Pro-Family Groups are mobilizing to publicize McDonald’s extreme support of the deviant moral lifestyle of homosexuals and transgenders. Expect the Mainstream Media (MSM) to ignore the publicity so watch your inbox or mailbox or paid ads (that might slip through the MSM barrier) to join with the majority of normal Americans in exposing the now anti-family values McDonalds.
JRH 7/19/08
]]>
HumanEvents.com became the vehicle for a paid ad representing the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and written by Rick Santorum former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania. The ad references the May 15, 2008 California State Supreme Court validating homosexual marriage over turning Proposition 22 from the year 2000. That Proposition in 2000 passed with 68% electorate voting to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Santorum’s paid ad is timely since the same State Supreme Court voted unanimously to allow Proposition 8 to remain on the November 2008 ballot that AGAIN defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The thing I learned from the Santorum ad that I was totally unaware of is that the May 15, 2008 4-3 California State Supreme Court also made homosexuality and transgender oriented people the same as a RACE; ergo the majority of Americans that are people of faith (including Christians, Jews, Mormons, Muslims and so on) could be targeted as breaking the law under discrimination statutes when they preach against homosexuality.
Santorum’s ad is simply to mobilize the will of the majority of Americans against wealthy homosexuals who are an extremely low percentage of Americans utilizing their wealth to transform America into a Secular Humanist anti-religious nation that accepts homosexuality and transgenders as normal rather than deviant as defined by most of globes Faiths. (And my readers know I am no fan of the Muslim religion; however at least Muslims recognize that which is deviant and that which normal.)
YOU CAN READ SANTORUM’S MOBILING AD HERE.
JRH 7/18/08
]]>
On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision struck down a people’s initiative in 2000 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Mystically four State Supreme Justices found that California’s State Constitution made the people’s initiative unconstitutional in 2008.
On July 16, 2008 the California Supreme Court unanimously dismissed a homosexual activist challenge of Proposition 8 appearance on the November 2008 ballot. I am betting the Justices of the California Supreme Court are elected rather than appointed (Really it’s a good bet). The unanimity to shoot down the homosexuals in July is in stark contrast to a close decision for the homosexuals in May.
I am betting Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008 will pass thus overturning the California Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision in May. And the homosexual activists KNOW IT.
In Bennett v. Bowen, No. S164520 the homosexual activists that had big buck homosexual organizations on the legal team (including the ACLU of course) went down in flaming defeat with the unanimous decision.
This is what Christian influenced OneNewsNow.com says about Bennett v. Bowen:
The California Supreme Court has ruled that the marriage protection amendment will remain on the state's November ballot.
Following the California's Supreme Court ruling that legalized homosexual "marriage" in that state, activists sued to keep the marriage protection amendment off the November ballot. However, they failed in their attempt on Wednesday when the court ruled in favor of Proposition 8's inclusion on the ballot.
Glen Lavy with the Alliance Defense Fund says the homosexual activists trying to keep the amendment off the ballot showed their contempt for the will of the people and the democratic process by filing such a baseless lawsuit. "I would have been shocked if the court had prevented this amendment from going on the ballot," he comments. "The lawsuit was frivolous. There was no basis for the arguments. It would have been ridiculous for the court to rule in their favor," Lavy contends.
Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel represented the Campaign for California Families and argued in defense of the amendment. "[We] really didn't know which way the court was going [on this particular issue]," he says. "But the good news is they've rejected the argument by same-sex advocates to remove the marriage amendment from the ballot.
"Now the secretary of state is free to print all the information to notify the voters and, in fact, the voters will speak in November," the Liberty Counsel founder continues. "And when they speak, I believe they'll pass these 14 words. These 14 words will overrule the 4-to-3 decision of the California Supreme Court and restore marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
Those 14 words are: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." According to Staver, passage of Prop. 8 would invalidate all same-sex marriages performed in California prior to the enactment of the amendment.
The legal Christian perspective is confident Proposition 8 is something the California Supreme Court can’t touch if passed.
Not so fast though, a blog dedicated to legal reasoning has this to say about Bennett v. Brown:
The California Supreme Court, which approved same-sex marriage in a landmark ruling in May, has refused to remove a proposed ban on same-sex marriage from the state's November ballot.
The state's highest court cleared the way on June 16 for state voters to weigh in on a ballot initiative, Proposition 8, which would outlaw same-sex marriage under the state constitution.
On June 20, LGBT-rights advocates asked the state supreme court to block the vote and pull the measure from the ballot, saying it would destroy fundamental rights that can't be curtailed by popular initiative. Bennett v. Bowen, No. S164520.
Under the supreme court's May 15 ruling, the court relied on state constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection to allow equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. The suit argues that repeal of those rights requires revision of the state constitution, which can only be done by a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature, before going to voters.
Same-sex marriages have been taking place throughout the state since June 16, when the original decision became final. If Proposition 8 is approved by voters and same-sex marriage is outlawed, the California Supreme Court is likely to be faced with the legal question of whether the existing same-sex marriages are valid and a renewed challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 8.
The one-page order signed by Chief Justice Ron George, denies, without explanation, the request to pull the measure from the ballot. The order was unanimous. (The National Law Journal Legal Pad LA)
The author of this article (Pamela A. Maclean) speculates that the California Supreme Court will again enter the legal fray of difficulties with a passage of Proposition 8. So it might still be the will of the voters versus the will of judicial system.
]]>
Today is Independence Day. Independence Day in America has become a time of outdoor and/or family get-togethers and enjoying fireworks displays.
This is all good because it is a rare time that most Americans put aside political differences for a day of fun and entertainment.
Unfortunately I suspect it is a day that most Americans do not comprehend the blood, sweat and personal sacrifice that American Revolutionaries experienced in gaining the freedom of self-governance from a then one of the most powerful nations in the world – Great Britain.
The Brits certainly looked upon the upstart Revolutionaries as political gnats daring to with stand British sovereignty and a threat to the colonial system of economics that benefited the British Empire.
Ergo the Brits of the day decided to squash the pipsqueak American colonials by any means necessary to preserve British honor and economics (certainly an overstated simplification on my part but you get the idea).
What the Brits did not understand is that American colonialism developed under two premises: Individuals and groups seeking a better economic life unattainable in the Mother England AND religious refugees that honored God but not necessarily accepted by the State Church of England.
The first marked the embracement of individualism the later laid the foundation for Christian morality in colonial America.
Secular Humanism and its spawn such as homosexual activist are attempting to negate the Christian heritage that America was founded upon.
And now Secular Humanist offshoot activists like the homosexual rights groups are doing everything in their power to convince Americans and the rule of law that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle that deserves validated equal protection under the American rule of law. In doing this agenda homosexuals have also done everything in their power to discredit Biblical Christianity as an archaic group of bigots who are prejudiced against their gender-bending deviancy.
That is the key by the way: Biblically homosexuality is deviant behavior that should be abhorred in the same category as pornography, pedophilia, prostitution and other sexual deviancy that has manipulated the First Amendment beyond its intent with concurrence of a Leftist Judiciary and NOT the American voters.
With this in mind I compelled to support (and ask others to support) the American Family Associations (AFA) war of exposing billion dollar corporations who actually pump money into the coffers of deviant homosexual activist organizations who goal is to transform American perceptions of right and wrong or what is moral or immoral based on Secular Humanisms concept of moral relativity.
The unabashed support of the Homosexual Agenda by the McDonalds Corporation is the latest task of the AFA. Read about it HERE.
JRH 7/4/08
]]>
Don Wildmon of American Family Association has sent out an alert concerning an Amendment to the Constitution that would battle Slanted Left (oft times fringe Left) Judges that are legislating from the Bench promoting the Homosexual Agenda.
Specifically this Amendment defines marriages as between a male and a female and NOT as between Adam and Steve or Eve and Eilene.
The “Alert” provides a link to contact your Senators to support the Marriage Protection Amendment.
JRH 6/27/08
****************************
Your action needed today on a federal constitutional amendment making marriage legal only between a man and a woman
Marriage Protection Amendment introduced in U.S. Senate; forbids forcing homosexual marriage on all Americans
AFA Action Alert
June 26, 2008
Dear ____________
U.S. Senator Roger Wicker has introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment in the U.S. Senate. This constitutional amendment would keep liberal activist judges from forcing homosexual marriage on every American.
This constitutional amendment simply states: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
Liberal activist judges in Massachusetts and California, each by a 4-3 margin, have already forced homosexual marriage on their citizens! There is nothing in current law which would keep one judge from legalizing marriage between three men, or two men and four women, or any other combination.
The only way to stop other liberal activist judges from forcing homosexual marriage on Americans is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That is why your action now is so critical.
Take Action!
Send an e-mail to your two senators asking them to co-sponsor Sen. Wicker’s amendment.
It is vitally important that you forward this message. The liberal media has totally ignored the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution to help us continue?
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
Please take a few minutes and invite your friends to AFA ActionAlert.
_____________________
Copyright ©2008 All Rights Reserved
]]>