.

Mr. Crampton received his law degree from the University of New Mexico, where he was a member of the Law Review. He is admitted to practice law in the states of Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas and New Mexico, before every federal appeals court, and the United States Supreme Court.

Steve Crampton is a terrific addition to our legal staff. It has been a pleasure to collaborate with Steve on litigation, case strategy and policy issues for many years, but it is even more exciting to actually have him join the Liberty Counsel team. His presence will strengthen our already excellent litigation team.

Candidates Court Same-Sex Couples While Most Americans Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

2007-08-07T09:50:00.000-04:00

The Democratic presidential candidates will reach out to homosexual and lesbian voters through an upcoming televised debate scheduled for August 9 on a cable network geared toward supporters of the same-sex lifestyle.

The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual and lesbian rights advocacy group, will host the event along with Logo, a cable network geared to the homosexual and lesbian community. Early reports indicate that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards will participate in the debate in Los Angeles at 6 p.m. on August 9, which will air live on Logo.

One of the topics on the debate will be whether the candidates support same-sex marriage, adoption, civil unions and the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for homosexuals and lesbians. The candidates' positions on these issues will determine not only which candidate the homosexual and lesbian voters will support, but will provide information for the majority of Americans who reject the radical homosexual agenda and support traditional family values.

Over the past year an increasing number of Americans have recognized that same-sex marriage should not be legalized. According to the most recent national survey released by the Pew Research Center, 57% of the public oppose same-sex marriage. Last year only 51% opposed same-sex marriage. The results clearly show that opinion is shifting. More and more Americans are supporting the centuries-old definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Additionally, the results of the survey showed that the majority also oppose so-called "civil unions," which is merely a different way of giving same-sex couples the benefits of marriage under a different name. The number of supporters for civil unions, which would give same-sex couples many of the same rights and benefits as married couples, dropped to 45%, the lowest it has been since 2003. Only 11% of the public say that same-sex couple parenting is good for society, while 50% say it is bad for society. The survey results are found in an 88-page Pew Research Center report that compiled interviews of over 2,000 randomly chosen adult participants.

Public support for traditional marriage will continue to grow as more Americans realize that the institution of marriage is the bedrock of our society and is necessary to support the healthy development of this Nation's families. Same-sex marriage is a misnomer. Rather than being a variant of marriage, it is the deconstruction of marriage and will unravel the family.

Judge Forces Idaho To Fund Estrogen Treatment for Man Who Thinks He Is A Woman

2007-08-03T09:49:00.000-04:00

Federal district Judge Mikel Williams ruled on Friday that the Idaho Department of Correction must provide an inmate with estrogen therapy. The judge will consider continuing treatment when the issue goes to trial. The inmate believes that he is a woman trapped in a man's body. The man, who castrated himself using a disposable razor blade while in prison, demanded female hormone therapy. He also changed his name from Randall Gammett to Jenniffer Spencer. The man is serving a 10-year sentence for escape and possession of a stolen car.

After prison officials refused estrogen therapy, but instead offered testosterone therapy to replace the hormones lost to castration, the inmate sued, alleging he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and other constitutional violations.

State officials said the inmate was in prison for several years before demanding treatment. In 2004, he survived an attempted suicide. Two months later he tried to castrate himself, failing in the first attempt but later succeeding. He was diagnosed with an unspecified sexual disorder and bipolar disorder.

Liberty Counsel is a nationwide legal organization with experience in litigation of transsexual legal issues. In June 2004, Liberty Counsel won a case on behalf of a Florida woman against the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represented a woman who, after watching an MTV program and so-called "sex reassignment surgery," changed her name from Margo to Michael, began testosterone treatment, and then had a total mastectomy and hysterectomy. This person then wanted to be considered "male" for purposes of Florida's marriage laws. Although a trial court judge wrote an 809-page opinion claiming that gender is primarily a "state of mind," Liberty Counsel got the ruling overturned on appeal. The appeals court ruled that "the common meaning of male and female . . . [refers] to immutable traits determined at birth."

Hormones and plastic surgery do not change a person's sex, which is an immutable trait fixed at birth. Plastic surgery and hormone treatment to alter a person's sexual appearance is no more warranted than is liposuction for an anorexic. The state should not be compelled to fund so-called sex reassignment surgery, especially when such treatment is not widely accepted, is experimental, and has not been shown to resolve the disturbed mental behavior.

School District Faces Federal Lawsuit for Stonewalling Religious Club

2007-08-02T09:48:00.000-04:00

Today Liberty Counsel filed a federal lawsuit against the Gadsden City School District on behalf of Child Evangelism Fellowship of Alabama (CEF) and its director, Ed Solomon, because of the district's discriminatory treatment of CEF. The lawsuit asks that the district be required to treat CEF clubs on an equal basis with secular groups that have used school facilities. CEF staff made several written and oral requests to Gadsden City School Superintendent Rob Russell for a meeting about the club, but the superintendent refused to discuss the issue.

The district policy states that "organizations devoted to instruction of children or well-being of the community" shall be permitted to use district facilities so long as the applicant obtains permission from the principal and the superintendent. The policy does not contain any timelines, procedures or other free speech safeguards that are required by the Constitution.

District facilities have been used by various secular groups including Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Junior Achievement, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, and Cub Scouts. In July 2004, CEF applied to meet after school with Bob Russell, the superintendent. The superintendent did not respond and refused to return calls. CEF then sent another written request in August 2005, and the superintendent ignored the request and refused to return phone calls. In September 2006, CEF send a third written request and made repeated phone calls to Mr. Russell, and he refused to meet with CEF representatives. He also refused to respond to emails. Earlier this year, CEF contacted Liberty Counsel for assistance. Even after Liberty Counsel sent a demand letter to Mr. Russell and the school board members, the district did not respond.

Good News Clubs are a free, nationwide, after-school program for children between the ages of five and twelve. At the meetings, trained CEF teachers present lessons from the Bible and teach children character development, moral values, interpersonal skills and respect for authority.

Liberty Counsel has been successful in helping CEF fight discrimination against Good News Clubs all across America. Many issues are solved without litigation, but Liberty Counsel does not hesitate to sue when school officials are unwilling to abide by the Constitution.

The history of this case illustrates why the policies affecting speech must have specific criteria and time limits, so that government officials are precluded from censoring speech by inaction or delay. Good News Clubs teach morals and character development from a Christian viewpoint, and they have been profoundly effective in changing the lives of young children for the better. Good News Clubs are good for students and good for schools. Public schools should be begging Child Evangelism Fellowship to start Good News Clubs.

Lawsuit Causes County To Reverse Course And Allow Religious Flyers in Parks

2007-08-01T09:47:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, in response to a federal lawsuit filed by Liberty Counsel, Orange County officials agreed to not prohibit Shirley Snyder from distributing religious literature in the public parks. Liberty Counsel filed the lawsuit on July 20, after Snyder was stopped in Cypress Grove Park from passing out tracts about Jesus and a flyer announcing a church service.

A park official filed an affidavit in federal court yesterday stating, "If Shirley Snyder would like to distribute leaflets or other printed matter within Orange County Parks, she may do so within normal park hours of operation without prior approval from Orange County." The affidavit also showed that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners amended the Orange County Parks and Recreation Division's Rules and Regulations yesterday by removing the restrictions against literature distribution in the public parks. The former rules were unconstitutional because they required prior approval of the literature by the county.

The first hearing on the lawsuit is scheduled for August 17 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge John Antoon II at the federal courthouse in Orlando. Although the County has agreed to allow Snyder to distribute literature in the parks in the future, the new policy does not undo the damage caused by the County's original literature ban. An opportunity lost is an opportunity that can never be regained.

The First Amendment guarantees that public parks and sidewalks in America will remain free and open to expression. Orange County should have known better than to ban religious literature from our public parks. Government officials have a responsibility to educate themselves about constitutional rights, so they don't have to learn their civics lessons in court.

Sixty Groups Decry Judiciary Committee's Inaction On Judicial Nominees

2007-07-26T09:45:00.000-04:00

Yesterday a coalition of about 60 groups, including Liberty Counsel, delivered a letter to each member of the Senate Judiciary Committee urging them to make sure "each and every judicial nominee is given a hearing and is reported out of committee for consideration by the full Senate in a timely manner." The letter complains that the lack of progress by the committee "has made it impossible for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent in good faith."

The letter points to evidence of the lack of action: "Five appeals court nominees - three of them waiting to fill vacancies declared 'judicial emergencies' - and 14 district court nominees are languishing in the Judiciary Committee. Four additional appeals court nominations have just been announced. Several nominees have been waiting for more than a year for the committee to do its job."

The groups also decry the fact that some "nominees are being subjected to obstruction borne of partisan politics" and cite as a prime example the "ugly campaign of character assassination" against Judge Leslie Southwick, who sat for 12 years on the Mississippi Court of Appeals. Judge Southwick is a well-qualified Iraq War veteran nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The letter states that "broken promises and personal attacks on nominees that have accompanied this inaction - as well as the unfairness of denying qualified nominees a fair up-or-down vote by the full Senate - only add to the public perception that your committee is not living up to its responsibilities." The letter concludes by requesting that Judiciary Committee members accomplish the necessary tasks "by putting statesmanship above politics and special interests."

Our judicial system is far too important to fall victim to partisan politics. The federal court system desperately needs more good judges, but many well-qualified individuals will refuse to serve rather than subject themselves to the whims and endless delays of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In order to administer justice in the courts, we need judges. It is time for the Senate Judiciary Committee to set aside partisan politics and begin serving the public.

A copy of the letter is posted on Liberty Counsel's website at www.LC.org/news.

Liberty Counsel Sues Florida County For Banning Religious Flyers in a Public Park

2007-07-20T09:44:00.000-04:00

Liberty Counsel filed a federal lawsuit today against Orange County, Florida for prohibiting a woman from distributing flyers to people in a public park inviting them to an Easter service at her church. Liberty Counsel represents Shirley Snyder in a lawsuit requesting the federal court to enjoin Orange County from violating Snyder's right to freedom of speech and religion so that she can distribute religious literature in the public park.

On April 1, Snyder was at Cypress Grove Park in Orange County inviting people to an Easter service scheduled for the following Sunday at Orlando Baptist Church. She also distributed pocket-size tracts about Jesus Christ. Snyder was told by a county employee who worked in the park that she must stop passing out the literature because it was illegal to do so.

Snyder spoke with the park supervisor, who gave her a copy of the Parks and Recreation Department Rules and Regulations. The supervisor told her not to distribute literature again until she followed the rules and regulations which required permission to distribute literature in public parks. The supervisor told her to submit a copy of the literature along with a written request containing the specific days she wishes to hand out literature and the means of distribution. A committee would review her request and grant or deny permission.

The county's rules violate Snyder's constitutionally protected right to free expression. Of all places, speech in public parks is highly protected, both by history and by the courts.

Synder has traditionally distributed religious literature during the Easter season. In April, 1993, Snyder wanted to distribute literature at the Orlando International Airport on Good Friday, but the airport required a lengthy application process, onerous identification requirements and liability insurance. Liberty Counsel filed suit against the airport and obtained a restraining order against the airport and gained Snyder the right to distribute the literature. The airport changed its policy as a result of the suit.

In America, we do not need permission from a government committee prior to mechanically handing a flyer to a willing recipient in a public park. The government cannot create speech-free zones in public parks. Protecting private religious expressing was the motivating factor behind the First Amendment. The voice of freedom is most at home in public parks.

Hate Crimes Amendment Sneaks Into Senate Defense Reauthorization Bill

2007-07-12T08:32:00.000-04:00

Washington, DC - The so-called "hate crimes" legislation took a new form yesterday when Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) introduced the controversial amendment to a Defense Reauthorization bill. This move will could push senators to vote on the issue as early as this week.

Introduced as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Kennedy amendment is one of more than 100 amendments attached to the Defense Reauthorization bill. An ABC 20/20 investigation showed that the Matthew Shepard murder, portrayed by activists as a hate crime because Shepard was homosexual, was in fact a bungled robbery that had nothing to do with Shepard's homosexuality.

Hate crimes laws are actually "thought crimes" laws that violate the right to freedom of speech and of conscience and subject individuals to scrutiny of their beliefs rather than focusing on a person's criminal actions. Hate crimes laws will have a chilling effect on people who have moral or religious objections to homosexual behavior. Evidence of a person's beliefs will be used against any individuals who are even suspected of committing a crime. In a debate on a similar bill that passed the House in May, Rep. Artur Davis, who supported the bill, admitted that under this law a minister could be charged with the crime of incitement if the minister preached that homosexuality is a serious sin and a person in the congregation left church and committed a crime against a homosexual. Liberty Counsel has published a legal memo that explains the dangers of hate crimes legislation.

The White House called this bill "unnecessary" and "constitutionally questionable," pointing out that "State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime." President Bush has promised to veto the bill.
Hate Crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation is bad law because it criminalizes speech and does nothing to prevent violent crimes. All crimes are motivated by hate. Hate Crimes laws will not be used to punish the perpetrator, but will be used to silence people of faith, religious groups, clergy, and those who support traditional moral values.

Supreme Court Ruling on Faith-Based Initiatives

2007-06-25T10:55:00.000-04:00

Washington, DC - Today, the United States Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision, rejected a challenge by a radical separationist advocacy group that sued to stop federal funding of "faith-based programs." The case of Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation challenged funding for federal faith-based programs as a violation of the Establishment Clause. Justice Alito read the Court's opinion which held that taxpayers cannot challenge actions of the Executive Branch as violations of the Establishment Clause.
In 2002 President Bush established a Faith Based and Community Initiatives Plan to award grants intended to connect faith-based programs and grassroots community organizations to the United States' One-Stop Career System. This program has proven to be helpful within communities nationwide, offering services such as rehabilitation programs, assistance to the homeless, and providing career services to those in need.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) filed a lawsuit against the director of the program, Jay Hein, claiming that federal tax dollars supporting religion was a violation of the Establishment Clause. The trial court held that FFRF lacked standing to sue, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversed the order. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled against FFRF, which will stop the suit from going forward.
FFRF argued that taxpayers who objected to federal funding of the faith-based programs should be allowed to sue to block such funding. Today's ruling rejecting this claim creates a precedent that the mere status of being a taxpayer does not provide grounds to object to the federal government's spending based on an alleged violation of the Establishment Clause. Had the Court ruled the other way and allowed broad taxpayer standing to challenge the disbursement of federal funds, the floodgates of litigation would be open for any taxpayer to sue the federal government by claiming any number of federal disbursements caused them to be offended.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation would like nothing more than to wield a wrecking ball across the land to demolish religious expression. The ruling by the Supreme Court is a significant setback to this organization's wrecking ball agenda.

President Bush Vetoes Embryonic Stem Cell Research Bill

2007-06-20T10:54:00.000-04:00

Washington, D.C. - Today President George W. Bush, for the second time, vetoed an embryonic stem cell research bill. Speaking in the East Room of the White House where last year he vetoed a similar bill, President Bush stated, "I made it clear to Congress and the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line." "Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical, and it is not the only option before us," he said.
The veto ceremony was attended by patients and scientists who oppose research that involves human embryos. During the veto ceremony, President Bush also issued an executive order which directs that the Health and Human Services Department promote research into "pluripotent" stem cells. These stem cells have the potential to regenerate cell types and body tissues without use of embryonic stem cells.
In response to the veto, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) stated, "When I am president, I will lift the ban on stem cell research."
The Bush administration has correctly made a distinction between adult stem cell research, which the President supports, and embryonic stem cell research, which the President opposes. The former does not have the moral dilemma of creating life only to destroy it through research, as does the latter.
President Bush has taken a principled stand that promotes science while respecting the sanctity of human life. Science and morality are not enemies. While we must find ways to cure disease and save lives, we must never devalue human life in the process. Our first commitment must be to life, because without the right to life, all other rights are illusory. The President has always maintained the proper balance between science and morality.

Supreme Court Says States Can Require Unions To Obtain Consent From Workers Before Funding Politics

2007-06-14T10:53:00.000-04:00

Washington, DC - The United States Supreme Court ruled today that states can require labor unions to obtain consent before spending mandatory fees collected from nonmembers for election-related purposes. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the unanimous opinion in the case of Davenport v. Washington Education Association.
The Court held that because a public-employee union collects the nonmember funds only with the affirmative approval of the State of Washington, the state can place a condition on the collection of funds from state employees who are not members of the union.
Traditionally, the burden has been put on workers to object to the union's spending. Workers have a First Amendment right to object to political spending, entitling them to a refund of a portion of their dues. A Washington state voter-approved initiative was passed to require the unions to obtain approval from the fee payer instead of requiring the fee payer to request a refund from the union. The 70,000-member state teachers' union vigorously objected to the law.
The law in the State of Washington has since been changed by the state's Democrat-controlled legislature and governor and, again, makes the nonmembers request a refund. However, the principles of this ruling will impact other states that may decide to pass similar laws. It will also refuel the debate about the problem of compulsory unionism and the First Amendment issues raised by forcing workers to support unions in order to enter a chosen profession.This case illustrates the audacity of some union leaders who argued they have a constitutional right to extract money from employees to pay for their political objectives. Unions cannot advance their liberal political agendas by extorting wages from employees. An employee should not be forced to fund objectionable ideological causes as a prerequisite to earning a living.

Child Evangelism Fellowship Overcomes Unfair Discrimination At County Fair

2007-06-14T10:47:00.000-04:00

Caldwell, ID - The Canyon County Fair & Festival Board has reversed its decision to add unconstitutional restrictions to Child Evangelism Fellowship of Idaho's (CEF) use of fair exhibit space. Shortly after Liberty Counsel sent a demand letter, the Board agreed to allow CEF to continue its tradition of face painting and sharing literature and a Christian message to children at the fair, which will be held July 26-30. The Board has now provided a new contract for CEF that will allow the ministry to operate a booth at the fair without the discriminatory restrictions.
For the past decade, CEF has distributed trinkets, literature, and offered free face painting to children at the fair. When CEF applied for a booth earlier this year, the Board refused to allow CEF to serve children unless parents were also present. Fair director Rosalie Moore told Bob Smith, the state director for CEF, that the restriction was based on the religious materials and presentations of CEF. The only other vendor at the fair with a similar restriction was Gideon International, the other exhibitor presenting a message with a religious viewpoint.
Liberty Counsel intervened on behalf of CEF by sending a demand letter, pointing out that the restrictions were a violation of CEF's right to freedom of speech. The Board's attorney responded, promising a new contract for CEF to specifically allow face painting and exclude any restrictions based on religious viewpoints. Liberty Counsel also stated in the letter that applying the same restrictions to Gideon International was also unconstitutional, and the Board agreed to also lift the restrictions from that group.
CEF is an international, nonprofit organization which has been in existence for over seventy years and is currently in 157 countries. CEF sponsors Good News Clubs, an after-school enrichment program for elementary-age students, as well as a number of other outreach activities designed to teach biblical principles, moral values, character qualities, and respect for authority.
A barrier based on the religious viewpoint of groups seeking access to government-sponsored events like county fairs violates the right to freedom of speech. Whether the government bans a group from a fair because of the group's religious views or imposes discriminatory restrictions based on religion, the outcome is the same - the Constitution is violated. Instead of imposing restrictions, the government should welcome Child Evangelism Fellowship's positive messages of respect, morality and character development.

School District Learns That Religious Discrimination In Sports Is Out-Of-Bounds

2007-06-13T10:46:00.000-04:00

Buckner, KY - On Monday, the North Oldham County School District reversed a decision that discriminated against junior Kim Osborne because of her religion, after receiving a demand letter from Liberty Counsel. In a letter to Superintendent Paul S. Upchurch, Liberty Counsel explained how a volleyball coach's denial of Kim's request to miss practice to attend a Christian youth event violated the First Amendment.
Kim had attempted to get approval from Coach Brian Jones in January to miss practice, a full six months before a Lutheran Church National Youth Gathering. Coach Jones he said he would speak with another coach about the situation. Believing that the coach would accommodate her request, Kim raised money for the gathering, paid for registration and purchased a plane ticket before she learned recently that if she missed practice, she would be thrown off the volleyball team.
Coach Jones told the three-year team veteran that summer practice was absolutely mandatory and refused to excuse her for the event. However, he allowed two other players to miss a week of summer practice to attend the Governor's Scholars Program, a Kentucky program to encourage future civic and economic leaders. Kim was told to choose between her place on the team or her trip to the Christian event that only takes place once every three years. Karen Osborne, Kim's mother, contacted Liberty Counsel for assistance.
Now that the school district has agreed to grant Kim the same accommodation given to her teammates who miss for nonreligious reasons, she is free to attend the Christian event without losing her place on the volleyball team.
Students do not have to choose between their faith and participation in sports. If a school can accommodate students who need to attend secular events, then failure to accommodate attendance at religious events is unconstitutional.

Liberty Counsel and Campaign for California Families Defend Marriage in CA

2007-06-07T10:45:00.000-04:00

San Francisco, CA - Today, on behalf of Campaign for California Families, Liberty Counsel filed a 93-page brief at the California Supreme Court in defense of the state's marriage laws. The brief urges the California Supreme Court to uphold the centuries-old institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Liberty Counsel has filed its brief only days after the California legislature voted on two bills that would deconstruct marriage. The California Assembly passed AB 43, which would permit same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses. Meanwhile, the California Senate passed SB 11, which would grant marriage benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples. Such benefits are already available to same-sex couples since the passage of AB 205. AB 43 is the second time the legislature has tried to institute same-sex "marriage" in direct contradiction to the will of California voters, who in 2000 overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The legislature has no authority to pass laws authorizing same-sex marriage because they contravene Prop 22, which was passed by the people in a statewide vote.
Prop 22, which affirms the institution of marriage, is the subject of the case presently before the California Supreme Court. Liberty Counsel's brief filed today asks the Court to uphold marriage, which is recognized "as a social institution based upon the biological and social facts of human sexuality and reproduction, which are what enable society to continue." For more than 150 years, the California Supreme Court has recognized that "marriage is the institution upon which the structure of society is built." Nothing in the last 150 years has changed that reality.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation of society. Procreation and the best interest and well-being of children are sound reasons to support traditional marriage. Same-sex relationships can neither create nor prepare future generations like opposite-sex couples. Marriage stabilizes opposite-sex relations and fosters an environment that is in the best interest of children. Deconstructing marriage to include same-sex relationships will damage children and severely impact future generations.

Law that Booted Churches from Commercial Zones Gets the Boot

2007-06-05T10:44:00.000-04:00

Washburn, WI - The City Council of Washburn, Wisconsin, voted to repeal its zoning ordinance, which violated the First Amendment and federal law, to eliminate discriminatory restrictions on churches. The ordinance previously prohibited any church from locating on commercial property, even though the code permitted other nonreligious public assemblies within the same commercial districts.
The change in Washburn was made as a result of Chequamegon Community Fellowship's attempt to purchase a commercial building earlier this year. Pastor David Johnson had to cut short negotiations to purchase property on which to build the church when he was informed by the city that churches were prohibited in the commercial district.
The week before a crucial meeting of the City Planning Commission, church officials contacted Liberty Counsel for assistance. After reviewing the ordinance, Liberty Counsel concluded that the city code violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. As a result, a presentation to the City Planning Commission was prepared that requested the illegal restriction not be applied. The Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council change the ordinance and allow churches within the commercial district. Now, the Council has formally passed the recommended amendment and removed the illegal zoning restriction.
Local governments may not establish 'church-free' zones. Historically, churches have been viewed as a benefit to society. Churches not only nourish the human soul, they also provide for many daily needs of the community. Local governments must allow churches to minister in every zoning district in order to reach the people.

Zoning Ordinance That Banned Churches Rescinded Following Lawsuit

2007-06-04T10:43:00.000-04:00

Titusville, PA - Following a federal lawsuit by Liberty Counsel on behalf of Lighthouse Christian Center, the City Council of Titusville, Pennsylvania, has now voted to modify its zoning ordinance to eliminate a discriminatory zoning provision that prohibited any church from locating in a commercial district.
Until last summer, Lighthouse was located in a nearby town in a small building with no sewer or running water. The church outgrew the facility and then secured an opportunity to lease within Titusville's C-1 commercial zone. The Titusville zoning code did not allow churches, but permitted theaters, clubs, lodges, bars and amusements in its commercial districts. Lighthouse was forced outside the city of Titusville, where it rented a temporary building that lacks heat and insulation.
Following settlement of Liberty Counsel's lawsuit and the passage of this new ordinance, Lighthouse moved to a downtown facility where it can operate its outreach program, which will include a Christian bookstore, television ministry, outreach to teens, and church services.
Liberty Counsel sued the city on behalf of Lighthouse in July 2006, alleging that the city's "church-free" zoning ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The city settled the lawsuit for violations of RLUIPA and the United States Constitution by agreeing to allow the church to locate downtown, amending its code and paying attorney's fees.
We are pleased that local governments are getting the message that churches are not second-class property owners. The First Amendment and federal law both provide that churches and houses of worship should receive equal, if not preferential, treatment to other similar zoning uses. Churches are not orphans to any zoning district.

LC Asks Supreme Court To Apply Federal DOMA to Protect Parental Rights

2007-06-03T10:15:00.000-04:00

Yesterday Liberty Counsel filed a Petition with the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to resolve a nationwide split in opinions between various state courts concerning the parental rights of fit, biological parents over unrelated third parties. The Petition asks the Court to reconcile two federal laws, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA).
This case concerns the right of Lisa Miller, the fit, biological mother of a five-year-old daughter, to decide that Janet Jenkins, who has no biological or adoptive relationship to Lisa's daughter, should not be declared a parent to Lisa's child. Janet, Lisa's former same-sex partner, has had no regular contact since the child was seventeen months old. The Petition asks the Supreme Court to review the Virginia Court of Appeals' decision that Virginia must enforce a Vermont order declaring Janet a parent of Lisa's biological child.
DOMA allows states to reject parentage and custody orders arising from same-sex relationships, while PKPA requires states to give full faith and credit to another state's custody orders. DOMA should trump PKPA because it was enacted later. A key issue addressed in the Petition is the constitutional right of a fit, biological parent to decide whether a legal stranger should be given parental rights over a biological parent's child.
Lisa Miller is represented by Mathew D. Staver, and law professor Rena Lindevaldsen, who is of counsel with Liberty Counsel.
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act was designed to protect state sovereignty. One state, like Vermont, Massachusetts or California, must not be allowed to force other states to accept same-sex relationships. A child should not be forced to accept an unrelated third party as a parent, when the child already has a suitable biological parent.

Student-Initiated Prayer and Youth Minister Allowed at Graduation After All

2007-05-24T10:41:00.000-04:00

Omaha, AR - Two members of the Omaha High School senior class, chosen by their classmates to open and close their graduation ceremony on Friday, were initially told by school administrators not to pray. School administrators similarly nixed a youth ministry leader selected by the students as the commencement speaker but changed course after the involvement of Liberty Counsel.
After school administrators announced there would be a problem with student prayer and a speaker with a religious vocation at graduation, Kendon Underwood, vice president of Omaha High's senior class, contacted Liberty Counsel to challenge the opposition seniors were facing from school officials. The students were told their opening and closing remarks could not consist of a student-initiated and student-led prayer, despite the unanimous approval of the senior class. They were also told their choice of Harrison K-Life director David Griffith to speak was unacceptable because K-Life is a Christian ministry and he might use graduation to speak about religious topics.
Liberty Counsel demanded the school district reverse that position, citing the First Amendment's prohibition on viewpoint discrimination and government censorship of free speech. The school district's attorney responded by denying the allegations and assuring Liberty Counsel that the students could pray but insisting the superintendent had the right to decide there would be no speaker at graduation. Liberty Counsel, now representing Underwood and Griffith, refused to accept the compromise solution of prayer but no speaker. The school district relented and allowed the student-initiated prayer and the student-selected speaker. Underwood gave an invocation and Griffith's remarks included references to his heroes, including Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jesus Christ, and encouraged the graduates to do worthwhile things that mattered because their lives are valuable gifts from God.
It is a shame that school officials continue to make it difficult for students to commemorate their graduations with an acknowledgement of God. Rather than being an alien to the Constitution, religious speech is a preeminent freedom.

A Tribute to Our Friend and Pastor, Jerry Falwell

2007-05-15T10:39:00.000-04:00

Lynchburg, VA - It is with sadness and a deep sense of loss we report that Rev. Jerry Falwell passed away this morning while working in his office at Liberty University. News reports cannot begin to explain the tremendous impact this great man of vision had on his family, his community, the Nation and indeed, the world. God abundantly blessed Rev. Falwell with over 50 years of ministry at Thomas Road Baptist Church and 36 years at the helm of Liberty University.
Rev. Falwell loved God and he loved people. His convictions in biblical principles were matched by the depth of his compassion for people. He made you feel like you were the most important person in a room, even though it was filled with dignitaries. He cared for each person and he loved the students at Liberty University.
We have never known a man who had so many important obligations and commitments and yet who always had time for people. As pastor of a mega-church with a myriad of ministries, too many to mention, Chancellor of the world's largest evangelical university, founder of several national parachurch ministries, husband, father and grandfather, he always took time to stop and greet people with a genuine smile, a firm handshake (or sometimes a friendly punch in the rib cage) and a deep voice filled with wisdom and uncanny insight.
Only hours ago we were working on the final agenda for this week's graduation and hooding ceremony for Liberty University School of Law. He was looking forward to addressing the first graduating class of the law school. The School of Law was part of Rev. Falwell's vision when he founded the University in 1971. Launched in August 2004, this Saturday, May 19, 2007, marks another milestone in the history of the university, with the inaugural graduation. While he will not be physically present for this milestone event, he no doubt will be rejoicing in Heaven.
Rev. Falwell's legacy will live on in the millions of people he touched, and his vision will carry on through his family and the graduates of Liberty University. While we are missing a beloved pastor, leader and friend, his family is missing a beloved husband, father and grandfather. Our prayers are with his wife, Macel, his children, Jerry Falwell, Jr., Jonathan Falwell, and Jeannie Falwell Savas, and his grandchildren.