News & Media

.

     (Listen below for an interview with Advocates' General Counsel, Robert Tyler and Correspondent Karen Johnson)

           This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates. 

 

 

ed unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. 

 

(Listen to interview below with Advocates' General Counsel, Robert Tyler)

     Ironically, CNN reports that one of the male homosexual plaintiffs argued that “he believes it's an important step to be married before having children…"  Another Plaintiff said, “[It's] like putting a Twinkie at the end of a treadmill and saying, 'You can only have a bite….  And you want the whole thing. ... All I want is to be married."

     This significant case will likely rise to the U.S. Supreme Court and set precedent for the entire country as it will consider the federal constitutionality of limiting marriage to one man and one woman.  Advocates for Faith and Freedom is waiting for the federal district judge to rule on its motion to intervene that was filed on behalf of the County of Imperial.  In cooperation with the official Proposition 8 campaign, Advocates sought intervention in order to ensure that the case can be appealed to the higher courts.  It has been argued that the campaign will not have legal standing to appeal a negative ruling.  Therefore, the County of Imperial’s involvement may be critical to the defense of traditional marriage.

 

     This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

 

On December 15, 2009 in the San Francisco federal court, Advocates for Faith and Freedom filed a motion on behalf of the County of Imperial to intervene in the federal lawsuit challenging California’s Proposition 8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

The County of Imperial and Advocates for Faith and Freedom intend to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8.  Advocates for Faith and Freedom is a nonprofit organization and is representing the County of Imperial without charge.

This is the federal case that will decide the “marriage” issue for the entire country and will likely end at the U.S. Supreme Court.  Until now, the cases challenging the constitutionality of laws that limit marriage to one man and one woman have generally occurred in state courts and have only concerned each state’s constitution.   

The following are just a few of the issues that have been identified by the San Francisco federal judge as issues to be addressed at trial:

     Whether the characteristics defining gays and lesbians as a class might in any way affect their ability to contribute to society;

     Whether sexual orientation can be changed, and if so, whether gays and lesbians should be encouraged to change it; 

     Whether the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage leads to increased stability in opposite-sex marriage or alternatively whether permitting same-sex couples to marry destabilizes opposite-sex marriage; and

     Whether a married mother and father provide the optimal child-rearing environment and whether excluding same-sex couples from marriage promotes this environment.  

In November, 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to provide:  “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”  On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 as a validly enacted amendment to the California Constitution. The Plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, now seek to overturn Proposition 8 in federal court arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

Over 70% of the residents of the County of Imperial voted in favor of Proposition 8.  The Board of Supervisors has voted 3-2 to file the petition to intervene in order to ensure that their residents’ interests in preserving Proposition 8 are adequately represented.    

Although the “YES ON 8” campaign is a party to the case and is defending Proposition 8, current precedent in the 9th Circuit states that the campaign does not have standing to appeal if Proposition 8 is declared unconstitutional in the trial court.   

Further, the people cannot rely upon Attorney General Jerry Brown or Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to defend Proposition 8 as both of them have publicly expressed their opposition to Proposition 8.  Therefore, the participation of the County of Imperial is imperative to the defense of Proposition 8 so that a negative decision can be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

The district court will set a hearing in San Francisco to determine whether to grant us intervention.  The County will request that the hearing be set on an expedited schedule.  The trial in the matter is scheduled to begin in San Francisco on January 11, 2010 and is expected to last at least six weeks. 

If we are permitted intervene, the costs to Advocates for Faith and Freedom to join in the defense of Proposition 8 at the trial level will be approximately $225,000.  We are trusting God to provide the financial resources necessary to defend traditional marriage not only for California, but now for the entire nation.  Please consider making a generous year-end gift to help us protect marriage for generations to come! 

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.      

 

This case began in 2005 after it became apparent that the UC School System was rejecting courses submitted by Jewish and Christian high schools seeking approval for the courses to be recognized as college preparatory courses.  In order for a student to be admitted into the UC School System, the student must be able to show that he or she has taken a minimum number of pre-approved college preparatory courses during their high school career.  UC rejected certain courses because the private schools were seeking to add a religious viewpoint to the standard content taught in each of the subjects. 

 

Despite UC’s blatant religious viewpoint discrimination, the district court ruled in favor of the UC School System.  Wendell Bird argued the case and asked the Ninth Circuit to uphold Supreme Court precedent and prohibit any future religious discrimination on the part of the UC School System.  This case will have an immediate impact on Christian Schools across the State of California and will have a nationwide impact on Christian education.  Please be praying that God grant the three judge panel wisdom and discernment.  It may be up to 12 months before the Ninth Circuit renders its decision.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

 

Following Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s lead, the Senate voted to attach the Act to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill, a must-pass Bill that provides funding for our troops.  This measure expands the 1969 United States federal “hate crime” law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

The new law makes any violent act motivated by the victim’s “actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person,” a federal crime.  As a result, a crime against a homosexual victim will more than likely be punished to a greater degree than when the same crime is perpetrated against a heterosexual victim. 

The Hate Crimes Amendment raises serious cause for concern as it unjustly promotes the homosexual agenda while potentially burdening Americans’ free speech rights, particularly those of religious groups who do not endorse homosexuality.

The new law states that “courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense.”  This means that a Christian’s beliefs may be used to enhance criminal penalties that may be obtained against him.  For example, consider what could happen if a heterosexual gets in a fight with a homosexual.  If charges are filed, a prosecutor could seek criminal sanctions against the heterosexual individual merely because that person may have a religious objection to homosexual behavior regardless of whether their religious beliefs had any relationship to the fight.

Prosecutors could use a defendant’s personal religious beliefs about homosexuality to obtain a sentence three times longer than a sentence for the same crime where the victim is heterosexual.  Further, the Act gives the Attorney General the power to help state and local governments investigate and prosecute so-called “hate crimes.”

Most concerning, the government could be one step closer to prosecuting religious speech condemning homosexual activity.  If the government were to deem religious viewpoints concerning homosexuality as “violent,” the new Act could allow the federal government to prosecute such religious speech as a “hate crime,” if the Court finds that the speech is inducing violence.  This would infringe on Christians’ fundamental First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religious expression.

Advocates for Faith and Freedom will certainly seek to defend the Constitutional right of Christians to express their faith despite this radical new law.  

Advocates also filed an appeal on behalf of Chad Farnan, now a senior at Capistrano Valley High School, arguing that the judge’s ruling should be reconsidered and broadened.  The judge ruled that only one of Dr. Corbett’s statements was a violation of the Establishment Clause, despite the fact that Advocates’ attorneys presented many other statements to the court.  We believe the other statements made by Dr. Corbett show that there is more than one instance of hostility against Christianity in the classroom… a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.  

 

This came as a shock to many students and their parents in the San Rafael City Schools. Advocates for Faith and Freedom received a call for assistance from one bold parent who is willing to fight against the attempted brainwashing of her children. This parent has officially objected to the posting of these signs in a formal complaint made to the School District in which she argued that such signs are in violation of the California Education Code because they discriminate against those who might express a viewpoint in opposition to homosexuality. Since the term “homophobia,” is defined by the District as “discrimination against homosexual people,” our client requested that the District provide clarification as to what types of statements would be considered “discriminatory” or “homophobic.”

Our client then provided the District with three sample statements and asked the District whether the statements would be in violation of the “No Room For Homophobia” signs. These statements included: (1) “Homosexuality is wrong and unnatural because biologically it takes a male and female to naturally reproduce in order to bring a child into this world,” (2) “Reparative treatments have [been shown] to help people struggling with homosexuality to overcome their homosexuality,” and (3) “Homosexuality is considered a sin in the Bible.” Despite our client’s inquiry, the District refused to answer her question and simply argued that the signs were proper under California law.

Apparently, students holding a traditional Judeo-Christian viewpoint on homosexual behavior may be considered “homophobic” in the San Rafael City Schools. The “No Room for Homophobia” signs may force students of faith to either remain silent in their beliefs or potentially be subjected to discipline by the District should they choose to voice their opposition to homosexual behavior.

Our client has appealed the District’s decision regarding these signs to the California Department of Education in hope that the District will be forced to remove the signs from the classrooms. Advocates for Faith and Freedom will continue to assist this courageous parent in her attempt to have the signs removed and will monitor the situation to protect any students who may subjected to adverse action by the District.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts! To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

The problem, however, is that the proposed legislation requires that both the public and private-sector health care providers offer their customers plans with “essential benefits.”  While the bills currently before Congress do not specify whether abortion will be considered an “essential benefit,” many Republicans and pro-life activists believe that unless abortions are specifically excluded from the proposed legislation, abortion will likely be included as an “essential benefit.”  This belief is consistent with the fact that courts and administrative agencies historically interpret federal statutes to include abortions where there is not an express statement for their exclusion.

Thus, if Congress fails to exclude abortions from the mandated health care coverage, American citizens’ tax dollars will be used to directly subsidize a public health-care plan that provides coverage for abortions.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.