tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-175182942024-03-05T11:30:53.205-05:00Florida Family Policy Council BlogFor Life, Marriage, Family and Liberty…Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-5152627721838385222012-01-07T13:26:00.000-05:002012-01-07T13:29:45.796-05:00Governed not by polls, politics nor profits.....<strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">NOTE: This is an article I wrote in 2006. Six years later it seems to still be speaking to help us sort out the maze of how to vote with principle in this fallen and broken world we live in. </span></strong>
<strong><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></strong>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>A Principle Based Manifesto on Voting for Social Conservatives</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>By John Stemberger</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong></div>
Since I cast my first rather misguided vote in 1980, I have given much thought and consideration toward developing a principle based grid for political decision making. What are the moral "first principles" to consider when deciding who to vote for and why? These points below represent an attempt to develop a principled approach for social conservatives exercising active citizenship as we choose and support candidates.<br />
<br />
<strong>1) The pro-life issue is not merely a single issue-it is a disqualification issue</strong>.<br />
As a movement, social conservatives have and will continue to have influence only if we are willing to draw an "ethical line in the sand" over certain core moral principles. The single most important such principle is the protection of human life from conception to natural death. From the destruction of human embryos, to killing people because they are old or disabled, pro-life issues represent the most fundamental of all human rights issues. Many have accused pro-lifers of being "single issue" voters. However, the pro-life issue is not merely a single issue, it is a disqualification issue-and one which goes to the core of human dignity and respect. So-called "pro-choice" candidates in essence argue that unborn children and other unwanted human beings should be denied full legal protection as persons under our constitution. This disqualifies them from holding public office. Whether rich or poor, young or old, handicapped or whole, born and unborn, all human life is made in the image and likeness of God and is therefore worthy of legal protection. If we are ever going to roll back the tide of these human atrocities, then we must be firm in our resolve to reject candidates who refuse to support this timeless and controlling principle. This is a hill we must be willing to die upon.<br />
<br />
<strong>2) We should not vote for candidates based upon where they stand in the polls.</strong> <br />
Everyone wants to support a winner and no one wants to be with a loser. This may represent worldly wisdom but certainly not eternal truth. We are governed not by polls, politics nor profits-but by principle. Poll based voting is probably the single most insidious deception we can fall into as a movement. It is unprincipled to the core and a misguided way to engage in political decision making. The insatiable desire to be popular, to be an insider, and to be a winner for the sake of personal or political gain must be resisted with all our might if we are going to be people of integrity who have a sustained and lasting impact upon the process. On the other hand, throwing your vote away for totally long shot candidates can keep good viable candidates from getting elected, so we need to be both wise and strategic. While I do believe that electability and political viability can be legitimate factors to consider, these are not the type of first principles which should guide our initial or final political choices.<br />
<br />
<strong>3) Character matters-a lot!</strong> <br />
Modern American political history screams the truth that "character matters"-a lot! Even candidates that seem to be very committed to social conservative issues can still be very bad choices if they lack basic character. Temper tantrums, arrogance, dishonesty, poor judgment, ethical compromise, disloyalty, undisciplined lifestyles, financial mismanagement, rampant immorality and broken promises are all red flags that should be considered in deciding upon a candidate. And unless you know a candidate personally or know someone who knows the candidates you may never know the truth about a person's character and lifestyle. Having good character is critical and without it, an elected official can easily turn into an embarrassing disaster in no time.<br />
<br />
<strong>4) We are not electing pastors or priests; we are choosing civil government officials.</strong> <br />
While character matters quite a bit, we must also remember that we are not electing pastors or priests-we are choosing civil government leaders. Personal immorality in the lives of our political leaders is an unfortunate but common reality. Affairs, divorce, alcohol and drug abuse, gambling and other manner of vice all present a question about how we should evaluate such behavior. While we must stand for righteousness, we must also guard against our own self-righteousness in evaluating others. Truth be told, there was only one perfect man and we crucified Him over 2000 years ago. While it would be preferable to have men and woman in public office whose personal lives are required to be "above reproach," like pastors, this is often not an option in our fallen world. A working principle to consider is that we should be more willing to forgive personal indiscretions and immorality that occurred in the long ago past than those transgressions that occurred recently. Time and retrospection offer the greatest opportunity for real contrition and conversion. Was this matter a mistake? An isolated moral failure? Or was it a pattern of long-standing bad behavior?<br />
<br />
<strong>5) Realize that elections present both clear choices and mixed choices.</strong> <br />
In some election years candidates stand in stark and clear contrast on the issues and the choice is easy. However, it becomes more difficult when there is a mixture of good and bad factors to weigh. We live in an imperfect and fallen world and so we are often presented with a sort of choice-of-evils problem. This can be frustrating because many of us understand and want to clearly see right from wrong in the world. Yet, competing strengths and weaknesses can be difficult to weigh when there is no clear moral answer to the question, "who is the best"? Political candidates can hide, lie, misrepresent, and manipulate their past record or present views. However, usually with enough good information, it is possible to determine which of the candidates presents the "lesser of the evils." Staying home and shirking your most important civic duty should never be an option. Do the best you can and engage in the process as an active citizen.<br />
<br />
<strong>6) "Professions of principle" are more important than "professions of faith"</strong> <br />
This can be a controversial point for some, but I have found this principle to be true over and over again. If I hire a plumber to fix a leak, I am not primarily concerned whether he claims to be a Christian, whether his faith is genuine or whether his theology is accurate. I am primarily interested in whether he can get the job done-and done correctly by the manufacturer's standards. I would argue the same is true for elected officials. Today it can be "cool to be Christian" and many public officials make professions of faith or church membership. However, we should be more concerned with where candidates stand on issues then where they go to church. The 1980 race between Carter and Reagan clearly highlights this principle. From all external standards, Carter was a "better Christian." Reagan however, was the candidate that stood for Biblically based values in his social policies. It is clear that true faith can and should have a dramatic effect upon a person's worldview. But a mere expression of faith is not as important as a demonstrated record of commitment to the values that should flow from faith.<br />
<br />
<strong>7) A candidate's past voting record is much more important than any recently announced commitment to policy positions. </strong>One of the greatest challenges in political decision making is getting accurate and truthful information. Politicians can be very slippery and difficult to pin down as many try and please everyone and play to both sides. Even more difficult is a candidate who makes an election year conversion to conservative values after having a history of being moderate or liberal. How can we judge sincerity? Is this just political expedience? We can not judge a man's motive or his heart, but we can judge his words and actions. And when evaluating candidates, past voting records are much more accurate indicators of what type of leader they will be than any recently announced commitments for the future. Apart from a genuine Christian conversion or a major life changing event, seasoned politicians rarely develop deep convictions that are different from what they have displayed and acted out earlier in their careers.<br />
<br />
<strong>8) Resist the temptation to vote your pocket book over principle.</strong> <br />
Of all the principles, this is probably the most important and also the easiest to violate and then try to rationalize the violation. In the world of politics, decisions can affect the amount of profit made by various industries, professions and businesses. Profits can potentially stand to either be enhanced or limited by such matters as insurance rates, tort reform, taxes, regulatory issues, and government subsidies. So many people sadly support candidates solely based upon how their own personal business or industry will be affected. I have spent most of my life voting for candidates that regularly oppose my economic interest as an attorney. I don't like this and I do not agree with it from a policy standpoint. But my commitment to principle on moral issues is greater than my commitment to maximizing profit. Economic and business issues are important and should be debated vigorously. But social and moral issues are paramount because they define us as a people and guide our destiny as a culture. The Bible says that "the<em> love of </em>money is the root of all evil." And when we place our own personal profit before principles which are in pursuit of the common good, we engage in some of the most idolatrous compromise possible. We must pledge our allegiance to God and His truth alone, and trust in Him to provide for our businesses and for our families.<br />
<br />
<em>John Stemberger is an attorney in Orlando, Florida and a student of politics, theology and philosophy. He was Political Director of the Republican Party of Florida in 1992-93 and currently serves as the President & General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council. </em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-69448010142942324772011-10-20T13:21:00.000-04:002011-11-16T22:01:09.461-05:00Our Opposition to Gambling, Pt. 1<div class="p1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">A Three-Part Series by the Florida Family Policy Council</span><br />
<b><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="color: #990000;">Is Gambling Morally Wrong?</span></span></b><u></u><u></u></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10pt; text-align: center;">
<i>By John Stemberger</i></div>
Most Americans are concerned about the moral state of the nation, yet few consider whether or not gambling — a wager of money, property or something of value based on chance — is part of the problem.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
“It’s just a game, entertainment,” they say.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
Unfortunately, only 31 percent of Americans believe gambling is morally wrong, according to a May 2011 Gallup poll. In 2007, legal gambling businesses in the U.S. took in more than $92 billion — after paying out any “winnings” -- according to industry statistics.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
Gambling hasn’t always been legal. A century ago, most forms of gambling were illegal in the U.S. State lotteries were not legalized until the 1960s. Gambling has traditionally been considered a “vice,” along with prostitution, illegal drugs, and pornography. In law enforcement, the term “vice” is often considered an inherently immoral activity, often accompanied by depraved, harmful behavior. And of course a “vice” is the opposite of a “virtue.”<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
Some leading theologians in the Christian community provide greater clarity than the polling data on the question of morality and gambling<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">. </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<b>Dr. Albert Mohler</b>, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of the brightest thinkers in Christianity today, says the national explosion of gambling “may well be the most underrated dimension of America’s moral crisis.” Mohler makes no bones about it and gets right to the heart of the matter morally and ethically by identifying it as the “sin of greed.” “The Bible is clear on this issue,” he writes in a recent online post. “The entire enterprise of gambling is opposed to the moral worldview revealed in God’s Word. The basic impulse behind gambling is greed — a basic sin that is the father of many other evils.”<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
He goes on: “The Bible presents the stewardship of material possessions as a crucial issue of discipleship. The Christian understands that his possessions and money are not his own, but God’s. We are trustees who will be judged for the quality of our stewardship. Those lottery tickets and trips to Atlantic City are going to be hard to explain when God calls stewards to account.”<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
In addition, Mohler writes, gambling depends entirely on chance – for which the chief “virtue” is luck. “The worldview of the Bible affirms the active sovereignty of God over all events, persons, and time — and thus there is no place for luck,” he writes. “The Christian trusts in God, not in the vain hope of a winning lottery number or a favorable roll of the dice.” <span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<b>Dr. Wayne Grudem</b>, author of “Systematic Theology” and the 2010 book, “Politics According to the Bible,” also has serious objections to gambling.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
“My own judgment is that large commercial gambling outlets such as casinos and state-sponsored lotteries bring much more harm to a society than the benefits they generate (such as tax revenue)… First, it is socially harmful (and fiscally regressive) because the largest numbers of gamblers comes from the poorest segments of the population. Second, (it) leads to an addiction to gambling … and this addiction destroys marriages, families … and increases societal breakdown. Third, studies have shown that where gambling businesses are established, crime rates increase.”<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
Grudem says churches should be teaching that gambling is a very unwise use of money. “While I cannot find biblical basis for absolutely insisting that it is wrong to participate in a charity raffle … or an office pool … my personal practice for many years has been to avoid gambling,” he says. <span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
Gambling seeks to teach people the deception that significant wealth can be obtained without work or the struggle that naturally accompanies it.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
The virtues of hard work, saving, being thrifty and investing carefully are all undermined by this vice. In place of these virtues come greed, idolatry, laziness, deception, exploitation and a humanistic live-for-the-moment mentality.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
Even though the Bible doesn’t address gambling directly by using that term, principles in Scripture address its foolishness.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<b>Chad Hills</b>, who researches gambling policy for CitizenLink, an affiliate of Focus on the Family, suggests a two-step approach when dealing with any questionable practice.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
“First, compare or contrast the issue or activity with God’s nature and truth,” he says. “Then, do some research on what ‘fruit’ a particular activity or issue produces. Is it good or bad? <span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
“God’s nature is rooted in love and truth. It is sacrificial and others-centered. He is dedicated to service, not exploitation. He warns against idle hands, ill-gotten riches and malicious or deceitful men.”<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
Hills continues: “Gambling is rooted in greed and deception. The sole purpose is to lure you in with false hope and take your money. Gambling is self-serving.” <span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
As for the fruit of gambling (see <span style="font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%207:15-20&version=NIV1984" target="_blank"><span style="color: #1122cc; font-size: 12pt;">Matthew 7:15-21</span></a></span>), Hills says, it’s pretty obvious: It destroys individuals, families and entire communities. <span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
The Bible also is clear that we are to be good stewards of what we are given. “God expects us to be fruitful and responsible in all areas of our lives,” Hills says.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
Various Christian religious denominations have differing views on gambling but almost all of them recognize the inherent dangers and risks associated with this activity.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
While the tradition of the <b>Catholic Church</b> has been that gambling is not considered an inherent moral wrong, they have recognized the serious social ills that often accompany gambling. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reads: “<i>Games of</i> <i>chance</i> (card games, etc.) <i>or wagers</i> … become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others.”<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
The <b>Florida Catholic Bishops</b> have stated that gambling can “become morally wrong when it interferes with one's other duties or responsibilities”. The Florida Bishops further state, “Gambling is often accompanied by vice and social evils. We are concerned over the impact of easier gambling opportunities on low and moderate income families and individuals, as well as those for whom gambling becomes a compulsive behavior. We are also concerned for the impact on neighborhoods, housing patterns and the homeless, and on public morality in general.” <span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
In 1997, the <b>Southern Baptist Convention</b> passed a resolution opposing all forms of gambling and its promotion through advertisements. The conclusion of the resolution speaks with moral clarity on the topic: “[W]e, the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention … call on all Christians to exercise their influence by refusing to participate in any form of gambling or its promotion; and … we urge our political leaders to enact laws restricting and eventually eliminating all forms of gambling and its advertisement.”<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
Unexpectedly, the most strongly worded opposition to gambling comes from the <b>United Methodist Church</b>. While this denomination tends to lean politically moderate to liberal on many social issues, they have taken an official stand against all gambling.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
They state in their Book of Resolutions: “The United Methodist Church opposes gambling in any form. Gambling is a menace to society, deadly to the best interests of moral, social, economic, and spiritual life, and destructive of good government. As an act of faith and concern, Christians should abstain from gambling and should strive to minister to those victimized by the practice… The Church should promote standards and personal lifestyles that would make unnecessary and undesirable the resort to commercial gambling — including public lotteries — as a recreation, as an escape, or as a means of producing public revenue or funds for support of charities or government.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
“Gambling, as a means of acquiring material gain by chance and at the neighbor's expense, is a menace to personal character and social morality. Gambling fosters greed and stimulates the fatalistic faith in chance. Organized and commercial gambling is a threat to business, breeds crime and poverty, and is destructive to the interests of good government. It encourages the belief that work is unimportant, that money can solve all our problems, and that greed is the norm for achievement. It serves as a ‘regressive tax’ on those with lower income. In summary, gambling is bad economics; gambling is bad public policy; and gambling does not improve the quality of life.”<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
The <b>Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)</b> has a long history of opposition to all forms of gambling as an abdication of stewardship. A 1950 statement described gambling as "an unchristian attempt to get something for nothing or at another's expense.” A 1992 statement petitioned civic and government leaders to resist state-sanctioned gambling and the false promises for fiscal benefits from such, and encouraged state councils of churches and related public policy advocacy groups to be active in resisting the spread of legalized gambling.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
The <b>Assemblies of God</b> opposes gambling, calling it “an artificial and contrived risk taken for selfish gain at another’s expense.” A statement from the denomination’s Commission on Doctrinal Purity and the Executive Presbytery reads: “A careful study of the Scriptures indicates that gambling is a form of evil that the Christian seeking to live by scriptural principles should avoid.” <span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
Finally, during President George W. Bush’s administration, 220 religious leaders in the U.S. — representing <b>liberals, conservatives, evangelicals, Catholics and Jews </b>— issued a joint statement calling on the nation’s leaders to oppose the spread of gambling.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/11/an-open-letter-from-220-religious-leaders-to-the-president-and-congress-on-the-spread-of-gambling/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #1122cc; font-size: 12pt;">http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/11/an-open-letter-from-220-religious-leaders-to-the-president-and-congress-on-the-spread-of-gambling/</span></a></span> <span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
In closing, there seems to be a reasonable question as to whether or not gambling or wagering is in every instance an inherent moral wrong. But beyond the ivory tower philosophical speculation of that question, stands the stark evidence of the real and destructive effect that this vice has had upon the poor, and upon families, marriages and communities. It is these sad truths that lead us to the clear conviction that the vice of gambling remains an inherently unproductive, predatory, immoral, destructive and unwise activity that should be highly discouraged and never promoted or sponsored by governmental, community or religious leaders who truly wish to serve the common good of society and maintain the well-being of citizens and families. <span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-89580206623722738262011-07-07T23:45:00.004-04:002011-07-07T23:49:51.376-04:00Abortion in America: The Beginning of the End<div align="center"><strong>Ten recent signs of hope that we are winning the battle</strong><strong><u></u><u></u></strong><br />
<strong><br />
</strong></div><div align="center"><u></u><u></u></div>There is an endless supply of bad news facing American culture. However, we can remain optimistic about some good news-- we continue to gain significant ground in the battle against abortion. As a movement, we are advancing the cause of life and winning people on the issue so quickly and on so many fronts, it is hard to keep track. Despite President Obama's recent appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court and the challenge they present to the hope of ever seeing the <em>Roe v. Wade</em>decision reversed in our lifetime, abortions have continued to gradually decline since the 1980’s. In the past 20 years, abortions have dropped from 1.6 million to about 1.3 million per year. That's a drop of 19 percent. Below are just ten of many recent developments of the last decade that should give us great hope that we may very well be witnessing the beginning of the end of abortion in America. <u></u><u></u><br />
<br />
<u></u><u></u><br />
1) <strong>Polls Show Americans, and Especially Young People, are more Pro-life Than Ever-</strong>For the first time in many years, the majority of Americans are pro-life. With each new poll, there is growing evidence that we are building a cultural consensus and winning hearts and minds for the idea that we should protect the unborn by banning or restricting abortion in most instances. In May of 2011, a Gallup poll found that 61 percent of Americans want all or most abortions to be illegal and believe that abortion is “morally wrong.” This equates to 61 percent of Americans who believe that abortions should be either legal under no circumstances or legal only under a few circumstances. While one could argue that the data shows that many people have mixed feelings and want to identify with both sides, that conflict in and of itself is progress since even people who identify themselves as pro-choice continue to wrestle with and make concessions regarding the greatest moral and social issue of our day. <u></u><u></u><br />
<br />
The only thing more encouraging than the poll numbers themselves is the fact that the young people are more pro-life than ever! This is exciting because if we can capture the imagination and convictions of a single generation, then we are well on our way to gradually moving the pro-life position to a morally preferred position in both secular and institutional circles. One example of this progress is <strong>Students for Life</strong>, a national organization that is growing by leaps and bounds and which has become a major force in the pro-life movement as evidenced by its presence on hundreds of university and college campuses around the country. <u></u><u></u><br />
<br />
<u></u><u></u><br />
2) <strong>Technology Shines Truth Into The Womb- </strong>One of the many reasons for the increase in public opinion against abortion is that technology has revealed with stunning visual clarity “what that really is that is in the womb” and it is not merely a "blob of flesh". Pro-life leader and attorney <strong>Ken Connor</strong> has often said, “It’s not a duck or a Buick-- it is a baby!” In 2004,<strong>Focus on the Family</strong> began distributing ultrasound machines for the <strong>Option Ultrasound Program</strong> which has provided 80 percent of the funding for ultrasound machines to pregnancy medical clinics. Focus estimates that over 90,000 babies have been saved since the program’s inception. In 2010, National Geographic started distributing an amazing video called the “<strong><em>Biology of Prenatal Development</em></strong>”. This award-winning documentary uses state-of-the-art technology to present real-time footage of human development from fertilization to birth inside the womb and is designed to be used in schools as an educational tool. The advent of the internet has also made readily available to women information about abortion including its risks and complications. Hundreds of videos and websites provide women with instant information to make a much more informed “choice” than was previously available.<u></u><u></u><br />
<br />
<u></u><u></u><br />
3) <strong>Both Politicians and Public Policy-makers Are More Pro-life Than Ever- </strong>I was recently in Tampa with <strong>Phyllis Schlafly</strong> of Eagle Forum and <strong>Connie Mackey</strong> of FRC Action PAC to help them scout out facilities in which to hold the large pro-life caucus meeting held during the Republican National Convention. Phyllis has been leading the fight to keep the pro-life plank in the GOP platform since the 1964 Goldwater campaign. Her experiences in recent history made it clear to me that since 2008, the GOP has virtually conceded that the pro-life position is a critical and non-negotiable part of the Republican platform. In fact, the leadership of the Republican Party now clearly understands that the GOP cannot win without being pro-life.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is also apparent that Republican consultants now regularly advise candidates to say that they are pro-life for strictly pragmatic reasons. “Pro-choice” Republicans are apparently also “losing” Republicans in closed primaries in most political districts in America. The challenge in 2011 is not to find pro-life Republicans, but to figure out which ones really mean it. The millions of Americans who view abortion as a <em>morally disqualifying issue</em> prove that being pro-life is not just good policy, but is also good politics. As Ronald Reagan once said, “It is not necessary for them to see the light-- but merely to feel the heat.” <u></u><u></u><u></u><u></u><br />
<br />
<u></u><u></u><br />
In April of 2011, <strong>Michael New </strong>wrote in <em>State Politics and Policy Quarterly</em>, a peer-reviewed publication aimed at state policymakers, that a review of abortion data from 1985 through 2005 provides "solid evidence" that laws restricting, but not outlawing abortion, "have an impact on the childbearing decisions of women." Additionally, in just the past 90 days, state legislators around the country have enacted unprecedented pro-life legislation on the heels of the election upsets that occurred in November of 2010. For example, the Florida legislature has passed only four pro-life bills in the past 15 years, but has approved <em>five major pieces</em> of pro-life legislation in the 2011 Legislative Session alone. <u></u><u></u><br />
<br />
<u></u><u></u><br />
4) <strong>Blacks and Latinos are Beginning to Lead the Movement-</strong> My good friend <strong>John Ensor</strong> has said that “abortion will end in America when Blacks and Latinos are not just involved-- but are <em>leading</em> the pro-life movement.” He is right. And this “third wave” of the pro-life movement is gradually starting to appear and grow. Babies of all ethnicities are being aborted at grossly disproportionate rates. Although Black and Latino women make up only 25% of the population, they account for 59% of all abortions. In 2004, Planned Parenthood closed 20% of all their clinics nationwide but still performed about 25% more abortions.<strong> </strong>They did this by closing clinics in rural and sparsely populated areas and focusing instead on inner cities with higher concentrations of Black-American and Latino women. Roughly 94% of abortions clinics are located in cities. I recently debated a Planned Parenthood leader at the FAMU College of Law in Orlando on this question chosen by the predominantly minority law school students: “Is Abortion Black Genocide?” Just the fact that the students from this prominent Black-American College chose this title for the debate actually says quite a bit about the progress that we are making in increasing awareness of the sanctity of life.<u></u><u></u><br />
<br />
Every year in January during the anniversary of <em>Roe v Wade</em>, I go to the local Planned Parenthood clinic sidewalks with my children and others to pray and to peacefully draw attention to the great atrocity that takes place at these facilities. This year, I was amazed to find that there were about 200 people gathered, and that almost half of them were people of color. I saw Blacks, Latinos, and mixed races. In addition, about half of those present were <em>younger people</em>under the age of 35<em>. </em>Furthermore, the minorities present led the prayers, the public speaking and the songs. When I saw this I first began to wonder, could we be witnessing the beginning of the end? <u></u><u></u><br />
<br />
5) <strong>Hollywood and its Movies are more Pro-Life than Ever</strong>- In the last five to seven years, almost every major motion picture that has directly touched upon the issue of abortion or that has portrayed pregnant mothers has been pro-life. This development is simply remarkable. The movies <em>Bella</em>, <em>Juno</em>, <em>Knocked Up</em>, <em>Waitress</em>, <em>Children of Men</em>, <em>Look Who’s Talking</em>, and<em>August Rush</em> all portray mothers (and sometimes fathers) who made critical pro-life decisions. I could not even recommend all of these movies, but even the raunchy ones got it right on this issue. Fully animated children’s movies like <em>Finding Nemo </em>and <em>Horton Hears-a-Who</em> also present storylines that respect and honor life. <strong>Jason Jones</strong>, one of the producers of the movie<em>Bella</em>, told me that he knows politically liberal, secular Hollywood producers who are strongly pro-life. We are talking about <em>Hollywood movie producers!</em> One <em>openly gay</em> movie producer, who stands in opposition to abortion, reportedly stated, “If I could raise enough money, we could end abortion in America-- through movies.” This is serious progress toward reaching our goal of developing a cultural consensus.<u></u><u></u><br />
<br />
<u></u><u></u><br />
6) <strong>The Resurgence of Side Walk Counseling and other Pro-Life Activism</strong>- This observation may just be isolated to my regional observations in Florida, but it appears that more and more pro-life supporters have become comfortable with the idea of physically going to abortion clinics. By attending to the sidewalks in front of these clinics, pro-lifers are able to peacefully counsel, pray, provide assistance, hold signs, preach and plead with mothers to abstain from killing their babies. Sidewalk counselors are truly the front line of the pro-life movement; and their courage and commitment is truly admirable. The depiction of pictures and videos outside of clinics is a more controversial, but some would argue effective tactic that displays the actual practice and product of an abortion by showing the dismembered and destroyed unborn child that results. <strong>Greg Cunningham</strong>’s group, the <strong>Center for Bioethical Reform,</strong> carefully and intentionally uses this strategy. CBR presents its <strong>Genocide Awareness Project</strong> (GAP) on college campuses all around the country after requesting the legal assistance of our organization to demonstrate its legal right to be there. The GAP is a traveling photo mural exhibit which displays graphic forms of genocide in world history and places them in a historical context with abortion. The photos include the remains of dead bodies from the Cambodian Killing Fields, Jewish Holocaust victims, and African Americans killed in racist lynchings. The GAP has been to colleges and universities all over the country and has made a lasting impression upon the tens of thousands of students who have viewed it and experienced its sobering impact.<u></u><u></u><br />
<br />
<u></u><u></u><br />
7) <strong>The Crisis Pregnancy Center Movement Begins Planning Strategically </strong>– In my view, Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPC) and the people who run them are modern day heroes. The work they do is simply amazing. <em>Time m</em>agazine did a cover story in 2007 entitled: “The Abortion Campaign You Never Hear About: Crisis Pregnancy Centers are working to win over one woman at a time.” However, CPC’s have historically popped up organically without serious thought about how many others were around it or the locations of nearby abortion clinics. In other words, the CPC movement has never thought about itself globally or strategically-- until recently. <strong>Heartbeat International</strong> under the leadership of <strong>Peggy Hartshorn</strong> and <strong>John Ensor</strong> has pioneered a strategic study and a plan to counter the systematic placement of Planned Parenthood's abortion clinics in inner cities… Over the last 7 years, Ensor has lived for extended periods of time in Boston, Miami, Los Angeles and then to Pittsburg to plant sustainable CPC’s in those cities that are plagued with the highest concentrations of abortion clinics in the county. This inner city CPC planting strategy reaches more women and allows Black and Latino churches to take local ownership in and leadership for the sustained support of the ministry.<u></u><u></u><br />
<br />
<u></u><u></u><br />
8) <strong>Planned Parenthood’s Fraud Has Been Exposed and is Being Stripped of Public Funding </strong>– 2010 and 2011 were without question the worst years in Planned Parenthood’s (PP) recent public relations history. <strong>Lila Rose</strong>, an unassuming but striking college student has rocked their world with a series of undercover sting operations that has exposed the largest abortion provider’s rampant fraud, corruption, and criminal conduct. Her student lead organization <strong>Live Action,</strong> and its undercover investigations have repeatedly caught PP clinic personnel lying, covering up child sexual abuse, and aiding those involved in child sex trafficking. The stunning video that documents the findings of these historic student-led investigations have helped to fuel the fire that led to the defunding of PP by several states which stripped them of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. PP receives approximately 363 million dollars from state and federal public funding. Recently, Congress tried but failed to ban the funding. As of June 2011, the states of Kansas, Indiana and North Carolina have all cut state funding directed to PP. In 2012, Florida will also have a state constitutional amendment on the ballot which will give voters the opportunity to ban the public funding of abortions. <u></u><u></u><br />
<br />
<u></u><u></u><br />
9) <strong>Post-Abortive Women have become an Increasingly Powerful Voice </strong>- The generations of women who grew up under <em>Roe</em> and who were lied to and told that abortion was a safe and simple procedure have become emboldened and are no longer silent about their difficult experiences. <strong>Silent No More</strong>, <strong>Operation Outcry</strong> and <strong>A</strong> <strong>Cry without a Voice</strong> are three very different national organizations that all collect the voices, stories and testimonies of women who have had abortions and who want to speak and write about their experiences of pain and regret. Relational and existential evidence of the dangers and risks associated with abortion is a powerful tool to spread awareness and concern for the issue of life. These brave women share their deeply personal testimonies about the mental, physical and spiritual pain and complications that have resulted from the abortions they underwent.<u></u><u></u><br />
<br />
10) <strong> Abortion doctors are being disciplined, leaving the industry and not replacing themselves-</strong> All across the country, abortionists are being reprimanded for their violations of local, state and federal laws. Some have even had their licenses revoked. Some are being punished by medical boards and others have just walked away from the sickening practice or have been converted and are now pro-life advocates. There are approximately 40 percent fewer abortion doctors than 20 years ago, and fewer men and women are willing to consider entering the industry. The bottom line is that each year, fewer abortions are performed and fewer individuals are becoming abortionists in our nation.<u></u><u></u><br />
<br />
<u></u><u></u><br />
The skeptic may argue that many of my observations are anecdotal and unscientific. However, it seems clear that these developments are relatively recent, unique, and are all occurring at an unprecedented rate. I was recently in Washington, D.C. speaking on this topic before a group of national leaders. After speaking, I sat next to <strong>Dr. Jack Wilke</strong>, one of the founders of the pro-life movement in America and asked him if he agreed with my observations nationally or whether they are confined to Florida. He quickly agreed that amazing things are happening in the pro-life movement not just in Florida, but around the country. The entire abortion industry is on the ropes and is being hit hard from multiple sides. Now is not the time to rest but rather to double up our efforts and to work harder than ever while we have a providential window and extraordinary momentum.<br />
<br />
My final prayer is that we will look back upon abortion in America with the same shame, outrage and sadness that we now look upon the barbaric practice of slavery. While we continue to labor diligently to reach that goal, we can be encouraged by the fact that we are making significant progress and may just be witnessing “the beginning of the end...” of abortion in America.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-21331505691336677912011-01-21T00:14:00.001-05:002011-01-21T00:18:39.581-05:00Florida Election Brings Huge Victory for Pro-Life and Pro-Family Conservatives<div class="MsoNormal"> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The results from the 2010 elections have produced exciting results for pro-life and pro-family Floridians in state and federal races. Nationwide voters sent a clear signal that the far left leaning economic and social policies of President Obama and the Congress were unacceptable.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In Florida, <b>Rick</b> <b>Scott won the governor’s race by a 68,000 vote margin</b> from over 5 million votes that were cast as Alex Sink conceded the election just hours earlier this morning when the Palm Beach ballots were counted. We have written about the governor’s race being a close one and indeed it was and your participation in our efforts may have made the difference. Scott’s victory will also mean that <b>Jennifer Carroll will become Florida’s first Black American woman to serve as Lt. Governor</b>. More importantly, Jennifer Carroll is a committed Christian, wife, mother, former Naval officer and a rock solid conservative who aggressively helped us pass the Florida Marriage Amendment in 2008. Rep. Carroll was also one of the speakers at our Power and Policy Event in Tallahassee last year. The <b>Republican candidates also won all of the other statewide Florida Cabinet seats</b>: Pam Bondi will be Attorney General, Jeff Atwater will be the state’s Chief Financial Officer and Adam Putnam will be Commissioner of Agriculture. Watch each of these officials as these statewide positions place each of them in a prime spot to run for Governor or U.S. Senate sometime in the future. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Florida Legislature will see what could be major positive changes as the Republican majority increased their numbers even further last night. Republicans now have a <b>28-12 majority in the State Senate</b> and an <b>81-39 advantage in the State House</b>. These numbers now give the Florida legislature the two thirds majority needed to override any potential gubernatorial veto. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In the Florida Senate, which will be led by conservative Senator Mike Haridopolos, the Republicans picked up two new seats: Jack Latvala won in District </span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">16 and Lizbeth Benacquisto won in District 27. We are encouraged by these changes especially because the Senate has traditionally been the more moderate to liberal of the two chambers in recent years and has blocked much of our pro-life legislation. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In the Florida House, incoming Speaker Dean Cannon won reelection and also saw his <b>State House</b> <b>majority increased by five seats</b>. In District 11, Republican Elizabeth Porter beat incumbent Democrat Debbie Boyd. Republican Larry Ahern defeated incumbent Democrat Janet Long in District 51. Incumbent Democrat Bill Heller was defeated by Republican Jeff Brandes in District 52. In District 69, Republican Ray Pilon beat incumbent Democrat Keith Fitzgerald. And in District 81, incumbent Democrat Adam Fetterman was defeated by former Representative Gayle Harrell.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><b><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The new Legislature is expected to meet on November 16th for an administrative session</span></b><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> and orientation for new members. They will likely also hold a special session to overturn some of the vetoes that Gov. Crist had issued during the last Legislative Session. <b>Any veto override would need virtually 100% of the members joining in</b> because the veto override majority is an exacting one. It is unlikely that the Ultrasound before abortion bill would come up for an override because a couple of the new GOP House member pickups are not pro-life. <b>The more likely scenario would be that Ultrasound would be brought up again in the 2011 session</b> where it could now be easily passed and the new Governor Rick Scott would sign the bill into law as he promised. Veto overrides will likely occur on less controversial matters such as Shands Hospital funding and Agricultural rules that were killed by Gov. Crist.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-outline-level: 3;"><b><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">On the federal level, the top news story in the country is Marco Rubio’s commanding win of the U.S. Senate seat </span></b><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">against newly independent Charlie Crist and Democrat Kendrick Meek. Crist only won three of Florida's 67 counties: Broward, Pinellas (his home) and Leon. Meek won Gadsden County and Rubio won all the rest. Rubio’s win was on the front page of the New York Times this morning<b> and people are already talking about him being a presidential hopeful one day. </b>Rubio was the keynote speaker at our FFPC Annual Policy Awards dinner this last May. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-outline-level: 3;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-outline-level: 3;"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Florida also saw four congressional seats held by pro-abortion Democrats go to pro-life conservative Republicans. In District 2,<b> Republican Steve Southerland beat seven-term Democrat incumbent Congressman Alan Boyd, which is an amazing upset in North Florida. </b>Southerland attended our Annual Policy Awards dinner last May and is a fine man of principle<b>. In District 8, former state senator Daniel Webster dealt a serious blow to divisive and controversial Alan Grayson in a race that was one of polar and cosmic opposites</b>. Grayson, the loud mouth leftist bully who ran perhaps the most despicable negative campaign ever-- versus Webster-- the quiet Christian conservative statesmen who committed to running a clean campaign with no negative advertising. The FFPC has named its Lifetime Achievement Award after Dan Webster and for good reason. He is one of the most humble and principled servants ever produced in Florida’s history. In District 22, incumbent Congressman Ron Klein was defeated by tea-party favorite Allen West. <b>West becomes the first Black American Republican in more than a century to be elected to Congress from Florida. </b>In District 24,<b> Sandy Adams also defeated Suzanne Kosmas. </b>Adams will<b> </b>be a reliable conservative and pro-life vote in Congress.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-outline-level: 3;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-outline-level: 3;"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><b><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">None of the appellate judges up for Merit Retention in Florida were unseated</span></b><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> as there was no formal, funded opposition, so they all retained their seats. Of interest, the state of Iowa in a stunning and historical move unseated all 3 of their Supreme Court Justices because of a same sex marriage decision of raw judicial activism. The Florida Supreme Court may have also avoided the same type risk of a defeat by not having to hear the homosexual adoption appeal. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">On the Amendments, Democrats got perhaps the most significant and long term win when <b>Amendments 5 & 6 passed on redistricting</b>. This will make legislators very nervous and perhaps less courageous on issues as they are now not sure what the demographics of their seats will look like the next time they run for office. Safe Republican seats could be reduced or eliminated with the impact of the new redistricting in the future. <b>Amendment 4’s defeat was also a major victory</b> as the anti-growth amendment would have produced almost certain economic disaster in Florida. All the other amendments failed except <b>Amendment 2, the property tax break for military personnel which passed.</b> Florida’s unique 60% hurdle for state constitutional amendments, proposed by the legislature and enacted in 2006, was largely motivated out of concern for the passage of this type of a redistricting amendment.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">These are some amazing wins but we need to realize the work has just begun and we cannot rest completely thinking the job is done. This is an ongoing process and we need to remain prayerfully engaged as responsible citizens.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Finally, on behalf of the Board of Directors of the FFPC and our entire staff, we want to thank all of you, our supporters, who have prayed, given financially, (to pay for voter guides and our “get-out –the-vote” campaign) and worked hard for pro-life and pro-family candidates. You may have literally made the difference in many of these close races by your participation and support. For this we are so grateful to you. Let’s continue to be faithful and trust in God for the results. </span></div><span style="color: black;"></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-53817114319765917442010-09-13T00:31:00.004-04:002010-09-30T22:30:02.337-04:00BREAKING NEWS: Muslim Hacker Destroys FFPC WebsiteWe have some rather stunning and almost unbelievable news that we need to report. Late last week, we were attacked and the code of our FFPC website at <a href="http://flfamily.org/" target="_blank">FLFamily.org</a> was completely disabled and destroyed by a radical Muslim hacker. Let me explain… <br />
<br />
<img height="192" hspace="5" src="http://www.votervoice.net/Files/FLFPC/Images/Screen%20Shot%20-%20Hacked.jpg" width="320" /><br />
You may have heard of Rifqa Bary. Rifqa is the young girl from Columbus, Ohio, who converted from Islam to Christianity and then fled to Florida on a bus after her parents threatened to kill her for not renouncing her faith. In my personal capacity as an attorney, I agreed to represent Rifqa in this high-profile Orlando case last year. Rifqa's parents actively attended a mosque in Columbus that had ties to terrorists' organizations around the world. I wrote an extensive memorandum documenting this to the Florida court. Handling Rifqa's case was perhaps the most challenging and stressful thing I have ever done in my life.<br />
<br />
The case was eventually transferred to Ohio where her parents were located. I agreed to appear on "Fox and Friends" four times as a guest to explain what was taking place in the Ohio case and to discuss Islamic honor killings, which can occur when a very devout Muslim rejects Islam.<br />
<br />
Just weeks ago, Rifqa turned 18, and we saw a great victory when her freedom and status were secured as a "Permanent Legal Resident" in the U.S. This ensures that she will never have to fear being sent back to her native Sri Lanka where she could easily be killed as one of the highest profile and most recognizable Islamic Apostates in the world. Rifqa represents a symbol of hope for hundreds of thousands of young Muslims who disagree with Islam and want to leave their faith, but fear the implications of doing so. It was a real challenge but a great privilege to defend this amazing young lady who now desires to "preach the Gospel to the nations."<br />
<br />
However, I have learned that when you oppose radical Islam, there is a price...<br />
<br />
Last Monday, the lawyer who represented Rifqa's parents in Ohio – who claims to be a "Muslim scholar" – filed a <b>$10 million lawsuit</b> against me personally in Federal Court alleging "emotional distress" and "damage to reputation" for my some of my comments on one of the Fox News interviews. This same lawyer has filed multiple grievances against me with the Florida Bar, trying to have me disbarred or disciplined as an attorney.<br />
<img height="320" hspace="5" src="http://www.votervoice.net/Files/FLFPC/Images/Screen%20Shot%20-%20Hacked%20Medium.jpg" width="265" /><br />
In addition to all of this, last Friday a Muslim hacker somehow gained access to our FFPC website, (it appears through the server or some older code) and disabled the entire back-end controls on the site, erased most of the code, disabled the blog and left an obscene message on the events page explaining in broken English who he was and why he was hacking the site. Our web experts tell us that the five-year-old site, which has served us well, is completely unusable and needs to be replaced.<br />
<br />
<u>I am writing to ask you to make a special gift to help us immediately secure a new website.</u> The cost for a new website with all the various capabilities we need is estimated at about $20,000. A very generous and close friend of ours who learned of this incident over the weekend has come forward and donated $10,000 as a matching gift in order to help us raise the other $10,000.<br />
<br />
<u>The FFPC website is our single most strategic tool for accomplishing our mission</u> to protect and defend life, marriage, family and religious liberty. In just the last 30 days leading up to the primary election, our website had a record number of more than 27,000 visitors. And with the November election coming up, making voter guides easily available online is a <u>mission critical task</u>. Over the next 50 days, we estimate that well over 100,000 supporters from all over Florida will be looking for our website to get information on candidates, ballot issues and judges before they vote.<br />
<br />
<u>Would you please make a special online contribution right now to help us in this serious time of need?</u> We have set up a secure, separate site to make an online credit-card or debit-card gift. Or you can just write a check to us at 4853 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL 32806. If we get the funds for the website this week, we can rebuild it – in time to post the voter guides online for early voting and to make them available in hard copy for mass distribution in churches.<br />
<br />
Most of all, I need and covet your prayers for my wife and family during this difficult and challenging time. Thank you for your faithfulness and support of our work.<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
John Stemberger<br />
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" /><br />
<input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="EAAET8ZGHNDBA" /><br />
<input alt="PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!" border="0" name="submit" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif" type="image" /><br />
<br />
Since writing this E-mail Alert there there have been a number of quesions regarding the hacking incident: We have attempted to answer these questions in this FAQ list. <br />
<br />
Dear Friend, <br />
Thank you so much for your faithful support and prayers in response to the Muslim attacks on me personally, and on the FFPC website after representing Rifqa Bary and helping to secure her freedom in this country. In response to our last e-mail alert on the website hacking there were several questions asked to us about more details about the incident. We would like to take a moment to answer some of those frequently asked questions. <br />
Q- How did the hacker actually get into the website? <br />
A- The hacker found an exploit (vulnerability) in the website’s “contact-us” page and gained access to back end CMS of the site. Then a virus was used to access to the entire server in Fort Lauderdale where the website is hosted. The technicians we are working with described the hacking as a fairly sophisticated operation that was done in a matter of only 15 minutes. <br />
Q- What type of damage was done to the website?<br />
A- The hacker erased most of the data and the files. Much of the content was erased and some of the banner ads were also deleted. <br />
Q- Why wasn’t the website backed up? <br />
A- The site was backed up. The virus the hacker used also destroyed the back-ups of the code on the server as well. The back up was on a seperate system in the same server facility. There were no offsite or online backups used. This will change in the future. <br />
Q- How do you know the hacker was a Muslim?<br />
A- There are several pieces of evidence which point to the fact that the hacker wanted us to know that his "Great Islam" motivated this criminal act:<br />
1. The hacker left a large picture with Arabic letters which read “Allah”<br />
2. The hacker left an obscene message which read in broken English:“You got hacked due to you s**t thinking about Great Islam.”<br />
<br />
3. The hacker left his name, “Jhon Tairy”. <br />
<br />
4. Four days before the hack, I was sued by a Muslim lawyer named Omar Tarazi for 10 million dollars in an Ohio Federal Court. A story in the Orlando Sentinel mentioned that I also led the Florida Family Policy Council which ran on the worldwide web.<br />
<br />
Q- Did you report this to the authorities?<br />
A- Yes. All the facts and details surounding the hacking was reported to the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center. It was also reported to the Orange County Economic Crimes Division. <br />
Q- Why does it cost $20,000 to build a new website?<br />
A- The old FFPC website that was destroyed, was a high-end, custom site with original art, a unique design and a number of proprietary features. Good websites for corporations or large organizations like ours with all the speciality features can easily cost upwards of $30-50,000. Very simple websites with only basic features can be purchased for much less. This is one of the most strategic tools that the FFPC uses and we are not looking to just throw up a quick and sub-standard blog site. One of the first bids we received for the new site was actually $25,000. <br />
We are trusting in our sovereign God and the fact that what the enemy means for evil, God means for good. On behalf of my wife Olivia and our whole family, I can’t tell you how much we appreciate you. When we fight the good fight, we can almost tangbly feel your prayers and support. We simply could not do our work without you. Thank you, thank you, thank you… <br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
John Stemberger <br />
President</form>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-28830985058308279372010-08-27T01:52:00.003-04:002010-09-09T12:14:30.629-04:00A Perspective on Winning and Losing ElectionsSo your guy didn't win the election? Maybe several of your candidates didn't win. What about all of the time, money and effort you spent? What about the credibility of your personal support? Or what about the countless hours of volunteering, sending e-mails and talking to neighbors and friends? Are you discouraged? Disillusioned? Upset? <br />
<br />
Well, at the risk of sounding insensitive, welcome to politics in a fallen world. <br />
<br />
I was speaking at a conference in Jacksonville when a man raised his hand and told me he was greatly discouraged by all the insanity of where the country is going politically. He asked me what I could tell him to encourage him. While I can really sympathize with this man's feelings, my response was straightforward. "Faithfulness is the goal." <br />
<br />
For the world, "winning" is not just the goal, it's everything. For the believer, <i>faithfulness</i> is the goal. Now don't get me wrong. I want to win. And we will fight hard to win. In a sense, I have devoted my life to winning the battles we fight. But in God's economy, the focus is not merely winning-- but on us being faithful to the end. <br />
<br />
Do we stop proclaiming the Gospel or speaking truth in love because the world rejects the truth? Do we give up on evangelism because we are not "winning" and seeing results with unbelievers? Do we give up as parents because we are not seeing "results" in our children? No, we develop a holy resilience to failure and setbacks and press on in faithful obedience to any task that we are called to accomplish.<br />
<br />
In politics, as with evangelism, God simply calls us to be faithful to the message and the task. The results are in His providential hands. When history is behind us, we rest in His sovereign plan. We do our best to promote the virtuous and expose evil and deception. We work hard to elect the most principled candidates. We steward our citizenship by educating ourselves and others and voting with the best possible information we can find. But once we have discharged our responsibility, we can be satisfied and feel God's pleasure in the fact that we were simply faithful.<br />
<br />
As for me and my house, we are done with the emotional ups and downs of the roller coaster of election wins and losses—super elated with a win or totally depressed with a loss. We are learning the discipline of just being content with the knowledge that we were faithful to have done everything within our influence to elect principled men and women that will stand for life, marriage, and family.<br />
<br />
It is natural and normal to be disappointed with a defeat and overjoyed with a victory. I am not suggesting we deny the emotional responses that come with either winning or losing. What I am suggesting is that we not become emotional slaves to the circumstances one way or another but instead to sense God's highest satisfaction in knowing that we were merely faithful to do our part-- irrespective of the outcome.<br />
<br />
This understanding aligns us with an eternal perspective. It protects us from burn out and it gives us greater endurance and resilience. Most importantly it postures us to humble ourselves before the Creator of history itself to recognize that we can only see in part and know in part and that ultimately His ways are higher, deeper and wiser than our ways.<br />
<br />
My favorite historical place to visit in Washington, D.C. is the Arlington National Cemetery. To walk quietly at the feet of over a quarter of a million gravestones representing American soldiers from the Civil War to Iraq can be a profound experience. Looking across what appears to be an endless sea of mostly young men and women who have died so that I might live with freedom, is a sobering if not a completely transforming experience. Suddenly, everything comes into perspective. In that moment, I recommit myself with greater tenacity and courage to what I am called to do and realize that any disappointment or discouragement I have experienced is merely light and momentary compared to those who have paid the ultimate price.<br />
<br />
Mother Teresa spent her lifetime serving the poor and unborn in conditions which just seemed insurmountable. Yet her timeless admonition still gives fresh motivation today. She said, "We do nothing. God does everything. All glory must be returned to Him. God has not called me to be successful. He called me to be faithful." Would that we could all have this same steady and eternal perspective when we face the wins and losses of life.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-75212011985269215552010-08-07T15:35:00.003-04:002010-09-09T12:15:22.069-04:00Ruling not just wrong but an insult to democracyExcerpt from The Palm Beach Post:<br />
<blockquote><i>Vaughn Walker, the federal judge who "ruled" California's marriage amendment is unconstitutional, is wrong - on the law, on the social science and on his role as a judge.</i></blockquote><br />
Read the rest of the article by clicking on the link below--<br />
<a href="http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/commentary/commentary-same-sex-marriage-ruling-ruling-not-just-846080.html%20">http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/commentary/commentary-same-sex-marriage-ruling-ruling-not-just-846080.html </a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-72707130669405003382010-05-29T01:23:00.000-04:002010-05-29T01:23:12.909-04:00Ultrasound images should be shown to women seeking abortion<a href="http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1096733.ece">http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1096733.ece</a> <br />
<br />
<br />
By Cathy Ruse, special to the Times<br />
<br />
In Print: Monday, May 24, 2010<br />
<br />
Last year, in the dead heat of the summer, I developed pneumonia. When my doctor suspected the cause of my fatigue and shortness of breath, he ordered an X-ray and in a short while we were examining the picture of my lungs. This window to an erstwhile unseen world provided by modern medicine allowed my doctor to confirm his diagnosis and provided the information I needed to make decisions about my treatment.<br />
<br />
A dozen states are considering laws that require abortion clinics to provide ultrasound images for women seeking abortion. Obstetric ultrasound is a safe and noninvasive procedure using high frequency sound waves to provide a picture of the moving fetus on a monitor screen. A "transducer" is placed on the abdomen and moved to capture different views inside the uterus. The fetal heartbeat can be viewed as early as four weeks, and other fetal measurements can be made accurately from the images on the screen.<br />
<br />
Opponents of these laws, like the editors at USA Today, say the ultrasound mandates "cross a line" and force "unnecessary medical procedures" on women. Yet the reality of abortion in America suggests this rhetoric is off the mark.<br />
<br />
There are far too many stories of women who were not fully informed before their abortion and are suffering now because of it. In fact, there are women in court today suing abortion doctors for lying to them about the state of development of their child. The people in various states considering these laws have the right to decide that women deserve factual information before an abortion and that the best information about fetal development is an ultrasound picture.<br />
<br />
Florida's proposed law prescribes an ultrasound prior to every abortion. Women must be allowed to view the live ultrasound images, though they must also be informed that they have the right to decline to view them under the law. In either case, the law requires that the physician or sonographer review and explain the images. (Most obstetric ultrasound procedures are performed topically, as described above. An alternative is the transvaginal ultrasound, which produces an enhanced image quality but is not a common prenatal procedure. The Florida measure does not require this more invasive procedure.)<br />
<br />
The fact is, ultrasounds are used today by abortion clinic doctors (they actually make abortions safer) but the screen is turned away from the woman. Proponents of bills like the one in Florida believe, quite simply, that the information an ultrasound provides ought to be in the hands of the person who is making the abortion decision, not only the person who stands to profit from it. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the information an ultrasound provides is relevant and meaningful to that decisionmaker. Various studies suggest that about 80 percent of women change their mind about abortion after seeing an ultrasound. If women themselves say ultrasounds make a difference, "prochoice" politicians shouldn't stand in the way of making this information available.<br />
<br />
Some charge that providing ultrasound images equates to emotional blackmail for a woman who has already made an agonizing decision, but a recent study published in the European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care would suggest otherwise. In an article entitled, "Women's perceptions about seeing the ultrasound picture before an abortion," the authors report that women presenting for medical and surgical abortions at two urban clinics were asked if they wished to view an ultrasound image. Of 350 participants, 72.6 percent chose to view the ultrasound and, of those, 86.3 percent found it a positive experience.<br />
<br />
Abortion proponents could adopt this standard of practice voluntarily, of course, but they won't. Abortion clinics are for-profit ventures, and notoriously underregulated — animal hospitals and beauty salons are better regulated than some abortion clinics. They will always oppose laws that strengthen a woman's right to know because when women are empowered, they tend to choose life for their children. That's good medicine, but bad for business.<br />
<br />
Cathy Ruse is senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-4007063300793100892010-05-25T08:37:00.000-04:002010-05-25T08:37:56.473-04:00Poll Question about HB 1143 was biasedAn article yesterday in the St. Petersburg Times touts a poll that indicates Floridians are opposed to the Pro-Life bill HB 1143. However, closer scrutiny of the question that the poll asked reveals why the poll results were most likely skewed by the biased question. <br />
<br />
<br />
The Ultrasound bill question that Ipsos Public Affairs presented to callers painted a vastly biased and misinformed characterization of HB 1143 and the choice that the bill provides to women seeking an abortion. The question makes it sound like the ultrasound is some new cost imposed on women, when in reality, most abortion clinics charge for an ultrasound now to determine the age of the baby and never provide that information to the woman. In other words, she is paying today for a service that benefits the abortion doctor because he determines from the ultrasound how large the baby is and how much more he can charge the woman for the abortion. The poll question also falsely claims that the woman will be forced to view the ultrasound and listen to a description of the ultrasound. In reality, the bill provides every woman the option, for any reason, to deny the opportunity to view the image and have the ultrasound explained. <br />
See the full poll results here: <br />
<a href="http://blogs.tampabay.com/files/florida-polling-topline-5-20-2010.doc">http://blogs.tampabay.com/files/florida-polling-topline-5-20-2010.doc</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-20773612853304567282010-03-10T11:21:00.001-05:002010-03-10T11:27:53.670-05:00In defense of ideological opposition to gamblingOur problem-solver-in-chief who occupies the Governor’s Mansion in Tallahassee rebuked ideological opponents of all sorts in his March 2 State of the State Address, arguing that Florida’s challenges will not be fixed by public officials adhering to dogmatic principles but by those who are committed to “realism.”<br />
<br />
<table align="right" bgcolor="#f7f7f7" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="width: 175px;"><tbody>
<tr><td><img border="0" src="http://www.gofbw.com/userimages/photo/smith4425.jpg" width="175" /></td></tr>
<tr><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>What Gov. Charlie Crist failed to acknowledge in his despicable demagoguery against ideology is that he is in fact advancing a different sort of ideology—pragmatism. The irony is, especially as it relates to Crist’s aggressive promotion of expanded gambling to help balance the state’s budget, the governor is advancing a pragmatism that, in fact, will not work.<br />
<br />
Worse than that, Crist, who campaigned in 2006 as an opponent of gambling expansion, is advancing a pragmatism that will harm the citizens he’s obligated to protect.<br />
<br />
Claiming he is not a “big fan of gambling,” Crist told legislators they should approve a gambling compact with the Seminole Indian Tribe for the sake of the education of our children.<br />
<br />
“Given the fact that Florida desperately needs the money—and given that gambling already occurs in our state—and given that we all love freedom, doesn’t it make sense to let people exercise their freedom in a way that directs money to Florida’s citizens? Wouldn’t it be appropriate to set aside personal biases and approve a compact that will help pay to educate Florida’s schoolchildren?”<br />
<br />
Yet again trotting out freckled-faced kids as a cover for gambling expansion—that’s despicable demagoguery.<br />
<br />
There is much that is wrong about Crist’s argument for gambling expansion, but I’ll focus on just two points: fiscal and moral.<br />
In my last <a href="http://www.gofbw.com/blog.asp?ID=11402" target="_blank">editorial</a>, I reviewed the independent research of Dr. Earl Grinols, who testified last year before the House Select Committee on Seminole Compact Review. The bottom line of his research is that casino gambling doesn’t pass the cost-benefit test. For every one dollar of new government revenue generated by casino gambling, the government is required to spend three dollars for the social costs that gambling causes.<br />
<br />
Crist wants legislators to bank this year $430 million the Seminoles have been escrowing based on the first compact negotiated with the governor in 2007 but invalidated by the Florida Supreme Court in 2008.<br />
<br />
(A little history worth noting: Legislators should remember that Crist thumbed his nose at them in the first version of the compact by attempting to execute the agreement without legislative authorization—after the governor said he would seek the Legislature’s approval. It was only because then-Speaker Marco Rubio took the issue to the Florida Supreme Court and won that brought Crist hat-in-hand seeking the Legislature’s approval.)<br />
<br />
If Grinols is correct—and he’s got both an impressive body of research and impressive academic resume to back it up—the penny-wise “solution” of taking Seminole gambling money in 2010 will later result in the pound-foolish costs to the state in a few short years.<br />
<br />
What kind of problem-solving is that?<br />
<br />
Even though (thankfully) Crist and some of the legislators will not be around to deal with the consequences later, they are duty-bound to not create an even greater fiscal nightmare in the future by approving an gambling expansion today.<br />
<br />
The fiscal facts alone should cause legislators to reject gambling expansion.<br />
<br />
However, there is a moral argument that cannot be ignored. That’s right; I’m making an ideological argument against gambling.<br />
<br />
Crist’s desire to allow Floridians the opportunity to “exercise their freedom in a way that directs money to Florida’s citizens” is incredibly cynical. What the governor is really saying is that public officials whose duty it is to protect citizens should instead prey upon the most vulnerable—the poor and those subject to addictions—and rely upon making them losers to fund the state budget.<br />
<br />
Indeed, it is immoral for the government to make citizens losers to balance the budget.<br />
<br />
This is just plain wrong—and any public official who claims to be concerned for the family cannot support it.<br />
<br />
Charlie Crist’s pro-gambling colors have been clear for all to see since at least 2007. As outrageous and irresponsible is the governor’s gambling rhetoric and actions, those who are concerned about gambling expansion in the Sunshine State should be more troubled by the talk of a grand gambling compromise coming from within the once anti-gambling Florida House of Representatives.<br />
<br />
It appears the governor’s non-stop push for gambling that began early in his gubernatorial term and the daunting fiscal challenge of balancing the state budget in the midst of the Great Recession may cause legislators to succumb to the lie that gambling money will fix our problems.<br />
<br />
According to Mary Ellen Klas of <i>The Miami Herald</i>, the framework of a gambling compromise negotiated between the Seminoles and House leaders is in the works.<br />
<br />
“I think we’re very close,” Rep. Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, told Klas. “I think we’ll have an agreement that we can work with.”<br />
<br />
According to Klas, the compromise would include a $150 million annual payment from the tribe for five years and exclusive operation of table games in South Florida. If the Legislature later gives blackjack and table games to the pari-mutuels, the Seminoles would pay only for the operation of its slot machines for 20 years—and those payments would end if pari-mutuels outside of South Florida later are given video lottery terminals.<br />
<br />
Klas also reports the deal with the Seminoles would be tied to a bill to lower the tax rate for pari-mutuels.<br />
<br />
It’s interesting—and disturbing—that the pari-mutuels expansion bill will once again be packaged with the prospective Seminole compact after the two measures were de-linked when the House Select Committee rejected the compact and approved the pari-mutuels bill in January.<br />
<br />
This linking strategy was used last year to pass the gambling package, resulting in the second version of the Seminole compact negotiated by Crist. By tying the measures together, it forces legislators who are not sympathetic to the compact but are concerned about the pari-mutuels to hold their noses and vote “aye.”<br />
<br />
Tragically, there are some legislators who have an otherwise strong record on pro-family matters who may vote for a prospective gambling compromise—even in the face of the clear evidence that gambling destroys families, and it results in the loss of human life.<br />
<br />
Legislators who support gambling expansion are not pro-family and they are not pro-life.<br />
<br />
Ideology in the defense of families and life should be preferred to pragmatism and problem-solving that actually exacerbates our state’s problems.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-76315444178593271752010-02-09T13:23:00.001-05:002010-02-09T13:54:41.004-05:00Commentary by Thomas hits Florida Legislators on Gambling proposals<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0Kq-oLG6xlP586HrG3Im-vKfmu2bvMD3iuKpNXaeoTqBuwmLjCaxsP2tyZu4njvdxVHaDnYOql8jmkWFGp1ye2DHPGpXCYw-aFgVCM_JyrsEt2XSb6Pl0Tl-Dhwa8xu2nWWzK3A/s1600-h/casino.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" kt="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0Kq-oLG6xlP586HrG3Im-vKfmu2bvMD3iuKpNXaeoTqBuwmLjCaxsP2tyZu4njvdxVHaDnYOql8jmkWFGp1ye2DHPGpXCYw-aFgVCM_JyrsEt2XSb6Pl0Tl-Dhwa8xu2nWWzK3A/s200/casino.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>The Orlando Sentinel’s Mike Thomas had an <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-mike-thomas-florida-gambling-020910-20100208,0,3301826.column?page=1">excellent piece</a> yesterday about the proposals that FL Legislators are making to bring a multitude of Las Vegas Casinos to Florida. He makes a strong and compelling case why this is bad public policy for the people of Florida. <br />
<br />
“The newest plan to save Florida involves turning it into Nevada….Line the state with casinos, rake in the billions and live tax-free ever after. It's enough to make the conservatives in Tallahassee swallow their principles and sit down to deal. It spares them from making responsible choices about taxes and budgets. It would double down on everything that is wrong with Florida.”<br />
<br />
Thomas goes on to describe the decay and misery that gambling has brought to Las Vegas and the fiscal mess that Nevada is facing because they have relied so heavily on predatory gambling revenue.<br />
<br />
“Nevada relies on Vegas growth, Vegas tourism and Vegas sales taxes to pay the bills. Now, just like here, people are bailing out, and Nevada is losing population. Foreclosures are so rampant that an economist predicted it will take 20 years for the real-estate market to recover. Nevada has a 13 percent unemployment rate, the second-highest in the nation behind Michigan. The Las Vegas school district is looking at firing 2,000 teachers. Residents in Vegas are 50 percent more likely to commit suicide than people in the rest of the country….Vegas is a mess. It's going to be an even bigger mess over time as gambling proliferates across the country, sucking away all but the high rollers from the Vegas strip. And now a growing number of Florida legislators want to emulate the Vegas model.”<br />
We still have a chance to let our Florida elected officials know that we do not want the state delving more into the predatory gambling industry. Research is clear: casinos lead to increased addiction, increased bankruptcy and increased crime. And they will decimate the surrounding small businesses which are already struggling to survive.<br />
<br />
Read the full column by Mike Thomas on OrlandoSentinel.com <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-mike-thomas-florida-gambling-020910-20100208,0,3301826.column?page=1">HERE</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-64963113327873424002010-02-04T10:32:00.002-05:002010-02-04T10:55:53.295-05:00Orlando Sentinel Devotes Column To Criticizing Mistaken Photograph in FFPC E-Newsletter<img align="left" alt="gay-women1" height="216" hspace="12" src="http://i46.tinypic.com/flzh8n.jpg" vspace="4" width="186" />Last week the Florida Family Policy Council’s weekly E-Newsletter contained a story about yet a third South Florida activist judge who illegally approved a homosexual adoption in direct defiance of Florida’s law which prohibits the arrangements. The photo in the news piece we ran (red and blue shirts on left) was obtained from an online article about a different South Florida Judge who approved a different improper homosexual adoption. <br />
<br />
<img align="right" height="204" hspace="12" src="http://i45.tinypic.com/egsp5g.jpg" style="height: 204px; width: 182px;" vspace="4" width="182" />Orlando Sentinel “Taking Names” Columnist, Scott Maxwell, on an apparent slow news day, managed to devote an entire column just to criticizing and judging our motives as an organization for the use of the mistaken photo before getting the facts. Maxwell did ask <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">FFPC</span> President John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Stemberger</span> if he had a justification for use of the wrong photo in an e-mail and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Stemberger</span> sent back the following e-mail response:<br />
<br />
<strong>“Scott, a day after the e-newsletter was sent out it was brought to my attention by one of my own staff members that this was not a picture of the actual couple in question in the Herald story but was a photo which was associated with an earlier story on a different gay adoption story. See (warning some graphic content on this site) <a href="http://bossip.com/58859/the-gays-win-a-round/" target="_blank">http://bossip.com/58859/the-gays-win-a-round/</a> I would be happy to issue a correction and an apology if you or someone else felt it was warranted. I have received no complaints on this till now. If you are going to do a piece defending the position that Florida’s law on homosexual adoption needs to be changed that is fine but do not focus on the straw man of our admittedly boneheaded mistake. Let me know if you would like to see an apology and or a correction issued. John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Stemberger</span>” </strong><br />
<br />
Unfortunately, because Maxwell gave no deadline, the publishing of the column and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Stemberger</span>’s explanation missed each other by only several hours. Maxwell’s <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-scott-maxwell-gay-adoption-020310-20100202,0,4681616,full.column" target="_blank"><strong>column</strong></a> which was published on Wednesday February 3, 2010 was his usual name calling hit piece accusing the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">FFPC</span> of “dirty tactics”, “deception”, “intolerance” and “fear mongering” for not using the actual photo of the lesbians <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">involved</span> in the story (see photo with gray shirts). Maxwell also never really addressed the merits of the debate or why he thinks homosexual adoptions are a good idea and are just as good as adoptions by both a father and a mother. (see previous BLOG post from last year below for detailed discussion on this debate)<br />
<br />
After receiving <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Stemberger</span>’s explanation and correction, Maxwell himself never apologized for his irresponsible and judgmental rant against the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">FFPC</span> but did blog on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Stemberger's</span> correction (see <a href="http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_namesblog/2010/02/stemberger-wrong-pics-of-gay-couple-was-mistake.html" target="_blank"><strong>http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_namesblog/2010/02/stemberger-wrong-pics-of-gay-couple-was-mistake.html</strong></a>) Unfortunately, he also never bothered to quote at all from the explanation given and again tried to put the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">FFPC</span> in a bad light even after knowing the facts of both of our mistakes. <br />
<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">FFPC</span> President John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Stemberger</span> has issued the following statement of apology:<br />
<br />
“I would like to offer my sincerest apologies to <strong>Melanie Leon</strong> and <strong>Vanessa <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Alenier</span></strong> for the mistaken photograph used in reference to the homosexual adoption story we published last week. The use of the photo was a clear mistake on our part and was not intended to demean either of you or other gay identified persons. Please accept our apology.”Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-25594691188325417432009-08-25T19:32:00.000-04:002009-08-25T19:55:53.808-04:00Understanding The Legal Challenge to Florida's Ban on Homosexual Adoption<span style="font-style: italic;">By John Stemberger</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What Exactly Did Miami Judge Cindy Lederman’s Decision Do?</span><br /><br />In November of 2008, Miami Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ruled in a 54 page decision that (in her opinion) Florida’s ban on homosexuals adopting children is somehow “unconstitutional”. She came to this conclusion with no direct precedent or legal authority. In her view, Florida’s 35 year old adoption law now all of a sudden “violates” the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Judge Lederman ruled that there was no evidence to prove that children would be “harmed” if adopted by homosexual parents.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Why was Judge Lederman’s Ruling Wrong? </span><br /><br />The decision by Judge Lederman is classic, text-book, judicial activism. Instead of interpreting and enforcing the plain language of the statute, which has been held constitutional by federal courts, she openly and brazenly defied the rule of law. She ignored the will of the people as expressed through the legislature and inserted her own personal opinion. Instead of exercising her proper judicial role as a restrained academic interpreter of existing law, she became a social change agent and usurped her limited role.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Why Not Allow Homosexuals to Adopt Children? </span><br /><br />In short, it is not the best arrangement for the rearing of children. Even openly gay activists had admitted this obvious truth. Optimal human socialization involves a child understanding the proper working relationship between a man and a woman, a father and a mother and a husband and wife. When the state creates permanent family relationships they must use the standard that is used in all of family law matters. The standard is what is in the best interest of children. This is the common law standard but this is the question that Judge Lederman did not ask. Instead she focused on the question of whether the homosexual foster parents would “harm the children.” Arguably, Foster homes and orphanages do not “harm children” but these are clearly not the best arrangements. Two moms or two dads, are an objectively inferior choice when compared to the option of a married mom and dad.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What about all the Foster Children “Languishing” in the System?</span><br /><br />This question reveals a major public misconception. While the need for qualified <span style="font-style: italic;">foster parents</span> in Florida is great, the same is not true for parents <span style="font-style: italic;">willing to adopt</span>. In fact, the demand for children to be adopted nationwide is enormous and it far outweighs the number of children available for adoption. Tens of thousands of parents even go to foreign countries to adopt because of all the red tape that exists in adoption laws here in the United States! Children of any age, sex, race or national origin could be adopted. I am told that there are even quiet waiting lists to adopt children with Down syndrome. The children that are very difficult to adopt are those with severe deformities serious medical issues and older children with behavior problems.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What Does the Social Science Research Show About What is Best for Children? </span><br /><br />While Judge Lederman reviewed some disputed and limited research on whether children raised by gays would be “harmed,” she completely neglected to review the vast body of undisputed social science studies which clearly demonstrate “what is <span style="font-style: italic;">best </span>for children” And there are not just a handful of studies or even hundreds --- but there are thousands of peer reviewed studies which appear in respected refereed journals over the past 40 years which clearly demonstrate that children flourish better in <span style="font-style: italic;">every category</span> when raised by a married mother and father. The inverse is also true. When you remove either a father or a mother (especially a father) all the social problems are greater. The rates of suicide, depression, academic failure, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, pre-mature sexual experiences and incarceration are all consistently higher when either a mother or a father is absent. Despite what opponents would have you believe there are no national widespread long term studies on homosexual parenting. There are only small studies of limited sampling and often done by bias researchers. So the real affects on children remains an unknown, untested social experiment. What is best for kids should be based upon good research and sound public policy, not what an activist judge subjectively thinks is best.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Why Does Florida allow Homosexuals to Foster But Not Adopt?</span><br /><br />Recently, editorial writers and pundits have called Florida’s law “hypocritical” because it allows practicing homosexual couples to become foster parents but not adoptive parents. The truth is that the law is not hypocritical but <span style="font-style: italic;">inconsistent</span>. Based upon the best interest standard the law probably ought to also prohibit gay foster care, but it does not. The two arrangements are different however in that foster care is intended to be a temporary arrangement and adoption is a permanent placement by the state. But until Florida’s married couples start stepping forward in greater numbers to becoming foster care parents then there is still a great need for more foster homes which a small number of gay-identified men and women fill. However, based upon the research, these arrangements are still not in the child’s best interest. <br /> <br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Why Didn’t DCF Put the Children In This Case Up For Adoption? </span><br /><br />The two children who were brothers in the case could have easily been adopted by a family with a mom and a dad. After their parents rights were terminated, they <span style="font-style: italic;">should have been</span> immediately placed up for an adoption with a mother and a father. But the Department of Children and Families (DCF) did not do that. Instead, they allowed these homosexual foster parents to continue to retain custody of the children for many years. In fact, even though there is no written policy and DCF officials deny it, this happens on a regular basis. If there is a child in a homosexual foster home and the child’s natural parents’ rights are terminated, then the child is often inappropriately labeled “ineligible for adoption” and they continue on in the gay foster home until they become an adult. By doing this, DCF does a slick end run around Florida’s law by turning what should have been a temporary foster care situation into a permanent homosexual pseudo-adoption. This is entirely improper and subverts the plain intent of the existing law by doing what is best for “gay-identified” adults instead of what is best for children.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What is the Future of this Case?</span><br /><br />While the foster parents in the Gill case were improperly allowed to adopt the two brothers, the case has been appealed by the Attorney General, whose role it is to argue for, uphold and enforce the existing law. This case will now be argued in front of a panel of appellate judges in the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Miami on August 26, 2009. It is hard to say how the Court of Appeals will rule because we do not know which of the eleven judges will be randomly picked to hear and decide the case. If the appellate court follows the law, then it should reverse and overrule the lower court’s decision.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Will this case go to the Florida Supreme Court?</span><br /><br />While the adoption in this case was allowed to be finalized, the law banning gay adoptions is still in effect until the case is finally decided on appeal. If the district court also engages in judicial activism and affirms the lower court’s decision, then the case will be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. Governor Crist has placed four new judges on the court – two conservative and two liberal. As a result, the court has remained ideologically unbalanced with a 5-2 majority liberal position.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What Can I do to take Action?</span><br /><ol><li>Wait for Judge Lederman to come up for re-election and if she has an opponent who is better then her, hold her accountable publicly at the ballot box. </li><li>Follow our exclusive commentary on Twitter <a href="http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/65301.aspx">HERE</a>:</li><li>Thank Florida’s Attorney General Bill McCollum for fighting to uphold the law by sending him an email <a href="http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/65302.aspx">HERE</a>:</li><li>Prayerfully consider becoming a foster parent. For more info click <a href="http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/65303.aspx">HERE</a>:</li><li>Make sure you are a <span style="font-style: italic;">fully registered</span> user with our e-mail system <a href="http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/65304.aspx">HERE</a>. Many people receive the email but are not fully registered in the system.</li><li><u>Make a gift to the FFPC to help us continue the fight </u>for traditional values and oppose the gay agenda <a href="http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/65305.aspx">HERE</a>:<br /></li></ol>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-85308796757655788582009-08-19T14:39:00.000-04:002009-08-19T14:42:44.508-04:00Can Divorce Make Us Sick?<div class="byline"><i>By Chuck Colson</i></div><p><img style="margin-right: 10px; float: left;" class="inset" alt="Chuck Colson" src="http://www.breakpoint.org/images/content/breakpoint/images/colson2.jpg" /></p><p>The deteriorating health of marriage can lead to...deteriorating health! Find out why.</p><p>------<br /></p><p>A few weeks ago, I was astonished to find <i>Time</i> magazine exposing how the collapse of marriage harms women, children, and the poor. No Christian could have made the prudential arguments for marriage more impressively.</p><p>Not to be outdone, the <i>New York Times </i>has just run a piece announcing that divorce can make you sick—sometimes for the rest of your life.</p><p>The <i>Times </i>described the findings of a study of more than 8,600 people in their 50s and 60s. The study sought to determine how divorce, widowhood, and remarriage affected their health. The authors’ conclusion: “The physical stress of marital loss continues long after the emotional wounds have healed.”</p><p>Among the divorced and widowed, men and women alike reported “about 20 percent more chronic health problems” including diabetes, cancer, and heart disease, than people who stayed married.</p><p>Even when people remarried, they had 12 percent more health problems than those who stayed married to their first spouse. The study revealed that “most married people who became single never fully recovered from the physical declines associated with marital loss,” the <i>Times </i>said.</p><p>The study was authored by University of Chicago sociology professor Linda Waite, an expert on marriage and divorce. Waite is the co-author, with Maggie Gallagher, of the book, <i>The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.</i> In this book, the authors note that divorced, single, and widowed people are “far more likely to die from all causes,” including stroke, car accidents, murder, and suicide. Perhaps this is part of the reason God says in Malachi, “I hate divorce.”</p><p>The <i>Times </i>is quick to claim that staying in a bad marriage can lead to physical problems, too. But it’s good news that major news outlets are writing articles like this. For decades, they have trumpeted the idea that divorce harms nobody, that children do just fine without fathers, and that we should all just do whatever makes us happy, maritally speaking, that is.</p><p>But now the problems of marital breakdown—and failure to form families in the first place—have become so severe that not even news outlets hostile to Christian teachings can deny it.<br /></p><p>Articles that reveal the damage of living outside of God’s design for us offer a great opportunity for the Church. I have long taught that only Christianity offers a reasonable system for how we are to live in the real world. Every day, it seems, we have more tragic evidence of the truth of that belief—provide by believers and non-believers alike who violate God’s design.</p><p>You and I need to reach out to neighbors who have been taken in, and harmed, by secular teachings about marriage and divorce. We should befriend them, find ways to meet their needs, and invite them to church.</p><p>Those who have suffered the consequences of false worldview teachings may well now be open to Christian teachings—and how well they match up with health and happiness. And having learned this, they may be open to learning more about, and following, the loving Maker of these rules.</p><p>The test of any worldview is, can you live with it? When it comes to marriage, we now have scientific evidence that living outside of God’s plan can literally make us sick.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-54930754651825925222009-06-30T13:09:00.000-04:002009-06-30T13:17:21.171-04:00A Case Against Marriage? Unbelievable<p>Check out this (if you will excuse my French) completely asinine 5 min video piece on NBC’s Today show below asking the seemingly serious question of whether marriage is obsolete (oh, and by the way, they also suggest we should "add levity to divorce" by joking about it to "reduce the pain"!) In this completely unbelievable piece hosted by Meredith Vieira, she interviews “expert” Author Sandra Tsing Loh who is proudly divorcing her husband after 20 years. Loh argues with a straight face that because of Darwinian social progress marriage is now out-dated and is no longer necessary because “we are no longer an agrarian society” and “life expectancy has gone from 47 to 77 years”. Of course there was no one invited on the show to really oppose this dribble. The lady presenting the “other viewpoint” merely points out that most people want a “life partner” so marriage still works for some people. Would that they have invited Maggie Gallagher on this show to square away this lady’s nonsense. The fact that they would even air this outright frontal assault on the institution of marriage by itself is really unbelievable. But presenting views this radical and extreme with no opposing viewpoint is simply outrageous. This stuff makes me furious and reminds me of what we are fighting for and against. May God have mercy upon us. John<br /></p><br />MSNBC.com<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">On marriage: Let’s call the whole thing off</span><br />URL: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31452178?gt1=43001" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31452178?gt1=43001</a><br />Video Here: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31486261#31486261" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31486261#31486261</a><br /><p>There is still time to sign up for the Smart Marriages Conference in Orlando July 7-11, the largest gathering of the marriage movement in the world. See here for details <a href="http://www.yes2marriage.org/event/2009-07-08-national-smart-marriages-conference-/" target="_blank">http://www.yes2marriage.org/event/2009-07-08-national-smart-marriages-conference-/</a></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-32879329117721244382009-06-13T02:23:00.000-04:002009-06-13T02:26:51.066-04:00Response to Christopher Scolese<p><span style="font-size: small;">Christopher J. Scolese, the Acting NASA Administrator who was appointed by President Obama earlier this year, encouraged NASA employees to become active gay rights proponents which he claimed reflects "American Values". His agency wide memo stated: "I encourage you to participate in the programs and activities planned at your NASA center in your community for LGBT Pride Month. If there aren't yet planned events at your center, <em>I encourage you to organize one</em>." (emphasis added) </span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small;">Florida Family Policy Council President John Stemberger issued the following statement in response:</span></p> <p><strong><span style="font-size: small;">It is stunning that the NASA Administrator would pander to the Obama Administration by promoting activities which "celebrate" aberrant forms of sexual conduct and are completely off-mission and counter productive to the best interests of children, families and the common good of society. NASA's work is critical, exacting and if not done properly, life threatening. With all the challenges, and tragedies that NASA has had in its past, it is unconscionable that its administrator would promote this type of a distraction and internally divisive social activism. This overtly political move is not only entirely inappropriate, but breeds bad internal morale and disrespects the rights of conscience of tens of thousands, if not the vast majority, of NASA's own 300,000 employees, who dissent and sincerely object to the promotion of sexual activism. <span style="font-size: small;">"NASA's stated mission is to 'pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research'. Promotions of specific sexual orientations over others clearly is outside of NASA's mission and is being paid for by tax payers dollars. NASA should be for advancing scientific space research objectives, not engaging in homosexual activism."</span></span></strong></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-36721834103026429202009-06-03T10:17:00.000-04:002009-06-03T10:19:50.892-04:00Gambling Our Way To ProsperityThe latest symptom of the prevailing new ethic of “something for nothing” has appeared….the scratch card vending machine. Without a doubt this can attract more losers for Florida. Not having done enough to expand gambling with the Seminole Tribes and pari-mutuels, we now have the Florida Lottery at work on gambling expansion. Do we not remember why we outlawed cigarette vending machines? Is it not clear why we don’t sell alcoholic beverages by vending machine? Gambling expansion is playing on false hope. We are abandoning the ethic that hard work and investment of ourselves in others is the best way to be productive. Our economy and state budget should be built on sound principles where our winning causes other people to win, not a system where most others must lose in order for us to win. We should build Florida’s future on the strengths of our people, not their weaknesses. If we continue headlong down this slope, what is next? Why not put these vending machines in all the school lunch rooms? Why should students waste their money on lunch when they could be buying lottery tickets? After all, they can get free lunch and take home food packs. Let someone else pay the necessities of life while we gamble our cash. Matter of fact, isn’t there some kind of psychological test we could do in kindergarten identifying gambling addicts so we can maximize their losing over a lifetime? After all, it’s “for the children”. Right? May we all wake up before going further down this degrading path.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Dennis BaxleyUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-19420092140155667702009-02-16T11:05:00.000-05:002009-02-16T11:06:55.294-05:00Testimony Regarding Seminole Indian Compact<div align="center"><strong>February 12, 2009 Statement to the<br />House Select Committee on Seminole Indian Compact Review<br />By Nathan Dunn – Vice President of Public Policy<br />Florida Family Action</strong><br /></div><div align="left"><br />My name is Nathan Dunn and I represent Florida Family Action. We are associated nationally with Focus on the Family and we represent the interests of millions of Floridians who wish to see traditional values and the interests of families represented in matters of public policy.<br /><br />I want to briefly state that we are opposed to any agreement with the Seminole Indians that will expand predatory gambling in Florida. The introduction of Class III gambling to Seminole facilities is not in the best long-term interests of Florida’s families and communities.<br /><br />The compact was put together under the assumption that the federal government would authorize Class III gaming for the Seminoles regardless of what the state did. And the popular idea was put forward that agreeing to the Compact at least allowed the state to benefit some financially from this supposedly inevitable expansion of gambling.<br /><br />We take issue with the very foundation of that premise. In 2007 the state of Texas successfully rebuffed an effort by the US Department of the Interior to force Class III gambling upon the communities of Texas. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Interior Department overstepped its bounds and violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by authorizing the Kickapoo Tribe to begin Class III gambling (1). In so doing the court upheld the right of states to limit the gambling offered on Indian property in their state.<br /><br />Thus the state of Florida has solid legal ground to reject a compact with the Seminole Indians and there are significant reasons why expanding predatory gambling is the wrong direction for the state to take. The results across the board are devastating to families and communities and can be summed up in the ABC’s of gambling: Addiction, Bankruptcy and Crime.<br /><br />The most recent studies show that about 2.5 million Americans are pathological gamblers and another 3 million are problem gamblers. (2)<br /><br />A half million Floridians have suffered from serious to severe gambling related difficulties at some point in their lives. In a report to the Florida Council on Compulsive Gambling in 2002 it was found that Florida has a larger percentage of problem and pathological gamblers (0.8%) than reported in the national survey (0.5%). More startling is that Florida’s at-risk population (4.0%) is about two times that of the national study (2.3%). (3) <br /><br />And a 2006 Pew Research Center survey found that 70% of Americans say that legalized gambling encourages people to gamble more than they can afford. (4) And please consider that 90% of casino profits come from 10% of the gamblers - which means that out-of-control gamblers are the profit center for the casino trade. (5) Greater accessibility of predatory gambling products leads to increased addiction and this inevitably hurts families, children and communities.<br /><br />Bankruptcy also increases wherever gambling thrives. A national survey of 298 counties found that the counties with gambling had a bankruptcy filing rate 18% higher than those without. (6) Various studies of pathological gamblers show that 20 percent or more eventually file for bankruptcy. (7)<br /><br />Increased crime is also a natural result when gambling is forced upon a community. By evaluating the results from other communities we know that when Class III gaming is permitted the crime rate is nearly twice the national average. (8) A Department of Justice study found that more than 30 percent of pathological gamblers who had been arrested reported having committed a robbery within the past year. And nearly 1/3 admitted that they had committed the robbery to pay for gambling debts. 13% said they had assaulted someone to get money. (9)<br /><br />Research has also shown that for every dollar gambling brings the government in revenue, three dollars must be spent on increased expenses related to crime and public assistance programs. (10) That’s not a pay-off the people of Florida can afford.<br /><br />None of us want to see Florida lose its treasured position as a family-friendly state with safe and growing communities. I urge the committee to reject the proposed expansion of predatory gambling that a Seminole Compact would bring.<br /><br />(1) <a href="http://www.indianz.com/News/2007/004491.asp">http://www.indianz.com/News/2007/004491.asp</a> and <a href="http://www.indianz.com/my.asp?url=http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C05/05-50754-CV0.wpd.pdf">Texas v. US</a> (August 17, 2007)<br />(2) “Gambling and Crime Among Arrestees: Exploring the link” – United States Department of Justice. 2004 <a href="http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/203197.pdf">http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/203197.pdf</a><br />(3) Gambling and Problem Gambling Prevalence Among Adults in Florida - A Report to the Florida Council on Compulsive Gambling, University of Florida, 2002.<a href="http://gamblinghelp.org/media/.download_gallery/Gambling%20and%20Problem%20Gambling%20Prevalence%20Among%20Adults%20in%20Florida.pdf">http://gamblinghelp.org/media/.download_gallery/Gambling%20and%20Problem%20Gambling%20Prevalence%20Among%20Adults%20in%20Florida.pdf</a><br />(4) Paul Taylor, Cary Funk, Peyton Craighill, "Gambling: As the Take Rises, So Does Public Concern," Pew Research Center, social trends report online, 23 May 2006. <a href="http://pewresearch.org/assets/social/pdf/Gambling.pdf">http://pewresearch.org/assets/social/pdf/Gambling.pdf</a><br />(5) Winner Takes All By Christina Binkley, 2008. Pg. 184<br />(6) SMR Research Corporation, "The Personal Bankruptcy Crisis, 1997: Demographics, Causes, Implications, & Solutions," Hackettstown, N.J., 1997, pp.116-130.<br />(7) William N. Thompson, Ricardo Gazel and Dan Rickman, "The Social Costs of Gambling in Wisconsin," Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Report, July 1996, p. 15; Henry R. Lesieur and Christopher W. Anderson, "Results of a 1995 Survey of Gamblers Anonymous Members in Illinois," June 14, 1995; "The Personal Bankruptcy Crisis, 1997," op. cit., p. 124<br />(8) Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, October 2, 2007, Florida Times-Union<br />(9) Ibid. # (2)<br />(10) John W. Kindt, The Business-Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in West Virginia, 13 W. VA. U. INST. PUB. AFF. 22-26 (1996) <a href="http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/fosi/gambling/WV_PubAff_Gamb.pdf">http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/fosi/gambling/WV_PubAff_Gamb.pdf</a><br /> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-11644677876732469172009-01-13T07:05:00.000-05:002009-01-24T16:14:22.632-05:00Judge Lederman's Top Ten List: Bad Arguments for Homosexual Parenting<span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >1) <u>REGURGITATES THE ARGUMENTS TYPICALLY OFFERED BY PRO-HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS, INSTEAD OF ENGAGING IN AN OPEN-MINDED AND THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS.</u> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >2)<u> MAJOR MYTHOLOGICAL FLAWS IN STUDIES CITED TO ARGUE THERE IS “NO PROOF” THAT CHILDREN RAISED BY HOMOSEXUALS ARE ANY WORSE OFF CHILDREN RAISED BY HETEROSEXUALS.</u></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >3) <u> EVEN PRO HOMOSEXUAL RESEACHERS REFUTE CLAIM THAT THERE ARE “NO DIFFERENCES” BETWEEN CHILDREN RAISED BY HOMOSEXUALS THAN HETEROSEXUALS. </u> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >4) <u> HOMOSEXUALITY ITSELF IS ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH LEVELS OF A NUMBER OF PATHOLOGIES-SEXUAL PROMISCUITY, SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES, MENTAL ILLNESS, SUBSTANCE ABUSE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE.</u></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >5) <u> SHIFTING AND INTERNALLY CONTRADICTING ARGUMENTS</u></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >6) <u> HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT IS NOT AN INNATE CHARACTERISTIC LIKE RACE, AN INVOLUNTARY CHARACTERISTIC LIKE UNEMPLOYMENT, NOR A SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTIC LIKE EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT.</u></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >7) <u> IGNORING AN ENORMOUS BODY IF RESEARCH THAT PROVES CHILDREN ALWAYS PERFORM IN EVERY CATEGORY WHEN RAISED BY A BIOLOGICAL MOM AND A DAD.</u> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >8) <u>JUDGE DENIES THAT HOMOSEXUAL PARTNERSHIPS ARE MORE UNSTABLE THAN HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE-THEN INCLUDES A FOOTNOTE SHOWING EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.</u></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >9) <u>DECISION IS FILLED WITH RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY.</u></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >10) <u>POORLY WRITTEN, POORLY REASONSED AND POOR GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION</u></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.frcblog.com/2009/01/judge_ledermans_top_ten_list_b.html">http://www.frcblog.com/2009/01/judge_ledermans_top_ten_list_b.html</a><br /><br />After seven years of working on the issue of homosexuality at the Family Research Council, I think I have a pretty good sense of the arguments that pro-homosexual activists use in support of their agenda, such as affirmation of homosexual parents and same-sex "marriage." Even when those arguments are made well, they are unconvincing-but when they are made poorly, it just leaves me shaking my head.<br /><br />One example of this phenomenon-bad arguments made badly-got a lot of attention recently. That was the Newsweek cover story on "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," penned by the magazine's religion editor Lisa Miller. It was so poorly researched and poorly reasoned that Miller should lose her job for it-not because she is in error, but because she is incompetent. Some political writer posting on a blog might get away with the kind of sloppiness Miller showed-but a "religion editor" writing a cover story should not be allowed to. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and I wrote in detail about the Newsweek story on December 9.<br /><br />Another example of a bad pro-homosexual argument badly made drew less attention, in part because of timing. On November 25-just two days before Thanksgiving-a Miami-Dade County judge in Florida, Cindy S. Lederman, issued a ruling declaring that state's law barring homosexuals from adopting children to be a violation of the Florida constitution. The ruling came despite the fact that in 2004, the federal courts rejected a similar challenge to the same law. Lederman's 53-page decision can be found here.<br /><br />I am no longer surprised when a judge merely regurgitates the arguments typically offered by pro-homosexual activists, instead of engaging in an open-minded and thoughtful analysis. Such regurgitation is exactly what was done by the judges who voted to legalize same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut. But when a judge does not just explain away the evidence against the pro-homosexual position, but essentially denies that it even exists, then you know that the fix was in from the start.<br /><br />Let me explain how the debate over homosexual parenting usually plays out, and how Judge Lederman went even beyond the normal pro-homosexual talking points.<br /><br />One of the key arguments in favor of allowing homosexual parenting usually goes something like this: "There's no proof that children raised by homosexuals do any worse than children raised by heterosexuals." That they are able to make this claim with any degree of plausibility is due to only one fact-virtually all of the studies that have been conducted specifically of homosexual parents have suffered from such grave methodological flaws that they cannot be said to provide definitive "proof" of much of anything, one way or the other.<br /><br />It is extremely difficult to get a truly random sample of the homosexual population, simply because that population is so small. The best surveys show that only about two percent of the population identifies as homosexual or bisexual (and only about one percent of couples sharing households).Therefore, scholars doing research on homosexuality often have to rely on "convenience samples"-for example, by advertising for study participants in publications catering to homosexuals. In the case of homosexual parents, it seems likely that those whose children are suffering serious problems would be less likely to volunteer, while those who do volunteer may be motivated by a desire to prove a point, and put only their best foot forward. Such a sample is likely to yield a more positive picture of homosexual parents than a truly random sample would.<br /><br />Going hand-in-hand with the "no proof" claim is the "no differences"claim-the assertion that the research shows "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. Yet this claim has been decisively refuted by a source whose credibility on the issue is enhanced by her clear lack of bias against homosexuals-namely, the militantly pro-homosexual researcher Judith Stacey. Her 2001 article in American Sociological Review (with co-author Timothy J. Biblarz) conclusively refutes the "no differences" claim, noting that the research actually shows that children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior, daughters of lesbians are "more sexually adventurous and less chaste," and lesbian "co-parent relationships" are more likely to break up than heterosexual marriages. Stacey does not consider these differences to be problematic, but others will certainly disagree. In essence, Stacey's article confirms that advocates and many researchers themselves have been simply lying when they make the "no differences" claim.<br /><br />Lederman's decision mentions the Stacey and Biblarz article in a footnote, and notes her pro-homosexual position, but it fails to even mention the significance of the article in refuting the "no differences" claim. Instead Lederman merely repeats the discredited claim, declaring, "These reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children" (p. 37 of the decision). Yet she goes even further. After repeating the (discredited) claim that there are "no differences," she goes well beyond the narrowly defensible claim that the research provides "no proof" of negative outcomes, and instead makes a sweeping assertion that "based on the robust nature of the evidence in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise."<br />To call the evidence "robust" on this matter is an exaggeration that should be embarrassing even to the pro-homosexual activists themselves. A detailed literature review of 49 studies on homosexual parenting reported:<br /><br />Some major problems uncovered in the studies include the following:<br /><br />Unclear hypotheses and research designs<br />Missing or inadequate comparison groups<br />Self-constructed, unreliable and invalid measurements<br />Non-random samples, including participants who recruit other participants<br />Samples too small to yield meaningful results<br />Missing or inadequate statistical analysis<br /><br />Lerner and Nagai found at least one fatal research flaw in all forty-nine studies. As a result, they conclude that no generalizations can reliably be made based on any of these studies. For these reasons the studies are no basis for good science or good public policy.<br /><br />Lederman's own account of the testimony of one witness for the petitioner, however, contradicts the "no differences" claim in at least one crucial area-namely, the sexuality of young people raised by homosexual parents.Lederman notes on p. 17 that "one study revealed that female children raised by lesbians were more sexually active" and also said that "children raised by lesbian mothers expressed openness to considering same sex attraction."But the witness, English psychologist Michael Lamb, reportedly dismissed these findings as representing merely "a lesson in promoting tolerance" and showing that "children raised by lesbians are less strictly tied to sexual roles and rigid applications of sex roles."<br /><br />The principal case against homosexual parenting, however, is not based so much on the limited, methodologically deficient studies of homosexual parents as such. Instead, it is based on inferences to be drawn from two other bodies of research that are, indeed, "robust" in their findings. One is the evidence that homosexuality itself is associated with high levels of a number of pathologies-sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse.The second is the overwhelming body of evidence showing that in general, children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to each other in a lifelong marriage. When these two bodies of evidence are juxtaposed upon each other, they provide more than sufficient reason for alarm about deliberately placing children with homosexual parents (for example, through foster care or adoption). Let's look at these two factors individually.<br /><br />Pro-homosexual activists usually do not deny that homosexuals have higher physical and mental health risks-the evidence is simply too overwhelming.In fact, one of the most succinct summaries of those risks can be found on the website of the pro-homosexual Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. Here are some of the GLMA's warnings about homosexual men:<br /><br />"That men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection is well known . . ."<br /><br />"Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population, and not just in larger communities such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles."<br /><br />"Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population."<br /><br />"Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis."<br /><br />"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate."<br /><br />"Although more recent studies have improved our understanding of alcohol use in the gay community, it is still thought that gay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than straight men."<br /><br />"Recent studies seem to support the notion that gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men . . ."<br /><br />"Problems with body image are more common among gay men than their straight counterparts, and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa."<br /><br />"[H]uman papilloma virus [HPV] . . . infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men."<br /><br />Although the health risks for lesbians are not as dramatic as those for homosexual men, they are still significant:<br /><br />"Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world."<br /><br />"Lesbians have higher risks for many of the gynecologic cancers."<br /><br />"Research confirms that lesbians have higher body mass than heterosexual women."<br /><br />"Research also indicates that lesbians may use tobacco and smoking products more often than heterosexual women use them."<br /><br />"Alcohol use and abuse may be higher among lesbians."<br /><br />"Research indicates that lesbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women."<br />Since the evidence is so overwhelming, the usual explanation offered by pro-homosexual activists for the mental health problems (and sexual risk-taking, which leads to physical health problems) of homosexuals is to blame society's negative attitudes toward homosexual conduct.<br /><br />For example, the GLMA list offers this explanation for higher rates of depression and anxiety among lesbians: "Lesbians have been shown to experience chronic stress from homophobic discrimination."<br /><br />However, instead of offering this stock answer ("Homophobia made me do it!") to the mental health problems of homosexuals, Judge Lederman baldly denied that such problems exist at all, declaring that "expert witnesses" had shown that "homosexually behaving individuals are no more susceptible to mental health or psychological disorders that their heterosexual counterparts" (p.10).<br /><br />Yet a detailed footnote (footnote #8, p. 14) giving actual statistics shows a completely different story. For example it states that rates of "major depression" are more than twice as high among homosexual men than among heterosexual men (17% to 8%). Rates of smoking are 47% higher among bisexual men than among heterosexual men (28% to 19%; rates for homosexual men are not given), and 77% higher among lesbians than among heterosexual women (23% to 13%). Rates of alcohol dependency are 42% higher among homosexual and bisexual men than among heterosexual men (9.2% to 6.5%), and more than three times higher among lesbians than among heterosexual women (9% to 2.7%).Rates of drug dependency are two and a half times higher among homosexual and bisexual men than among heterosexual men (7.5% to 3%), and more than three times higher among lesbians than among heterosexual women (5% to 1.5%). "Suicide attempts" are twice as high among homosexual men as among heterosexual men (5.6% to 2.8%), and they are more than twice as high among lesbian or bisexual women as among heterosexual woman (11% to 4.5%).Meanwhile, the "lifetime history of suicide attempts" (presumably measured in a different study) is more than three times as high among homosexuals as among heterosexuals (14% to 4.5%).<br /><br />It may be that we should not place too much weight upon the specific statistics cited in Footnote 8, because they include several illogical anomalies, perhaps resulting from the conflation of data from different studies. For example, the data on "major depression" report that the rate for "men" (5%) is significantly lower than the rate for both homosexual and heterosexual men (17% and 8%, respectively)! On the other hand, the data for "smoking" indicate that the rate for "men" (36.4%) is higher than the rate for both bisexual and heterosexual men (28% and 19%)-it hardly seems likely that the population of homosexual men (omitted from the list) would be large enough to raise the total figure so dramatically. On the female side in the smoking category, the rate listed for "women" (23%) is the same as that listed for lesbians, but significantly higher than that listed for heterosexual women (13%), even though the latter are the overwhelming majority of all women.<br /><br />The mere fact that such manifest absurdities were included in the decision demonstrates the carelessness and incompetence of Judge Lederman. But even when taken with a substantial grain of salt, the data certainly provide no support whatsoever for her claim that "homosexually behaving individuals are no more susceptible to mental health or psychological disorders that their heterosexual counterparts."<br /><br />In fact, the internal contradictions of Judge Lederman's opinion are illustrated by the fact that she later abandons the "no more susceptible"claim, citing another expert witness on page 14 as concluding that "the average rates of psychiatric conditions, substance abuse and smoking are [emphasis added] slightly higher for homosexuals than heterosexuals" (though rates that range from 42% to 233% higher, as indicated in Footnote 8 on the same page, would seem to be more than "slight" differences). Instead of denying the differerences altogether (as on p. 10),<br /><br />Lederman shifts to another argument, suggesting that there are other demographic groups that also have higher rates of "psychiatric conditions, substance abuse and smoking" than the general population, including "American-Indians," "the unemployed," and "non-high school graduates."<br />This comparison, however, is flawed because homosexual conduct is not an innate characteristic like race, an involuntary characteristic like unemployment, nor a socioeconomic characteristic like educational attainment. It is a behavioral characteristic, defined by the voluntary choice to engage in specific behaviors, namely sexual acts with people of the same sex.<br /><br />By way of comparison: if the research shows that women are more likely to get breast cancer than men, that cannot logically be taken as proof that women are inherently inferior to men, because one's biological sex is an innate and involuntary condition. On the other hand, if research shows that cigarette smokers are more likely to get breast cancer than non-smokers, such a finding can logically be taken as evidence that not smoking is better than smoking, because smoking is a voluntary behavior with demonstrable negative consequences.<br /><br />Much of the homosexual rights movement as a whole rests on deliberate obfuscation of this point. That is, it rests on the effort to portray homosexuality (falsely) as an innate characteristic like race or sex, instead of as what it is-a voluntary behavior, like smoking, that has clear negative consequences.<br /><br />When it comes to the findings that children do best when raised by their own, biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage, most pro-homosexual activists do not try to deny the overwhelming evidence. Instead, they generally will point out that most of the studies on which this conclusion is based involve comparisons with single-parent families or divorced families, rather than with homosexual couples as such.<br /><br />Judge Lederman, however, was not content to dismiss this evidence as not being directly relevant, the way most pro-homosexual activists do. Instead, she dismissed it altogether. Citing Dr. Lamb for authority, she declares that "researchers once believed that traditional families provided the best environment for children. As the research developed, however, the notion was proven to be flawed . . ." (p. 15). She concludes her summary of Lamb's testimony with two other statements, also false, stating that "the assumption that children need a mother and a father in order to be well adjusted is outdated and not supported by the research," and making the absurd claim that "there is a well established and generally accepted consensus in the field that children do not need a parent of each gender to adjust healthily" (p. 18).<br /><br />The truth is exactly the opposite. For instance, the non-partisan think tank Child Trends surveyed the literature and found, "An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." To the argument (often advanced by homosexual activists) that it is merely having the support of two parents that matters, Child Trends added, "Children growing up with stepparents also have lower levels of well-being than children growing up with biological parents. Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children's development."<br /><br />In similar fashion, Lederman denies that homosexual partnerships are more unstable than heterosexual marriage-then includes a footnote showing exactly the opposite. Footnote #4 on p. 11 cites one study (apparently from Europe) showing that "same sex couples in civil unions" had break-up rates 41 % higher than married heterosexuals (3.8% to 2.7%), while "same sex couples not in civil union" [sic] had rates more than three times higher (9.3%). It cites another study from Sweden in which the break-up rates for "gay male registered partnerships" were 75% higher than for married heterosexuals (14% to 8%), and the rates for "lesbian registered partnerships" were two and a half times higher (20%). She also cites an old (1970) study that showed that just in the first two years of a relationship, the break-up rates for "gay men" were four times higher than for married heterosexuals (16% to 4%), and the rates for lesbians were five and a half times higher (22%).<br /><br />I won't even go into the blatant religious bigotry expressed by Judge Lederman, who dismissed the testimony of two experts for the state on the basis of their having written for religious publications. James A. Smith, Sr. of the Florida Baptist Witness has already written on that aspect of Lederman's decision here.<br /><br />Lederman's decision was not only poorly reasoned, but poorly written, being riddled with non sequitirs and punctuation errors. Take this passage on whether homosexuality is a mental disorder, for example: "Today, Dr. Berlin reports that leading professionals agree that homosexuality defines one's same sex attraction only. [?] According to the witness, homosexuality was removed from the DSM because the evidence of [for?] it's [sic] classification as a disorder did not justify the conclusion."<br /><br />While Judge Lederman's decision was a comedy of errors, it is no laughing matter. One can only hope that this atrocious decision will be overturned on appeal.<br /><br />Peter Sprigg<br />Family Research CouncilUnknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-44161356156555735752009-01-01T15:00:00.000-05:002009-01-08T11:53:02.587-05:00Special Video Greeting from John Stemberger, President of the Florida Family Policy Council<p align="center"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Qgdh3InOwd8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Qgdh3InOwd8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />To make an end of the year gift to the Florida Family Policy Councildonate online by clicking <a href="http://flfamily.org/by_mail.php">HERE</a> </p><p align="center"><br /><a href="http://www.flfamily.org/uploadfile/2008%20-%20upload/121108%20-%20I%20have%20some%20great%20news%20o%20report%20to%20you!%20Our%202008%20Accomplishments.pdf" target="_blank">CLICK HERE to read our 2008 Achievements</a> </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-18087311833575761742008-07-16T12:19:00.000-04:002008-07-16T12:30:53.613-04:00Pro-Life Still Preeminent IssueJoel Belz wrote this compelling piece in <a href="http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14153">WORLD Magazine</a> that urges evangelicals to continue to focus on the sanctity of human life and marriage as core issues- worthy of being lifted above other important issues. <br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Stop Apologizing</strong></span><br />It's not always wrong to be a "single-issue" advocate<br />WORLD Magazine<br />July 12, 2008<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">It's become an increasingly frequent reminder to us evangelical Christians not to let our cultural identity be framed by "single issues." </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">It was a reminder implicitly included in the "Evangelical Manifesto," a document whose basic content we at WORLD have applauded but whose political direction I questioned in our last issue. Why are the Manifesto's backers so ready to join the cultural left in suggesting a guilt trip for those evangelicals who have been preoccupied with the evils of abortion and same-sex marriage?<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">And if some argue that the rising generation of younger evangelicals is a bit embarrassed by what they think is an out-of-balance focus by their elders, and thinks it's time to get equally exercised over issues like racism, economic justice, and the environment—well, if that's the case with our twentysomethings and our teenagers, then maybe we need to go to work and do a better job of explaining to them why we've put the emphasis where we have for the last generation and why we believe that it's time not to lower our voices.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Evangelicals shouldn't be embarrassed to say boldly and clearly: Abortion and same-sex marriage are uniquely heinous sins. They rattle the foundations of a civilized society. They take a culture in a dreadful direction. We haven't been wrong to say so. We aren't fanatics.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">And I'm not referring here so much to the young women caught in the anguish of an unexpected pregnancy or folks bewildered by their sexual identity. I'm talking mostly about a society that goes all out to tell such people that what they're doing is just fine. There's forgiveness for individual sinners. There's judgment for societies that lead them astray.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">It's true that we evangelicals sometimes haven't been as zealous as we ought in fighting racism, abuse of the environment, and poverty. But on all those fronts and more, we're at least facing the right direction. We're sometimes slow.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">But here's the difference: What evangelical do you know who says insensitivity to the poor should be promoted? What evangelical leader is calling for more racism? Who advocates the uncontrolled plundering of the environment?<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">That is exactly the kind of cheerleading that is going on for abortion and same-sex marriage. Whole movements and organizations devote themselves to telling us how good abortion and same-sex marriage are for society. It now is expected that Barack Obama feature on his speaking schedule, as he did on June 26, a New York fundraising dinner for the Democratic Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council—where the news account reports casually that Obama helped the homosexual lobby raise $1 million in just one evening.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">But here's the core of the matter. To be robustly and consistently anti-abortion is at the very same time to cast your vote for environmental sensitivity, against racism, and for economic justice. These are not independent, isolated packages.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">It's hard to see how anyone can claim to be a protector of the environment and not put a high priority on the preservation of human babies. To defend a focus on the future of polar bears and whales, while asking evangelicals to get less noisy about infant humans, is an embarrassing </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">contradiction.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Similarly, keep in mind that abortion is one of the most racist of all social causes in history. Minorities don't just happen incidentally to be targeted by the practice of abortion. The history of Planned Parenthood and similar organizations is racist to the core—as is their current practice.<br />And no economist can look at the loss of 50 million American babies over the last 45 years and not wince at the impact of such a drain on the economic vitality of our society. Today's poor Americans are poorer than they would have been if we'd taken care to preserve enough consumers—and workers—to fill a state one-and-a-half times as big as California. Tomorrow's elderly will worry about Social Security more than they would have with 50 million more contributors to the system.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">So stop apologizing for having focused on a single issue. Don't let the "Evangelical Manifesto" or anyone else shame you into an overly narrow self-image. It's the folks promoting causes like abortion and same-sex marriage who are the real "single issue" fanatics, falsely teaching that you can mess with just one or two aspects of life without upsetting the balance God so wondrously installed in His creation order. We need to expose that lie for the tragic falsehood that it is—and to teach the next generation what a very bad bargain they have been asked to accept. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-28067020914898530192008-01-10T01:37:00.000-05:002008-01-10T01:41:13.635-05:00Anti-slots campaign targets Jan. 29 voteFrom the <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_dade/story/372844.html">Miami Herald</a>:<br /><br />A new anti-casinos group that includes greyhound advocates, mothers against gambling and conservative Christian organizations declared Wednesday that ''Miami is not for sale'' as it announced plans to fight the Jan. 29 slot machine referendum.<br /><br />Miami-Dade County voters will decide at the end of the month whether to allow the county's horse track, dog track and jai-alai fronton to install Class III, Las Vegas-style slot machines like those already operating at parimutuel facilities in Broward County.<br /><br />The new group, which calls itself No Casinos Miami, includes a broad array of social and religious causes. In a news release, it defines itself as a ``left-right bipartisan group.''<br /><br />With only 20 days left before the election, organizers acknowledged at a news conference that they come in at a disadvantage. A pro-slots group organized months ago.<br /><br />''It's our people against their money and muscle,'' said Tom Grey, field director of the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion.<br /><br />Proponents of the referendum insisted Wednesday that slot machines will bring economic stimulus for local residents and pump millions into the local and state coffers through taxes.<br />''This referendum is bringing new opportunities through job creation, millions of dollars to local governments and over $200 million to the state education fund,'' said Christian Ulvert, press secretary for the pro-slots political committee, Yes for a Greater Miami-Dade.<br /><br />The new anti-casinos group includes representatives of the Florida Family Policy Council, the Christian Coalition of South Florida, Grey2K USA, Focus on the Family and the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida. Others attending included a University of Miami student, Chris Hill, and a Miami mother of five. Both said they are planning to organize groups to oppose the referendum.<br /><br />No Casinos Miami is not the same as a previous political committee, called No Casinos, that was created to fight earlier casino efforts, including a 2005 referendum when Broward County approved slot machines at parimutuels but Miami-Dade narrowly rejected the idea with 52 percent of the vote.<br /><br />If the referendum passes this time, it will allow slot machines at Calder Race Course, Flagler Dog Track and Sports Entertainment Center and Miami Jai-Alai. Slot machines already spin at three Broward ''racinos'' and a fourth casino has yet to be built.<br /><br />Adding heat to the debate: the announcement this week that the Seminole Tribe's gambling agreement with Gov. Charlie Crist has received federal approval, allowing the tribe to install Las Vegas-style slots and card games such as blackjack at its seven Florida casinos. The agreement is still being disputed in the Florida Supreme Court.<br /><br />Another group, United for Family Values, has previously announced its opposition to the referendum, and House Speaker Marco Rubio has promised to campaign against it as well.<br />Chad Hills, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, said the new group opposes gambling because it adversely affects families.<br /><br />''Addiction, bankruptcy and crime -- we call it the A-B-Cs of gambling,'' he said. ``You're either pro-family or you're pro-gambling. You're not both.''<br /><br />No Casinos Miami will hold an organizational meeting at 7:30 p.m. Thursday at the Residence Inn, 1212 NW 82nd Ave.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-48946040060823460752008-01-03T13:04:00.000-05:002008-01-03T13:09:37.525-05:00Accomplishments in 2007The Florida Family Policy Council is grateful for the support we receive from people all over the state. We wanted to share a brief summary of what you have helped us to accomplish during 2007. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.flfamily.org/uploadfile/upload/2007%20Accomplishments%20-%20Final.pdf">CLICK HERE</a> to read about our work in the Florida legislature, news coverage we have received in the media and other accomplishments across the state.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-86566209135000946892007-07-02T12:13:00.000-04:002007-07-03T11:24:10.990-04:00Support for Gay Marriage DecreasesA new study out by the respected Pew Research Center indicates more American's are frowning upon the idea of allowing homosexuals to marry. The report states: "Currently, a clear majority (57%) of the public opposes allowing gays and lesbians to marry, up from 51% in March of 2006..."<br /><br />Florida Family Policy Council President John Stemberger:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">This is good news for Florida4Marriage.org’s Florida's Marriage Protection Amendment. The amendment will be on the general election ballot in November of 2008 after the collection of just 18,000 more signatures. In every state that has passed a marriage amendment, the final vote has been 6-8% greater than the polls. The new law now requires a 60% popular vote to pass any new amendments. No other state in the nation has a hurdle this high. While this is not a Florida specific poll, it, along with the polling variance history from other states, demonstrates that the Florida Marriage Amendment is viable and well within the reach of Florida’s citizens.<br /><br />While the poll is an encouraging development for supporters of natural marriage, it is no basis for its supporters to rest easy by any means. This effort will require mounting the biggest, most well funded and robust effort ever undertaken in any state’s marriage amendment history. The opponents of the amendment think Florida is low hanging fruit for a same-sex marriage victory. They will surely bring every homosexual activist group in the country to Florida. The only question is, are the supporters of natural marriage up for the fight? You tell us ladies and gentlemen. Game On? Click on “Comments” below and share your thoughts. </span><br /><br />To read the full report, <a href="http://pewresearch.org/assets/social/pdf/Marriage.pdf">CLICK HERE.</a><br /><br />To read a story about the findings in The Christian Post, <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070701/28258.htm">CLICK HERE.</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17518294.post-46174593020173468372007-06-07T15:24:00.000-04:002007-06-08T15:54:51.562-04:00Dispute Over Value of Partial Birth Abortion BanAfter the partial birth abortion decision by the US Supreme Court, we are witnessing the most visible and unpleasant dispute in the pro life movement I have seen in my lifetime. Much of the heat is coming from our brothers and sisters on the front line of the pro life movement.<br /><br />Those who are called by God to be pro-life side walk counselors and rescuers are a lot like Emergency Room doctors. Absolutely essential.<br /><br />But all ER docs see, all day long is the direct and ugly bloodiness of catastrophic injury and death.<br /><br />The number of patients may be dropping, the need for the ER services may be lessened, the public may be in large numbers getting wiser and making safer choices, other doctors maybe working effectively to prevent the need for ER visits, the seat belt and helmet laws may be reducing the need for ER visits, the lines waiting for ER services might become less than they were in previous years, people’s attitudes could be changing about public safety, laws could be making products safer----all of which may be evidence that we are gradually make steps toward winning the fight against catastrophic injury and making our world safer.<br /><br />But--- The ER doctors only continue to see catastrophic injury and bloodshed all day, every day. And so as a result ER doctors can become myopic, subjective and unwilling to be convinced that any progress is being made in the wider area of public safety. ER doctors can also become unknowingly arrogant and self righteous thinking that their work is THE most important work of all in the whole medical community. There is a lot we can learn from ER doctors because they are on the front line of emergency medicine, one of the most vital links in modern medicine. But ER doctors also can become so close to the problem that they become emotional crusaders who are unable to accurately evaluate the wider picture of health and the overall public opinion on safety or percentage of catastrophic injuries in the community.<br /><br />Let’s pray for our ER doctors. And let’s also pray for our sidewalk counselors and pro life rescuers to have the humility and wisdom to be more effective and discerning in valuing and embracing of all parts of the Body of Christ in the pro-life movement that God has raised up to protect the unborn.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0