News & Media

The ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the City Attorneys for Los Angeles and San Francisco have filed lawsuits with the California Supreme Court.  These lawsuits assert that Prop 8 is invalid and asks the Court to stop the state from enforcing the initiative until the court has decided on its constitutionality. 

 

In response to these lawsuits, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is urging backers of gay marriage to “never give up” and he predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian unions would not see their marriages annulled by the initiative.  The Governor continued to discuss his view on the passage of Prop 8 by stating, “It’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end.  I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.” 

Governor Schwarzenegger’s disrespect for the democratic process and for the majority of California voters who have elected him twice is clear.  The Governor has now publicly expressed his hope that the Supreme Court will again choose to ignore the votes of over six million Californians who previously voted to pass Prop 8.  In a nation and state built on democratic principles, the Governor’s total disregard for those principles is especially shocking since California has voted TWICE to keep the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman.

 

Now that Californian’s have again voted to protect traditional marriage, it is clear that those six million people must protect that vote by fighting to assure that the democratic process is respected both by elected officials and the courts.

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 Wednesday, November 12, 2008, Chad Farnan will give his second deposition for the lawsuit Advocates filed on his behalf last December after he was continuously subjected to his teacher’s blatant anti-Christian comments for a large portion of his AP European History class.   Advocates’ attorneys will also depose the opposition, which includes the former principal of Capistrano Valley High School.  On November 17, 2008, Advocates’ attorneys will depose the teacher named in the lawsuit, Dr. James Corbett.     

This will likely be a significant precedent setting case that will create a ripple effect across the country as teachers think twice about expressing anti-Christian hostility in their classrooms.   

Advocates for Faith and Freedom is providing our legal assistance at no cost to Chad Farnan.  We are 100% self supportive and dependent on your donations.  As we continue to move forward in trial preparation, our court related costs continue to increase.  We need you to stand firmly with us right now with your prayers and online gifts of support so that we can continue to defend this devoted Christian young man.   

Here is what Chad said about his case:  “Jesus stood up for us, now it’s time for us to stand up for Him.” 

However, for some reason, many in the media have delayed making the “official” call in the grand-daddy of them all – California!  As of 10:30PST, the California Secretary of State’s website showed a 52.2% to 47.8% vote in favor of traditional marriage with 96.4% of precincts reporting.   Our battle is not over … Fox News has reported that the City of San Francisco intends to take legal action against Prop 8! 

Prop 4 was defeated with a 47.7% to 52.3% vote.  Prop 4 would have required doctors to notify an adult family member within 48 hours before performing an abortion on an unemancipated minor.   It is incredible that the voters in California would choose to provide greater protection to farm animals than young girls and babies!  The people of California voted in favor of Prop 2 – an initiative that increases regulations regarding the confinement of animals on factory farms - by a margin of 63.3% to 36.7%.   

It is outrageous that increased regulations to protect farm animals were an overwhelming success, while a majority of voters failed to approve a measure providing for the protection of our children! Keep praying for America as there are sure to be many more cultural battles ahead that will impact religious liberty and the values we share. 

We are at a critical point in our nation’s history!  Join with Advocates for Faith and Freedom so that we can continue to protect religious liberty.  Your one time gift or monthly commitment of $10, $50, $100, or more can help us in our ongoing efforts to protect our God-given liberties.   Thank you!

... is not a defense to a discrimination claim based on sexual orientation.   The Court’s holding asserts that a Christian physician does not have a constitutional right to refuse to perform an elective medical procedure on religious grounds. 

This lawsuit was brought in December 2001 by an unmarried woman who claims that the physicians discriminated against her when they referred her to another physician for an IUI (in uterine insemination) on the basis of her sexual orientation.  An IUI is an invasive medical procedure which is intended to result in artificial insemination.  The woman who brought the lawsuit asserts that she has a right not to be discriminated against because she is a lesbian and that the physicians should have no right to assert a defense based on religious liberty at trial.  The physicians, however, have a personal religious objection to inseminating unmarried women.   

Advocates’ attorneys and allied counsel filed a petition asking the California Supreme Court to rehear the case in light of the significant negative impact the ruling will have on religious liberty rights in California.  This afternoon, the Court denied the petition to rehear the case.  Please pray for our litigation team and the clients as we evaluate our continuing legal strategy, including a potential appeal to the United States Supreme Court. 

In speaking about American culture, Thomas expressed concern that the creed of most Americans today is far different than the past.  He worries that Americans now “ask not what you can do for yourself or your country but what your country must do for you.”  When John F. Kennedy famously stated, “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country,” the people of America understood that specific type of sacrifice and welcomed calls to effectuate change one individual at a time.  That was a vastly different culture because, as Thomas stated, it had an appreciation for “delayed gratification . . . something larger . . . perhaps something transcendent.”

Thomas also discussed constitutional interpretation and the approaches that judges can take.  “We are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. We are just judges. Like the Wizard of Oz, we are mere mortals.” Thomas concisely stated there are only two approaches to being a judge:  The first: “To try to see as best we can the framers’ intentions.” The second: “Make it up.” As Thomas stated, “At least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and impartial.”

Thomas’ view of constitutional interpretation, otherwise known as “originalism,” requires judges to try as best as they can to determine the framers’ intentions when the document was originally drafted and apply it accordingly.  The other view is that of a “living constitution,” which permits judges to apply their own cultural and moral views to create law.  In other words, as Thomas stated, it gives judges the green light to “make it up.” 

It is far too often that we see judges “make up” the law and, in the process, create rights that never existed or ignore those that as Americans we were guaranteed in the Constitution.  The California Supreme Court recently created a “right” to same-sex marriage in California’s Constitution and then, in another Advocates case, the court ignored two doctors’ right to exercise their religion freely in their chosen profession.  Justice Thomas challenged us to recognize the sacrifice that democracy requires and not continue to ask what our country must do for us.  As judges continue to “make up” our constitutional rights, it has become increasingly more necessary for us to stand up, both in the courtroom and the voting booths.   

The CTA is misdirecting dues paid by California’s teachers, many of whom are in support of Prop 8.  If Proposition 8 is defeated, school children in public schools will be taught about same-sex marriage.  The CTA is not representing the teachers who paid the dues that were misdirected, and it is certainly not protecting California’s school children.  Instead, they are inappropriately using funds to support a liberal agenda.  

Fortunately, for all of the teachers who are in favor of Prop 8 and do not wish to support the No on 8 campaign, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore has a solution. He states that the first thing one can do is ask the CTA for a refund of his/her dues money that was not used for legitimate collective bargaining purposes. In order to learn how to do this, visit the site http://www.nrtw.org/special-legal-notice-california-teachers-how-get-least-300-refund-cta-nonbargaining-expenses.  Secondly, he states that you can then send the $300 dollar refund to www.Protectmarriage.com.   California’s teachers can also choose to withdraw their membership from the CTA, and become a member of the Christian Educator’s Association.  By doing this, you can assure that in the future your dues will not be used in order to support a partisan liberal agenda.  For more information, please go to www.ceai.org. 

This is not the first time the CTA has misdirected union dues.  The CTA intervened in our case involving Chad Farnan on behalf of the teacher who is continuously expressing hostility towards Christianity in a high school classroom and is in violation of the Establishment Clause.  In this case, the CTA is again misdirecting both funds and resources away from legitimate collective bargaining purposes.  

It is not too late for teachers and everyone else to come together and stand up for traditional marriage by joining with Advocates for Faith and Freedom and voting Yes on Proposition 8. In doing so, teachers can also take a stand against the CTA for its continued misuse of union dues.  Please unite with us and help protect the sanctity of marriage.

Among other tragic consequences, 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.  Our lawsuit seeks to reverse this law and the new definition of "gender” on the grounds that it is unconstitutionally vague and violates the right to privacy guaranteed to all public school children by the California Constitution.

The State recently filed a motion to dismiss the case. On August 22, 2008, the Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments.  We will vigorously oppose this motion, in addition to filing a motion for summary judgment asking the Court to rule in our favor and strike down SB 777 as unconstitutional.

Advocates for Faith and Freedom has created a booklet about SB 777, its author, and SB 777’s future impact, if it is not overturned.  If you would like copies of the booklet for yourself or others, please visit our Resources page or contact us at (888)588-6888.

It is important to spread the word in order to find situations where this law has been applied.  Do you know any situation where a student or adult in California was forced to share a locker room, restroom, or other private facility with the opposite sex?  If you or any of your friends and family have heard of a situation where a student or teacher was negatively affected by the implementation of SB 777 please contact us immediately by clicking here.

You can support our ministry and the vital work we are doing to protect children in California’s public schools by making a generous financial contribution.  Financial support is crucial as we litigate this monumental case against former governor, and current California Attorney General, Jerry Brown and the state bureaucracy.

We realize how difficult it may be to donate at this time, however, justice never sleeps and our children cannot wait for us to protect them.   Your donation is needed today to cover the incredible expense of this litigation.  Click here to donate online.

As we stand at the beginning of a long and difficult battle over the implementation of SB 777, we are extremely grateful to have so many individuals who are committed to standing with us.

Please keep Advocates’ attorneys in your prayers this summer as we work on the briefing for the Court and prepare for oral arguments.

Join the California Education Committee »

FFRF has been working since 1978 to promote free thought and to keep state and church separate.”

The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause states in its entirety that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  Notably, the Clause does not provide for the separation of church and state.  To the contrary, setting aside days for prayer has been a long tradition in this country.  The Continental Congress proclaimed Thanksgivings and days of fasting twice a year from at least 1776 to 1783.  As Governor of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson proclaimed a day of prayer.  And, as President of the United States, John Adams proclaimed a day of prayer.  Benjamin Franklin made the following statement before asking if each day of the Constitutional Convention would begin in prayer:  “"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?"

The founding fathers did not intend for the Establishment Clause to prohibit prayer in the public or private lives of Americans.  This lawsuit is part of a continued attempt to remove religion from the public sector altogether.   The Presidential proclamation issued this year asked God's blessings on our country and called for Americans to observe the day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.  This is far from a constitutional violation.  It is an acknowledgement of our Nation’s history and the power of the God who created us. 

FFRF also sued White House press secretary, Dana Perino, for merely speaking words with religious content from a podium.  Advocates for Faith and Freedom is dedicated to fighting this type of incorrect and catastrophic interpretation of the Establishment Clause.  We must assure that future generations have both an understanding of our Christian heritage and the ability to practice their religion freely, both in public and private. 

In doing so, four judges decided they are more qualified to legislate than the Connecticut legislature.  In a 4-3 ruling, the Court stated that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated equal protection principles despite the fact that same-sex couples in Connecticut are allowed to enter into civil unions providing them the same rights and benefits as traditional marriage. 

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

This decision again ignores the will of the people.  In California, the people expressed themselves through the initiative process by passing Proposition 22 defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.  In Connecticut, the people expressed themselves through a democratically elected legislative body.  Fortunately, Californians have the opportunity to overrule the California Supreme Court on November 4, 2008, by voting yes on Proposition 8. 

The Marriage Protection Act will place the same 22 words Californians overwhelmingly supported in Proposition 22 into the California Constitution.   For more information, please visit protectmarriage.com.