News & Media

The case originated after indecent utterances were aired in two live broadcasts by Fox television stations.  During the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, Cher, upon receiving an “Artist Achievement Award”, used indecent language during her acceptance speech.  Only a year later, during the 2003 Billboard Music Awards, Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie also used indecent language.  Both vulgar statements were aired to millions of people across the country, including children.

The FCC subsequently fined Fox and released Notices of Apparent Liability for a number of broadcasts that the Commission deemed actionably indecent, including the two described above.  Fox appealed the FCC’s censorship to the Second Circuit where the Court held that the indecent language aired was merely “fleeting expletives” and that Fox should not be held liable. 

The Supreme Court disagreed.  In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court held that the FCC did not act arbitrarily or impulsively in enforcing its policy or in its order finding the broadcasts to be indecent.  The Court held that allowing these few indecent words to be protected would “likely lead to more widespread use of the offensive language.’”    

The Court went on to explain that “children mimic the behavior they observe--or at least the behavior that is presented to them as normal and appropriate.  Programming replete with one-word indecent expletives will tend to produce children who use (at least) one-word indecent expletives.  Congress has made the determination that indecent material is harmful to children, and has left enforcement of the ban to the Commission.”

 The Supreme Court’s ruling is a triumph for those working hard to protect America’s families and children from indecent and immoral content, which has become so prevalent in today’s pop culture.              

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 Bill would expand the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”   The term “gender identity” is broadly defined within the Bill to include “actual or perceived gender-related characteristics” while the term “sexual orientation” is left undefined. 

Opponents of the Bill claim that such broad language could lead to the protection of up to thirty sexual orientations (as defined by the American Psychiatric Association), including behaviors such as bestiality and voyeurism which are illegal in most states.

Others, such as Representative Louie Gohmert, a Republican Congressman from Texas, oppose the Bill due to the fact that it could be used to intimidate and prosecute pastors and other persons of faith for expressing their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality.  While an exemption for First Amendment speech is written into the Bill, it is unclear whether such a provision will be sufficient to overcome it’s chilling effect on religious speech. 

On Wednesday April 22, 2009, the Bill was heard by the House Committee of the Judiciary, but the final vote and markup was continued until this afternoon due to the Republican's overwhelming opposition to the Bill.  During the Wednesday meeting, the Democrats systematically voted down every amendment proposed by the Republicans. Should this Bill be passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, it is sure to become law.  The White House website already contains a specific endorsement of this bill stating that “President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation” and will “expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Sheppard Act.” 

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.

es.”

 The Department of Homeland Security warned that “a number of economic and political factors are driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity,” including the economic downturn and the election of the first African American President.  However, it admits that the Department “has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.”

Such “rightwing extremist” and “rightwing terrorists” are broadly defined in the report as “those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”  The Department even goes so far as to state that that rightwing extremists “may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or [illegal] immigration,” and indicates that pro-life activists and opponents of illegal immigration are of comparable concern to the Nation’s security as are white supremacists, skinheads and neo-Nazi’s.  Advocating for the United States Constitution to be read as intended, which did not include a right to choose the murder of millions of the unborn, does not justify a place on a government watch list. 

The report further warns against threats posed by veterans returning from war and persons seeking to uphold their constitutional right to bear arms.  The report notes that “[t]he possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.” 

The American Legion, a patriotic, war-time veteran’s organization, criticized the report as “incomplete, and . . . politically-biased” and asked for a meeting with the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.  Napolitano apologized to veterans today stating that “[t]o the extent veterans read it as an accusation ... an apology is owed” and that the report was “an assessment, not an accusation.”  Napalitano has agreed to meet with American Legion National Commander, David Rehbein, to discuss this matter on Friday.

This report ultimately seeks to condemn conservative values and marginalize the political voice of those who understand our God given freedoms and responsibilities.  It is astounding that the new Obama administration is willing to label American citizens “terrorists” when they have refused to use this same term to describe our enemies abroad.  While the administration claims they are concerned with protecting civil rights, it seems they are concerned only about protecting those rights that promote the liberal values they hold so dear while squelching out the religious liberties this nation was founded upon.

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.

 

Vermont is the first state to change the definition of marriage through the Legislature rather than through the courts.  Four state supreme courts, including California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and most recently, Iowa, have already “discovered” a right to same–sex marriage.   

This is in stark contrast to the forty-three states that have previously enacted state laws to protect the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  Thirty of those states have a constitutional amendment. 

The battle over gay marriage could be in the Nation's capital before long.  Washington D.C.’s city council voted only yesterday to recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state.  This puts the issue of same-sex marriage on a path toward Congress, which has final say over the District of Columbia’s laws.  

With Gay activists pushing to legalize same-sex "marriage" in at least six New England states by 2012, it is more important than ever to stand up for traditional family values. 

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 lawsuit began after the California legislature passed Senate Bill 777, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, redefining the term "gender" for all public schools in California.  According to SB 777, you are what you think you are, regardless of your biological make-up.   Further, gender is now a protected classification under California's nondiscrimination laws.  The lawsuit challenges SB 777 on the basis that it is unconstitutionally vague.  It also challenges SB 777’s violation of the right to privacy found in the California Constitution.  

The consequences of this law are tragic for students in public schools.  This law will require the girls’ locker room in public schools to be open to any boy claiming to be a girl and vice versa.  In fact, two students and their parents, who were recently added as Plaintiffs to this case, have stated that the school these students attend has allowed a female student, who self-identifies as a male, to change clothes in the male locker room.   

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.

For the past 8 years, the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services to fund and conduct human embryonic stem cell research has been limited.  President George W. Bush limited funding to embryonic stem cell research by allowing the use of only 21 stem cell lines already created before August 2001.  This decision was based on his belief that there were "fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science."  President Bush chose not to provide funding to researchers who destroyed live human embryos.

The new executive order removes this previous limitation and now allows scientists to extract stem cells from live human embryos that are discarded at fertility clinics.  The full impact of this executive order remains to be seen as the National Institute of Health (NIH) has 120 days from the time the executive order was issued to review their guidelines and issue new NIH guidelines that are consistent with this order. 

Many states across the nation have already begun to oppose the executive order.  States such as Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Montana, Mississippi, Texas, North Dakota and South Carolina, are all moving to block the expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research.  Many of these states have proposed their own state legislation, which would prohibit state money from being used to fund stem cell research on human embryos.

Some states are even proposing Legislation which would grant fertilized embryos "personhood" status under the law giving the embryos legal rights.  Montana and North Dakota’s "personhood" measures have each cleared one chamber of the Legislature. 

While President Obama may believe that that our government created a problem by establishing “a false choice between sound science and moral values”, states opposing this executive order recognize the true problem.  It is immoral to create life and destroy it in the name of science."

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.

 

   

Robert Wood, a spokesman for the State Department announced that “The United States supports the UN statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, and is pleased to join the other 66 UN member-states who have declared their support of this statement that condemns human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity wherever they occur. The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and a critic of human rights abuses around the world. As such, we join with other supporters of this statement, and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora.”

This decision is a complete reversal of the Bush Administration’s December 19, 2008 decision not to sign the Statement when it was initially presented at the United Nations.  The Bush Administration was concerned about the legal effect that signing the statement would have on the federal government’s authority over matters that fall under state jurisdiction.  The Administration's concern was focused on the impact the Statement could have on the rights of  private employers to choose whether to employ a person whose sexual orientation is in contradiction to their religious beliefs.  The Statement may also significantly impact the well known “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy,” which prohibits openly gay men and women from serving in the military.

Additionally, 70 of the UN member countries refused to endorse the statement citing concerns that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest.  The Vatican also opposed the endorsement of the declaration.

Robert Wood assured the press that there was nothing to be concerned about and that “a careful inter-agency review” had been conducted and “[s]upporting this statement . . . commits us to no legal obligations.”  Only time will tell the true implications of endorsing gay rights internationally.  In fact, very early on in his Presidency, news broke that President Obama began consulting his top advisors on how to overturn the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy.”

 

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 fifty-five year old Cross sits atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego and has been involved in continuous litigation regarding its legal status since 1989, even though the Cross has been recognized by Congress as a National Veterans Memorial and is considered a historically significant national memorial.

Unfortunately, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) has once again decided to oppose the cross and has asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the District Court’s decision.  The ACLU is asking for a court order requiring the immediate removal of the historic and well known Mt. Soledad Cross.

On March 12, 2009, Advocates for Faith and Freedom filed an amicus brief, “friend of the court” brief, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to oppose the ACLU.  We have asked the Court to uphold the District Court’s previous decision and to keep the Mt. Soledad Cross standing in San Diego, California.

Advocates filed the brief, along with the American Center for Law and Justice, a non-profit organization based in Washington D.C, which is serving as co-counsel in the case, on behalf of twenty-five members of the 111th U.S. Congress.

The Judges’ resolution of this case will affect the legal landscape governing the countless Veterans Memorials and cemeteries owned and operated by the federal government, as well as the state and local governments.         

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.

In the fall of 2001, two female students from Kent, Washington sought to form a Bible club on their high school campus.  The Truth Bible Club filed its application with the school in order to gain access to school facilities and to exist like any other club.  However, the school denied the club's application to exist as a student club because they sought to limit their membership to Christian students.

The Truth Bible Club crafted its membership criteria to reflect its core beliefs.  Truth sought to protect the group's purpose, identity, and expression, like many of the student clubs that already existed on campus.  While the club desired that all students attend, it believed that to be a member, a student should be a Christian. 

Previously, the school approved the Gay-Straight Alliance, whose membership criteria required that its members "must be willing to work toward the goals of the club," which include "working to decrease homophobia" and fighting "heterosexism."  Another club, the Earth Corps Club, required its members to have an "interest and dedication toward environmental issues."

Truth's application was denied because its membership criteria required students to possess a true desire to study the Bible and grow in a relationship with Jesus Christ. While the school district generally allows student clubs to maintain group identity and expression by limiting their membership to those who adhere to the group's ideology, the school district's "nondiscrimination" policy has denied Truth this same privilege.

After continuous refusal by the school district to approve the Bible club, we filed a law suit in the District Court.  Unfortunately, the Court ruled against the club, arguing that the club had no right to discriminate in its membership. We subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit also ruled against Truth Bible Club.

The case has now been appealed to the United States Supreme Court in hope that the Justices will overturn the lower courts' opinions and uphold our clients' right to form a Bible club that is fully recognized by their school on the same terms as every other club.

Our co-counsel in this case is the Alliance Defense Fund and Keith Kemper of the Seattle law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry.

Please pray that the U.S. Supreme Court accepts our case and that this hostility toward Christian students will be reversed!  

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.

Advocates attorneys, Robert Tyler and Jennifer Monk, were part of a small contingent of 16 people attending the arguments on behalf of the Proposition 8 committee.  While attendance in the courtroom was limited, hundreds of protestors gathered outside the courtroom. 

Kenneth Starr, former U.S. Solicitor General and Dean of Pepperdine Law School, argued on behalf of Proposition 8 that the Court should respect the will of the people and uphold the validity of Proposition 8.  Advocates also provided some assistance in the preparation for oral arguments. 

The Justices appear poised to uphold Proposition 8.  Based on their questioning, we are optimistic that the Court will rule in our favor.   The Court was critical of the arguments of our opponents.  In fact, Chief Justice George said the following to one of the opponents of Proposition 8:  “Sir, your argument is both practical and political, but it is not legal.”

Advocates filed a brief with the California Supreme Court on behalf of a group of California legislators, the California Family Council, and the California Republican Lawyers Association. 

The Court should release a decision within 90 days.

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.