Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Despite the great ruling from the Ninth Circuit regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, Washington D.C. reminds us that we must stay strong in our battle for the culture. This week Washington D.C. began issuing same-sex marriage licenses after the D.C. council approved same-sex marriage. Despite having the authority to reverse the Council’s decision, Congress did nothing. A battle to bring this to a vote of the people in D.C. is underway because whenever the people have the vote, same-sex marriage is shot down.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
California voters have twice upheld the biblical definition of marriage, but a misuse of legislative power could potentially whittle away at the sacred institution favored by California voters and infringe upon religious liberty. A state Senate Bill, authored by a homosexual legislator, contains clever language that Advocates for Faith and Freedom believes is just another attempt to legalize same-sex marriage by specifically creating two classes of marriage.
LISTEN HERE FOR MORE DETAILS
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.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Advocates for Faith and Freedom is closely monitoring the federal trial challenging Proposition 8 in order to be prepared to appeal a negative decision to the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals on behalf of the County of Imperial. The County is seeking to intervene in order to defend Proposition 8, as no other governmental entity is currently defending the law. Opponents have spent nine days presenting arguments attacking the constitutionality of the voter-approved amendment declaring that marriage in California shall only be recognized between a man and a woman
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
The final showdown for marriage began on Monday in a federal district court in San Francisco. The trial has commenced and California’s Proposition 8 is under attack because it limits marriage to one man and one woman. The Plaintiffs believe that the voter initiative should be declar
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.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
ADVOCATES FOR FAITH AND FREEDOM FILES PETITION IN FEDERAL COURT FOR COUNTY TO INTERVENE IN PERRY V. SCHWARZENEGGER
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.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
This week, Advocates’ attorneys and our co-counsel, Wendell Bird, appeared in the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals for oral arguments concerning the future of Christian education. Advocates represents Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta, six former students of Calvary, and the Association of Christian Schools International in a lawsuit brought against the University of California School System for religious discrimination against private Christian high schools.
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.
Friday, November 6, 2009
President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law last week. The Act is named after a homosexual college student from Wyoming who was murdered and a black man who died after having been dragged from a truck. The crimes involved in these incidents were unconscionable, but the “hate crimes” law that has followed from these crimes is reprehensible and a serious threat to Christians and other people of faith.
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.
