In a decision that likely will set the stage for a high-stakes showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California’s Proposition 8 ballot measure that banned gay marriage, saying there is no “legitimate” reason to keep same-sex couples from marrying.

Prop 8 supporters immediately announced plans to appeal Tuesday’s (Feb. 7) 2-1 ruling to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit and, ultimately, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people,” said Brian Raum, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing an umbrella group of Prop 8 supporters known as ProtectMarriage.com.

The appeals court’s decision upheld a 2010 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, saying that “although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently.

“There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”

The Prop 8 amendment to the state Constitution was approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008, just five months after the state Supreme Court ruled that a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.  An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples tied the knot before Prop 8 was passed.

The court also found no evidence that Walker was biased in his initial ruling because he was gay and in a committed relationship. The court did, however, side with Walker in maintaining a stay on all same-sex marriage ceremonies until the case is decided.

Prop 8 supporters, led by the National Organization for Marriage, immediately tried to use the decision as a plea for fresh funding.

“This sets up an all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court,” NOM said in an email blast just minutes after the decision was announced.

“But the costs of litigating a Supreme Court case will run into the millions of dollars over the next year. We must have the resources to put on the best possible defense.”

Prop 8 opponents, however, including the Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said “no American’s right to marry should be subjected to a veto from aggressive and well-funded religious groups. Our nation is a democracy, not a theocracy.”

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

An atheist organization filed recently a lawsuit in New York to bar the presentation of the “World Trade Center Cross” as part of a memorial exhibition to commemorate 9/11.

The American Atheists, which filed its lawsuit last week, said in its suit that the cross is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, and that atheists “are being subjected to and injured in consequence of having a religious tradition not their own imposed upon them.”

Atheist group sues over “World Trade Center Cross”

Dan Blair, communications director of AA, told the Wall Street Journal, “We can appreciate people’s emotional attachment to this [memorial] but that shouldn’t override the Constitution,”

On its website, the AA said that the cross is “an impermissible mingling of church and state.”

Small letter “t”

Blair Scott of AA said on Fox News, “It’s not the cross per se that’s an issue. It’s just a small letter ‘t’ among many junctions among thousands that were in the World Trade Center that many consider miraculous. It was blessed by clergy, they held church services at it, it was worshiped at, prayed at, it was turned into a religious idol.”

Martha McCallum, Fox newscaster told Scott, “All the more reason why you shouldn’t object to having it there if it was just a ‘t’ and there were many of them at the World Trade Center. It’s a ‘t’ that happens to have survived and they want to put this ‘t’ that has people’s names inscribed on it in the museum.”

Firefighter, first responder

Tim Brown, who was also in the Fox News program, said of Scott, “He’s stirring up so many difficult emotions again by doing this. We don’t need to be put through this.” A former NYC firefighter and first responder, Brown lost some 100 friends in 9/11.

Brown said on Fox News, “Just because Blair or others don’t like it, doesn’t mean that it can’t be in the museum. They can’t just come in and make rules for everybody in the museum. What if Ladder Three, the fire truck that was lowered into the museum last week was crushed into the shape of a cross? Would he then want that taken out of the museum also?”

Brown said on Fox News that the AA lawsuit is more of a publicity grab “on the backs of my friends who have died on 9/11, who were murdered by Islamic terrorists. It’s shameful what you are doing.”

Scott denied that the lawsuit against the cross is being done for publicity.

Brown is filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the cross through the American Center for Law and Justice.

“This is another pathetic attempt to rewrite the Constitution and rewrite history by removing a symbol that has deep meaning and serves as a powerful remembrance to that fateful attack nearly 10 years ago,” Jay Sekulow, chief counsel, ACLJ, said on its website.

“We will aggressively defend the placement of this cross. This memorial, a powerful part of the history of 9/11, serves as a constitutionally sound reminder of the horrors that occurred nearly a decade ago,” Sekulow said.

The World Trade Center Cross is a steel beam in the shape of a cross that stayed put after the collapse of the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001, and was discovered amid the rubble.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

More than 100 faith-based groups asked Congress recently to reject a bill that would disallow them from hiring only fellow believers if they are receiving federal funds.

Through a letter that was sent to all members of Congress the organizations said the provision will affect protections that are stated in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Constitution, The New York Times said.

Steven McFarland, chief legal counsel, World Vision USA said, “Those four lines in the legislation would be a seismic change in bedrock civil rights law for religious organizations. The impact would be huge and severely affect our ability to help children and others in need,” The New York Times said.

Officials from Protestant, Jewish and Catholic organizations noted that they serve people of all religions. However, they are primarily motivated in their charitable work by their faith, CBN News said.

Aside from World Vision, other signatories were the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (UOJCA), the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and other leading organizations, the Christian Examiner said.

Richard Stearns, president and CEO of World Vision cited tens of millions of people who are beneficiaries of faith-based charities and said, “There is no good reason – nor a compelling legal justification – to jeopardize those organizations and, more importantly, the people they serve,” the Christian Examiner said.

The letter, which had 108 signatories said, “We respectfully ask you to uphold and protect this fundamental right, allowing faith-based charities to be treated equally as secular groups when competing for federal funds and to hire employees who share their faith, whether Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, or Christian. These groups adhere strictly to the law, forbid the use of public funds to proselytize or for any religious activities, and serve all people in need, regardless of faith,” the Christian Examiner said.

The issue of federal financing of nonprofit organizations of faith by charitable choice first arose under the Clinton administration. The Coalition Against Religious Discrimination has long been urging Congress to eliminate charitable choice, and they feel the current bill should be stronger, The New York Times said.

Many of the signatories to the letter do not receive federal funding. Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations said, “The issue for all of our institutions is the broader issue of their continued ability under the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act to be able to hire staff that are consistent with their faith and tenets,” The New York Times said.

In a separate development, a federal appeals court ruling this week allowed World Vision USA to hire people based on their faith. This was in response to three former employees who filed the case alleging discrimination for not agreeing with its statement of faith, CBN News said.

In a press statement World Vision lauded the ruling saying, “Our Christian faith has been the foundation of our work since the organization was established in 1950, and our hiring policy is vital to the integrity of our mission to serve the poor as followers of Jesus Christ,” the Christian Examiner said.ed-/

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Virginia may have nativity scenes on government property during the Christmas holiday–provided secular symbols are displayed alongside them, a Virginia state attorney general said recently.

In his legal opinion, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said on holidays outright Christian symbols like depictions of the baby Jesus are permitted on public property if they are balanced with symbols of other faiths and secular symbols like Santa Clause and candy canes, the UPI said.

Cuccinelli’s opinion was written in response to an inquiry from Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William) who wanted to know if the U.S. and Virginia constitutions and state law would allow these to be displayed in Loudoun County, The Washington Post said.

Cuccinelli, analyzing the Federal Establishment Clause jurisprudence said two conclusions are clear, “(1) governmental accommodation of religion is constitutionally permitted, and in some circumstances is required; and (2) holiday displays erected by governments can be validly exhibited depending on content,” he wrote in his response.

Regarding separation of church and state, he cited a Court opinion in Lynch V. Donnelly which explained that the “metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state. 15 That is so because “[i]t has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation ….,,16 Not only does the Constitution not “require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any,” Cuccinelli’s response noted.

Cuccinelli said local governments are not required to ban holiday displays that incorporate religious symbols, “because governments enjoy considerable discretion in accommodating the religious expression of their citizens and employees and in their own recognition of traditional seasonal holidays,’ The Washington Post said.

He added in his response that depictions of Jesus Christ would be appropriate and are constitutional if surrounded by secular symbols like lights, poinsettias, wreaths, snowflakes, fir trees, and green and red ribbons.

Kent Willis of the ACLU in Virginia expressed agreement with Cuccinelli’s opinion noting that it would be fair either to ban all displays, or to allow all of them equally, The Washington Post said.

According to Marshall, the inquiry was relayed to Cuccinelli because Loudoun residents aired complaints last year when the 100-year-old Leesburg courthouse did not have any holiday display on the lawn because County officials had banned them, The Washington Post said.

Cuccinelli noted in his response that the Constitution has long accommodated religion, and its history of such goes as far back as the time of the Quakers. He cited Article II and I cl.8, and Article VI, cl. 3 which allowed affirmation in place of swearing to men of denominations that do not allow taking of oaths (including the Quakers).

Cuccinelli’s response also noted that the United States House of Representatives had for a very long time held nondenominational Sunday church services which were regularly attended by President Thomas Jefferson and President James Madison, who sponsored the First Amendment when he was in Congress.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

A graduate student of Augusta State University has filed charges against her school because officials threatened to expel her from its counseling program due to her Christian beliefs on homosexuality.

Jennifer Keeton, 24, said in her plea that ASU violated her constitutional rights when they ordered her to attend diversity sensitivity workshops and to join Augusta’s Gay Pride Parade as part of a remediation plan.

The remediation plan also required Keeton to report to the faculty every month so they could decide if the activities affected her conviction. Failure to comply would result in her dismissal, The Augusta Chronicle said.

In a video presented by her lawyers Keeton said, “While I want to stay in the school counseling program, I know that I can’t honestly complete the remediation plan knowing that I would have to alter my beliefs. I’m not willing to, and I know I can’t change my biblical views,” The Augusta Chronicle said.

Keeton also said in her lawsuit that she often expressed her Christian conviction that homosexuality is immoral and a lifestyle choice in and out of class, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution said.

Keeton said she will pursue her case unless she is allowed to retain her biblical viewpoints and still pursue her studies. In her complaint she mentions ASU President William Bloodworth and professors Paulette Schenck, Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley and Richard Deaner as defendants, The Augusta Chronicle says.

Officials of the university would not comment. However ASU spokeswoman Kathy Schofe said there is no discrimination in the university, and school policies protect students from such, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution said.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian lawyers, is representing Keeton in her case, which also states that ASU officials violated her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and free speech, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution said.

David French, senior counsel said, “Jennifer Keeton has not been accused of mistreating a client. She’s being told, ‘You must change your beliefs or we’ll deny you a degree,’” The Augusta Chronicle said.

French also said, “A public university student shouldn’t be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that’s exactly what’s happening here. Abandoning one’s own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution said.

Keeton was told that her beliefs are not consistent with the views that prevail in the counseling profession. However, her lawyers argue that her beliefs will not inhibit her capability to counsel lesbians and gays, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution said.

French said the ADF has handled many similar cases in recent years. At Eastern Michigan University a counseling student also was threatened with dismissal for her religious views. Also, a Missouri State University student of social work was asked to alter her opinions on same-sex adoption, The Augusta Chronicle said.

French said, “This is an emerging trend in education, social work and counseling. Schools are trying to ensure that their children graduate with a particular world view,” The Augusta Chronicle said.

Keeton is seeking damages, both actual and nominal, as vindication for her “constitutional injuries,” and is also seeking payment of attorney fees. Keeton said, “I really want to serve others. I want to strengthen and prepare young people for the challenges they will face,” The Augusta Chronicle said.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Mississippi has become the most recent state to join 13 others in pursuing a “Personhood Amendment.”

A press release by Personhood Mississippi states they already have enough votes to put their measure on the 2011 election ballot as an Amendment to the Mississippi Constitution.

Fetal sonogram

What is a Personhood Amendment?
“Personhood” amendments are pro-life measures being proposed at state-level legislatures.

The goal is to recognize, within the states’ constitutions, that every unborn child has the same inherent rights, dignity and value as every living human from the beginning of their biological development.

Another aspect being pursued in some states is to assure dignity and human rights to every physically or mentally disabled or elderly person; to prevent the notion of involuntary euthanasia.

The “Personhood Movement” is an official nationwide pro-life movement.This  website clarifies that Personhood Amendments can also be called Human Life Amendments.

A list of participating states and where they are at in the process can be seen here at Personhood.Net – a subsidiary of the Georgia Right to Life Committee. Georgia was the first state with such a proposal in 2007. It hasn’t resulted in being placed on a voters’ ballot.

Joining those states that have already constructed or proposed Personhood Amendments between 2007 and April 2010, approximately 26 other state legislatures are taking action to draft similar wording.

Additionally, Personhood.Net carries information regarding ongoing attempts to get enough petition signatures to file a Federal Personhood Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In September 2009, The Underground reported on Florida’s “Personhood Amendment” movement .

Update: The Florida movement continues to press forward. The proposed Personhood Amendment, if enough votes are collected, would be placed on the next Florida election ballot for citizens’ votes.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

In November 2009, city officials in Gilbert, Arizona sent a “cease and desist” order to a pastor and his wife holding small group Bible studies in their home.

After seeing neighborhood signs for the Bible study, a city official reported the event to authorities.

According to a Gilbert city law, assemblies of religious groups and private schools are not allowed in private homes.

Reasons such as the city’s Land Development Code, zoning, building and parking codes are being cited.

The Bible study group, led by Pastor Joe Sutherland from Oasis of Truth Church, consists of seven people. The Church holds Sunday services at a school.

This month, attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed an appeal on behalf of the church group.

According to World Net Daily, spokespeople from ADF said Gilbert’s law does not prevent Cub Scouts meetings, large group football parties or business events from being held on a regular basis in private homes.

KTAR.com news radio in Phoenix carried a statement from Senior ADF legal counsel Douglas Napier. Napier said that the group was not cited for any violation of ordinances. There were no neighborhood complaints and no traffic violations.

Litigation Counsel Daniel Blomberg writes in an ADF Press Release: “Christian church groups shouldn’t be singled out for discrimination and banned from meeting in their own homes.”

Attorneys from ADF will appeal by using the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment Free Exercise and Freedom of Speech clause, alongside Arizona’s own Free Exercise of Religion Act. They will argue that the town’s zoning code doesn’t authorize banning in-home church gatherings while other groups are approved.

Both World Net Daily and KTAR report that in responses from the city, the town council does find the ordinance troubling and has scheduled it for review at a council meeting.

Updates:
The Oasis of Truth Church Web site now states that the City of Gilbert’s Mayor and City Manager recently attended a Sunday service, apologized and hope to revise the code  soon.

However, the newest World Net Daily report said the city continues to hand out warnings even though changes are in the works.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Santa Rosa County, FL – This past Thursday, two Christian school employees were cleared of all criminal contempt charges that arose after they prayed over a meal. See the Underground’s original article on this case, “Arrested for Praying in Public.”

Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman of the Santa Rosa County School District in Florida had been held in contempt of an earlier ACLU/ Santa Rosa County School District “Consent Order” which demanded that no Santa Rosa school employees attempt to influence anyone to their faith or exercise their faith in public. Although the luncheon honored people who had donated to a school-associated athletic project, the defense claimed there were no students at the luncheon (the ACLU claimed there were); the two educators were on their own time and felt no one in attendance objected to the meal blessing.

The ACLU website article interpreting this case holds that the men were not “arrested for praying” but because they had previously presented religious materials to students, and knowingly signed the Consent Order not to engage in the above activities again.

However, the court decided the men were not in contempt in the instance of praying at the luncheon. According to the Liberty Counsel’s Press Release (Liberty Counsel defended the two men), there were many supporters in the courtroom and on the streets, wearing t-shirts specialized for the occasion and chanting in the defendants’ favor. An enthusiastic wave of relief went through the crowd when the court decision was announced.

Case was heard on a significant day – Constitution Day
That the full day-long case took place on September 17 was ironic and significant, as it was Constitution Day for the United States of America – the U.S. Constitution was signed 222 years ago on this date. To complete the irony, a copy of the famous painting which depicts the signing of the Declaration of Independence hangs in that very courtroom.

The Liberty Counsel’s next step will most likely be to get the Consent Order itself declared unconstitutional, as it could still set precedence for cases of this type around the country. There is a huge misunderstanding that the mythical phrase “separation of church and state” means people of faith must not be seen praying anywhere in public. This phrase is not even in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution, and its implications are untrue. Yet the ACLU brings many cases against Bible believers all over the country in the name of “free speech.”

In this writer’s assessment, the Constitution does not say that people have freedom from hearing someone else’s religious free speech; especially if it is peacefully delivered and unforceful.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Should Human Rights, as defined today in America, extend to yet unborn babies? The American Life League says yes, and along with other pro-life organizations has announced its intent to propose a “Personhood” Human Rights Amendment to the Florida State Constitution.

A Press Conference was held Friday, September 11 at Florida’s State Capitol in Tallahassee to announce their intent. With pre-released media announcements, the group was already receiving criticism from pro-choice and abortion rights organizations.

The Amendment would recognize human rights for all human beings from the beginning of their biological development. Florida would be the first state to pass such an amendment. The Florida personhood movement recognizes unborn children as having the same inherent rights, dignity and value as every living human.

The proposed Amendment to the Florida Constitution reads in part as follows:
SECTION 28. Person Defined–
(a) The words “person” and “natural person” apply to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, health, function, condition of physical and/or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.

This connects with the Founding Fathers’ understanding of life as God created it:
As much as the colonists wanted to separate from Great Britain—and as much as American society today tries to obliterate the founding fathers’ faith in God— the words, faith and theories of English lawyer and judge Sir William Blackstone greatly influenced original American law.

Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” written circa 1765, was used to help shape the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. If our judges who presided over Roe v. Wade had gone back and read some of what Blackstone said on life, they would find these statements (italics and bolding are mine):

“Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it
begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter…”

“An infant in ventre fa mere [in the mother’s womb] is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to it’s use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born.”

Blackstone’s opinion was obviously formed with a Biblical basis, echoing a key Bible verses which commands respect for early human life:

Psalm 139:13: For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

FOR MORE INFORMATION on the Florida Personhood Amendment:
Personhood Florida: http://personhoodfl.com/
American Life League: http://all.org/personhood/, 540.659.4942.

This writer is not receiving remuneration or recognition of any kind from the organizations mentioned in this article.

See the writings of Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on The Laws of England, Book I, Of The Rights of Persons, Vol I. Section 1, originally written in 1765, reprinted Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1962.

Be Sociable, Share!

•