California Bill Mandates Pro-Gay Teaching in Public Ed.

The California Legislature is considering a bill that would require public schools to teach homosexuality or lose their funding.

If passed, Assembly Bill 606 could cost schools that don't comply as much as two-thirds of their budgets. The legislation has been approved by the state Assembly, and is set for two more Senate committee hearings before a floor fight.

"Practically it means the posters on the wall must be in every grade, K-12, about gay rights and sexual orientation," said Barbara McPherson, program manager for legislative affairs at the California Family Council. "We will have to have trainings on anti-harassment for faculty, school boards and very possibly to students."

The bill goes as far as to give sole power to the California superintendent of public instruction to oversee school cooperation.

"There's no due process—you can see that it could be used for retribution and retaliation," McPherson explained. "It's very, very dangerous."

Family advocates say the legislation is a tool to indoctrinate children about homosexuality—and that it must be opposed.

Single-Gender Public Schools Proliferating?

Experts say separating boys and girls allows schools to play to their differences.


According to a recent study, a single-gender public school could increase your child's learning potential and self-esteem, while decreasing distractions — but that doesn’t impress feminist groups calling it a return to "segregation."

Eight years ago there were only four public schools following the single-gender model. Today there are more than 220. Dr. Leonard Sax, founder of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, said studies show that when boys and girls are separated, they perform better.

"Girls and boys learn differently," he said. "They learn differently because they hear and see differently. Those differences are present at birth."

While the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Association of University Women have called it a return to the Dark Ages, neither would comment for this story.

Sax said such fears are unfounded.

"Some of the most prominent leading feminists, most notably Hillary Clinton, are strongly in favor of this," he said, "because the reality is that this is a format that benefits girls."

Dan Lips, an education analyst with The Heritage Foundation, said girls simply do better in math and science when boys are absent from the classroom.

"Today, in American education, girls are really thriving. They’re far surpassing boys in academic achievement," he said. "I think that if this becomes a successful model, it should be and will be implemented around the country."

Shared Parenting Best for Children

Every year the Legislature rightly spends millions of dollars on children's health care, foster care and social services. At the same time, we perennially overlook an opportunity to improve their lives without spending a penny -- by allowing children healthy access to two loving parents.

Although about 40 percent of children in America grow up without the active involvement of a father, our state statutes discourage shared parenting. Even if judges believe equal time is in a child's best interest, our statute limits their discretion. People have been known to "shop" the states to find the most restrictive parenting schedules -- and move to our state.

Washington's de facto "every other weekend" visitation schedule compares badly with 28 states that encourage "frequent and continuing contact" with both parents. Study after study indicates children fare far better in joint custodial arrangements than in single custody -- emotionally, educationally and financially. Not a single study advocates for the routine use of the restrictive schedule handed out in Washington.

Why, then, does Washington disregard the research and strides made by other states?

Every year for the past 10 years, I have introduced a shared-parenting bill, and every year that bill has died. Most of the resistance comes from special interest groups opposed to even a modest increase of in non-custodial parents' time with their children from about 21 percent to 33 percent annually.

This is in no one's best interest. As Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women, said: "I urge a presumption of joint custody of the children. Shared parenting is not only fair to men and children, it is the best option for women. ... Most of us have acknowledged that women can do everything that men can do. It is time now for us to acknowledge that men can do everything women can do." Sad to say, however, the current NOW leadership opposes shared-parenting legislation, relegating to second-class status a generation of men who, ironically, were brought up to recognize the equality of the sexes.

My bill would create a standard allowing qualified parents at least one-third residential time with their children. Although this adds merely 12 percent more time than the current system, studies show that it makes a world of difference. It sends the message that parents no longer have to fight expensive court battles to maintain relationships with their children, and it removes children from the winner-take-all dynamic of many divorces.

Although my bill fell short this year, I saw signs of growing support that bode well for the 2007 legislative session. If you agree, I urge you to contact my office or the offices of your state legislators.

It's time Washington joined the majority of states with progressive parenting schedules. Children in other states are enjoying more time with fathers and reaping the benefits of healthier families. So can ours.

----

Sen. Jim Kastama, D-Puyallup, is chairman of the Senate Government Operations & Elections Committee and represents the cities of Puyallup, Milton, portions of Fife and Edgewood, and the communities of Midland and Summit/South Hill.

Lawmakers Say Pledge Protection Act Needed More Than Ever?

Sponsors plan to use Flag Day to unveil legislation to guard "under God" phrase.

Members of Congress told the nation recently that, if we are not careful, the right of Americans to go public with their religion is in danger of being lost to activist courts.

At a Capitol Hill news conference, Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., and Sens. John Kyl, R-Ariz., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said the country needs the Pledge Protection Act to safeguard our freedom.

"We're very concerned that the Supreme Court might possibly say that the words, 'one nation under God' would be unconstitutional," says Akin, according to a recent report by the group Focus on the Family. "I think that would be a tragedy and a travesty if it happens."

The bill would bar the federal courts from taking cases challenging the Pledge.

"If somebody complains to a federal judge that it's unconstitutional for school children to say the Pledge of Allegiance," Akin said, "then that federal judge would have to say, 'I'm sorry, I don't have jurisdiction to hear this case.' "

Akin said many people don't know that Congress has the power to limit what cases federal courts can take.

"The U.S. Constitution, in Article III, section 2 -- a part that people in law school aren't taught much about any more -- says the Congress establishes the jurisdiction of the federal courts," he said.

"That is, we can say to the federal courts, 'You can hear this kind of case, but you can't hear that kind of case.' We can't tell a judge how he or she is going to rule on something, but we can tell the courts -- 'You can't rule on it at all, period. You don't have jurisdiction to hear it.' "

Akin first introduced the bill in response to a 2003 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on a case brought by atheist activist Michael Newdow. The appeals court declared it unconstitutional for children in public schools to utter the phrase "under God" in the Pledge.

This is the second time for the bill to come before Congress. In 2005, the House passed it, 247-173, but the measure died in the Senate.

Akin said the idea that there is a God, that God grants rights to human beings and that the purpose of government is to secure those God-given rights is a foundational principle in American history.

Brownback, meanwhile, said that God and country have been inextricably linked since the founding of the republic.

"You've got 40 years of decisions by activist judges trying to remove any trace of God in the public square, and the march continues," Brownback said. "We really have to fight back against that for our own fundamental freedoms of the free expression of religion in society -- which is guaranteed in the Constitution."

Lanier Swann, director of government relations at Concerned Women for America, said the bill could come out of the House Judiciary Committee next week and a floor vote could be scheduled before the 4th of July.

"Children across the country must continue to have the right to recite our Pledge day in and day out," she added. "The words ‘under God’ make the Pledge not only a patriotic oath, but a public prayer for our country."

Judge Threatens Family with $3,500 Fine

(DETROIT) -- According to a recent report by the Home School Legal Defense Association, a family in Eastpointe Michigan were charged with criminal truancy after removing their children from their school in Detroit in order to engage in homeschooling.

The situation began in December of 2005 when Renata Broughton and her husband Andre moved their family into the Detroit school district, and enrolled their child for a time in the Detroit Public Schools. In the new year they decided to homeschool, and notified the DPS of the change. Meanwhile, the mother realized that DPS had never asked to transfer the child’s school records from Eastpointe. After her request, they apparently failed to do so.

When the family returned to Eastpointe, they faced charges for the time their child was in Detroit Public Schools, and throughout their time homeschooling. Even though the information was brought before the prosecutor concerning their homeschooling, the case was not dismissed.

Accordinig to HSLDA Attorney Chris Klicka, the Court was contacted and explained the error, but the judge simply stated, “He doesn't know the law in Michigan.” This, in spite of the fact that Klicka provided the judge with extensive information concerning the history and laws in Michigan and the battle for the right to homeschool that he had been involved in for over eight years, and that he worked on the case that went before the Michigan Supreme Court.

Attorney Dave Kallman was then hired by HSLDA to represent the family at a pre-trial court conference.
Kallman began to talk to the prosecutor about the fact that the Broughtons were legally homeschooling their children. Needless to say, Kallman ended up going before the judge who was a replacement judge from the earlier hearing, and had the case dismissed.

Lesbian foster parents win Missouri case

As reported by the Associated Press today, the state of Missouri plans to drop its legal challenge to a lesbian's efforts to become a foster parent because a new state law makes the appeal impossible.

A spokesman for Gov. Matt Blunt called the decision "outrageous" and said the governor wants the appeal to continue. Blunt's spokesman Spence Jackson said in Thursday editions of The Kansas City Star that if the Missouri Attorney General drops the case, "he is doing so without the consent of his client." "We don't believe placing a child with homosexual parents will provide an appropriate environment for foster children," Jackson said.

Jackson County Circuit Judge Sandra Midkiff ruled in February that Missouri could not deny Lisa Johnston a foster parent license and ordered the agency to resume training for her and her partner.

The State Department of Social Services decided to appeal, and the foster parent application was put on hold while each side prepared briefs for the Missouri Supreme Court. Department spokeswoman Deborah Scott said the policy to deny foster-parent licenses to same-sex couples remains in effect.

Women's Groups Seek to Create New U.N. Women's Agency

According to the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, a coalition of U.S.-based women's groups sent a letter to the United Nations last week to demand that the world body "more powerfully represent women's empowerment and gender issues" and specifically to ask for a new UN agency dedicated to feminist issues.

In an open letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan on International Women's Day last month, the coalition of international women's groups wrote, "We are disappointed and frankly outraged that gender equality and strengthening the women's machineries within the U.N. system are barely noted, and are not addressed as a central part of the U.N. reform agenda."

There are already several U.N. bodies which focus on issues affecting women, including the U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues (OSAGI) and the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women
(INSTRAW).

The women's groups complain that none of them, with the exception of UNFPA, is a principal agency that could equate to the fully-resourced agencies such as UNICEF, the U.N. Development Program or the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

Stephen Lewis, U.N. special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa and a former top official of UNICEF, has vociferously called for the creation of a new agency for women. Last month Lewis stressed that an international women's agency, within the United Nations, was needed to advocate for women the way UNICEF does for children. Many may recall that it was during Mr. Lewis'
stint UNICEF that the Vatican decided to withdraw its annual symbolic donation because of mounting evidence that the agency was promoting abortion.

In a March press release, Mr. Lewis stated, "What we now have in place--whether it's UNFPA or UNIFEM or the Division for the Advancement of Women--cannot do the job that needs to be done. This is not to disparage their good work; this is only to say that it has to be combined and then enhanced a hundred-fold."

Not all women's groups are supportive of the new initiative.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, which is the largest women's public policy group in the United States said, "A UN women's agency--particularly one created in response to radical feminists - would not advocate for women but for certain ideologies espoused by those in charge.

They will claim to represent 'all women of the world' as they work for the abolishment of respect for motherhood, the killing of unborn babies, prostitution as a women's right to economic empowerment, and sex-based quotas that disadvantage women who rely on their husband's income."

More Debate on Government Involvement in Marriage

Opponents say marriage amendment is a waste of time; supporters say American people demand it

June 6, 2006

Debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) continued today, as it winds its way to an expected vote on Wednesday.

As reported by Focus on the Family Action, supporters of the amendment led by Sens. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., laid out several different nuts-and-bolts arguments as to why we need the MPA.

"The senators spoke on the effects on children from living in homes without a mom or a dad — and why the courts have made this issue absolutely vital," Banks said. But opponents — namely Democrats like Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. — seemed to be reading from the same set of talking points, Banks said.

"Why are we doing this?" Reid again asked his colleagues today, complaining that the Senate should be considering other issues. "There's no chance that this is going to pass." Kennedy, meanwhile, accused the amendment's supporters of wanting to "write bigotry into the U.S. Constitution." He argued that his home state had every right to approve of same-sex marriage — and was no "threat" to anyone.

"I'm proud that Massachusetts continues to be a leader on marriage equality," Kennedy said. "Being part of a family is a basic right, and I look forward to the day when every state accepts this basic principle of fairness."

But that assessment is challenged by none other than the governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, who sent a letter to Kennedy and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to support the MPA. Allard cited the letter in today's debate.

"Americans are tolerant, generous and kind people," Romney wrote. "We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage. Romney wrote that homosexual marriage was hampering his state.

"Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights," he wrote. "In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who served for several years as chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, said he's tired of hearing Democrats — and a handful of Republicans — charge there's no crisis to warrant a constitutional amendment.

"Judges are good at deciding cases," he said. "They are good at applying law. But when it comes to moral reasoning, there is nothing in their legal training or in our laws that gives a few activist judges the right to make wholesale social change at the expense of the traditions of the American people."

Freshman Sen. David Vitter, R-La., meanwhile, told his colleagues who oppose the amendment that they "didn't get it" when it came to the marriage issue.

"But I can tell you that real people do," Vitter said. "The people of Louisiana get it. They passed a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage... folks don't want marriage redefined."
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., leveled his own broadside aimed at those who argue that this is not an issue that the American people care about.

"I beg to differ," Thune said. "Nineteen different states in this country have adopted constitutional amendments by public vote defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That very initiative, that very vote, will be on the ballot this fall in South Dakota. In fact, I predict we will get a very comfortable margin in favor of that . . .

"The American people have a different way of deciding what they care about and what's important than do sometimes the politicians here in Washington."

The Senate is expect to vote Wednesday on cloture — a procedural move to bring the amendment up for an up-or-down vote. Banks said no one will be surprised if the effort ends with that procedural vote. Constitutional amendments, she said, historically have taken many years to pass.

"The Founders set the threshold high for passage of an amendment — a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate. This should not be a surprise to anyone," she said. "But the rhetoric about this being 'meaningless' because it's unlikely to pass is really a hollow argument."

Indeed, Gary Cass, executive director of the Center for Reclaiming America, considers the vote an exercise in education. He's on Capitol Hill taking the case for marriage to as many senators as he can.

"We got 48 votes last time," Cass said. "We expect the five new senators who campaigned on marriage to vote the right way, so we should pick up some votes, but we can't really predict the outcome, yet."

Cass also called on constituents to continue to fax, telephone and e-mail their senators, asking them to support the amendment. No matter what, he said, we're in this for the long run.

"This isn't about one election cycle. It isn't about any particular senator," he said. "It's about the institution of marriage, and we need to get people who understand that in places of power."