Daily Archives: January 11, 2010

LifeSiteNews: “A group of Polish scientists have issued a document demanding that the government legislate a statutory ban on artificial (in vitro) fertilization procedures.”

ADF attorney Austin R. Nimocks appears in this CBN News video (just over 3 minutes) along with Brian Brown of the National Organization of Marriage to discuss efforts to air the Proposition 8 trial on TV.

ADF attorney Doug Napier appeared on AFA Radio’s Focal Point with Bryan Fischer to discuss mounting losses for same sex “marriage” advocates. The broadcast includes discussion of the Proposition 8 trial. The MP3 runs just over 11 minutes.

Yahoo News (AFP): “More than 24 million Chinese men of marrying age could find themselves without spouses in 2020, state media reported on Monday, citing a study that blamed sex-specific abortions as a major factor.”

Same-sex “marriage” advocate Teddy Partridge live-blogs Perry v. Schwarzenegger at Firedoglake. Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV

The Courage Campaign Institute also has a live-blog beginning here.

” . . . ICELAND APPOINTS WORLD’S FIRST GAY LEADER . . . Eleven openly gay men and women now serve in the British Parliament, including two in the Cabinet . . . joining a gay élite . . . ”

CCFON: “A BBC radio presenter, who has worked for BBC Radio since 1981, says that the corporation is driving religion to the margins . . . He said that the BBC is now ‘at the forefront of the new atheism.’”

AP: “Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate , will take her conservative message to Fox News as a regular commentator, the cable channel announced Monday.”

WHYY.org: “Governor Rendell said ‘don’t hold your breath.’ He says Pennsylvania is essentially a ‘rural state,’ and that he doesn’t think same sex marriage goes with the mores of the majority of commonwealth residents.”

Boston Globe (AP): “About 100 people are demonstrating outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco as the trial for California’s gay marriage ban begins . . . Most of the demonstrators are gay marriage supporters . . . ”

Boston Globe (AP): “Islamists looted and burned a Protestant church in Algeria, the congregation’s leader said Monday, suggesting they were inspired by a recent wave of religious intolerance in the Arab and Muslim world.”

Christian Science Monitor: “The Supreme Court Monday rejected an appeal to overturn a conviction for producing child pornography. The defendant argued that the images – of children’s faces morphed on adults – did not involve sexual activity by minors and so were protected by the First Amendment.”

LifeSiteNews: “A local Planned Parenthood official has bluntly admitted why health insurance companies are increasingly comfortable with covering abortions: because the choice to kill an unborn child is cheaper than giving birth . . . a typical abortion in a physician’s office costing $397, while a vaginal delivery costs $5,992, and a caeserean section is $8,558 . . .”

EurActiv: “Opposition Social Democrat Ivo Josipovic convincingly won the presidential election yesterday (10 January), promising to help the government’s efforts to complete European Union membership talks and join the bloc in 2012.”

LifeSiteNews reports that the media is in an uproar after Jennifer Lopez expressed opposition to in vitro fertilization and it goes on to explain: “Here, therefore, in a nutshell, is the reason why the Catholic Church, the pro-life movement and even people of vaguely ‘traditional’ moral beliefs like Mrs. Anthony, object to artificial methods of procreation . . . ”

“. . . [the] judge decided to let Roeder argue he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter because he believed the May 31 slaying would save unborn children . . . ”

LifeNews: “Everyone on Capitol Hill, from top Republicans to leading pro-life groups, knows the block of pro-life Democrats in the House could topple the health care bill if it funds abortions. But, new comments from Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth prompt concerns he may go along with the Senate’s abortion ‘compromise.’”

The Star: “Six Muslim non-governmental organisations (NGO) have offered their help to prevent any further attacks on churches. Their efforts would begin in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor but could expand to other states as well with the help of more Muslim NGOs.”

ADF attorney Austin R. Nimocks appeared on Southern Cal. Public Radio to discuss the California Proposition 8 trial along with Lambda Legal attorney, Jennifer C. Pizer.

The MP3 runs just over 16 minutes.

LifeNews: “President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the agency charged with keeping American travelers safe from terrorism thinks pro-life advocates are terrorists.”

Earned Media: “American Right To Life Action, the political 527 group which claims responsibility for derailing Mitt Romney’s presidential hopes in 2008 in Iowa and South Carolina, is now targeting U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) . . . ‘Ron Paul is pro-choice, state by state,’ says the report. Paul claims that a state has the right to decide if abortion will be legal, and his ‘pro-life profile’ compares that unfavorably to other pro-choice positions. Birkey asks, ‘Should a state have the right to allow slavery? Pro-lifers will be shocked to see Paul’s actual record.’”

Professor Stephen M. Bainbridge writing at his blog: “The real culprit is the law school hiring process . . . In most cases, a candidate’s best chance of surviving the winnowing process is for someone on the committee to become the candidate’s champion. The champion will pull the candidate’s resume out of the slush pile and make sure it gets flagged for close review. Because most law schools lack a critical mass of libertarian and conservative faculty members, however, there is nobody predisposed to pulling conservative candidates’ AALS forms out of the slush pile (and a fair number of folks inclined, whether consciously or subconsciously, to bury them). Applicants with conservative lines on their resume — an Olin fellowship, Federalist Society membership, or, heaven help you, a Scalia clerkship — thus tend to be passed over no matter how sterling the rest of their credentials may be . . . It may not be deliberate bias, but there still is a disparate impact.”

Austin Ruse writing at The Catholic Thing: “In what has become an ongoing skirmish over homosexual rights, the United Nations General Assembly two weeks ago narrowly rejected a reference to a controversial re-writing of a foundational human rights treaty . . . Here are just a few problems with this latest front established by the homosexual internationale . . . Though the vote was close, 76-72, there is nonetheless a solid bloc of states at the United Nations who are willing to stand up to elite opprobrium and reject the homosexual agenda. The bad news is that the effort to stop this nonsense is being led almost exclusively by Arab and Muslim states, while largely Catholic countries are voting on the other side.”

Telegraph: “A new report by the leading charity – backed by a legal opinion from a leading QC – says the Bill will make it impossible for all churches and faith-based charities to insist that their senior staff lead private lives in accordance with their religious beliefs. CARE said that, under the Bill, which will be considered by the House of Lords on Monday, it would be illegal for a Christian charity to sack a senior manager for adultery or living an openly gay lifestyle.”

“This evil is only in its infancy and can be defeated, not only in court but also through legislation (which, I understand, is being drafted).”

Salt Lake Tribune: “Salt Lake City’s landmark protections for gay and transgender residents appear likely to take effect after surviving the last hurdle: the Legislature. But most legislative leaders say it’s doubtful those provisions against discrimination in housing and employment will be expanded statewide during the 2010 session — despite a historic endorsement from the LDS Church.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s January 8, 2010 Remarks on the 15th Anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development: “So we are rededicating ourselves to the global efforts to improve reproductive health for women and girls . . . One of President Obama’s first actions in office was to overturn the Mexico City policy, which greatly limited our ability to fund family planning programs . . . This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way. The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide.”

Telegraph: “Google has denied favouring Islam over other religions in its suggested searches, after allegations that phrases criticising the faith had been censored.”

The American Spectator: “Britain is not alone in seeking to prosecute foreigners for actions committed in foreign lands. Canada, France, Germany, and Spain also claim the authority to jail most anyone for acts committed elsewhere. The practice is a dangerous assault both on national sovereignty and, individual justice . . . More disturbing is national ‘universal jurisdiction,’ whereby individual countries assert authority to prosecute legal offenses irrespective of where they occurred. While originally focused on crimes against humanity, tax evasion, organized crime, and even environmental issues have been or could become subject to extraterritorial claims.”

Ross Douthat writing in the New York Times: “Liberal democracy offers religious believers a bargain. Accept, as a price of citizenship, that you may never impose your convictions on your neighbor, or use state power to compel belief. In return, you will be free to practice your own faith as you see fit — and free, as well, to compete with other believers (and nonbelievers) in the marketplace of ideas. That’s the theory. In practice, the admirable principle that nobody should be persecuted for their beliefs often blurs into the more illiberal idea that nobody should ever publicly criticize another religion. Or champion one’s own faith as an alternative. Or say anything whatsoever about religion, outside the privacy of church, synagogue or home.”

Reuters: “Pope Benedict on Tuesday linked the Church’s opposition to gay marriage to concern about the environment, suggesting that laws undermining ‘the differences between the sexes’ were threats to creation.”

The Volokh Conspiracy links to this report in the Local.

LifeNews: “Now, in a nationwide call to Catholics to prevent health care reform from being derailed by the abortion lobby, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has sent bulletin inserts and pulpit announcements to almost 19,000 parishes across the country.”

Arizona Republic: “Gay-rights groups believe 2010 will be the year they finally persuade Congress to pass a landmark law protecting workers from being fired or denied jobs or promotions because of their sexual orientation. With Democrats in the majority in the House and Senate and President Barack Obama promising to sign the bill, this is the best chance for victory that supporters of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act have ever had, said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force . . . After delays last year that frustrated gay-rights leaders, the lead sponsors of the bill say they expect a vote in the House in the first quarter of this year.”

Religion Clause Blog: “Under the plan, which the County Council will vote on today, churches would pay $1,008 per year, while smaller non-profits would be assessed $180.”

How Appealing carries this article by Lawrence Hurley writing at the Daily Journal “Tackling a sensitive question of international law, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh this week whether a child brought unlawfully to the United States by his mother must be returned to Chile, where the father lives . . . [pursuant to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction] Abbott v. Abbott, 08-645.”

Times-Picayune: “State Supreme Court Chief Justice Catherine Kimball, 64, is in recovery after suffering a stroke early Sunday.”

“The entire premise of this litigation is disquieting . . . ”

Religion Clause Blog: “One of the candidates, Chancellor of the Department of Postsecondary Education, Bradley Byrne, is now under fire from opponents because of this statement quoted last November in the Mobile Press-Register: ‘I believe there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not.’”

Penna Dexter writing at the Christian Post blog, The Way I See It: “[M]arriage is important enough in America to have forced a pitched battle over its legal definition . . . The lead defense counsel is Charles Cooper, former Assistant Attorney General under Ronald Reagan assisted by top attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund. The judge’s name is Vaughn Walker. They need our prayers.”

Christian Post: “‘What’s at stake in this case is not only the definition of marriage in California but the potential that Americans will be forced to forfeit the core of our democracy by allowing a small group of wealthy activists to impose their will on a state – or an entire nation – through the courts,’ Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defense Fund, told The Christian Post.”

Religion Clause Blog: “Kenya is in the complex process of drafting and adopting a new constitution. (See prior posting.) The public comment period on the Committee of Experts’ draft expired Dec. 15.”

OneNewsNow: “‘The advocates of redefining marriage are trying to do it yet once again through the courts, to impose [same-sex marriage] upon people who don’t want it . . .,’ says the attorney. ‘And really the fundamental issue here is whether or not in America we respect and should uphold the right of a free people to make social policy choices through the democratic process.’”

Religion Clause Blog: “An interesting post at Call & Response blog yesterday by Duke University Prof. Mark Chaves, Director of the National Congregations Study, analyzes the actual impact of President George W. Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative on religious congregations . . . ”

“In St. Elizabeth’s Child Care Center v. Department of Public Welfare, (PA Comnwlth. Ct., Jan. 7, 2010), a Pennsylvania state appellate court rejected free exercise challenges by a Catholic child day-care center to the requirement that it obtain a state certificate of compliance in order to operate.”

The Religion Clause Blog reports that the IRS has updated its procedure for obtaining non-profit determinations.

CBN News: “On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the broadcast of the California trial over the state’s gay marriage ban . . . ‘In a democracy the majority always rules,”‘ said Austin R. Nimocks of The Alliance Defense Fund. ‘I mean that’s the principle of democracy. If that doesn’t exist you really don’t have a democracy.’” Article includes video.

The Newsroom: “Although the California governor, and the state’s attorney general, Jerry Brown, have been named as defendants in the lawsuit, both officials have declined to defend it. So the original sponsors of Prop. 8 — a coalition of gay-marriage opponents — have stepped in to serve as defendants. They are represented by trial lawyer Charles Cooper, with assistance from the Christian legal group the Alliance Defense Fund.”

Human Events: “The push to make same-sex marriage the law of the land hits the fast track this week as the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial starts today in San Francisco . . . ‘There shouldn’t be a trial on this. It should have been resolved on the rule of law with pleadings,’ said Jordan Lorence, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based Christian legal organization helping defend Proposition 8.”

Fresno Bee: “A historic trial over California’s Proposition 8 starts today in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, promising to feature clashing witness testimony over equal rights, the meaning of bigotry and the purpose of marriage . . . Charles Cooper. A former assistant attorney general during the Reagan administration, Cooper is part of the same conservative Washington, D.C., legal establishment as Olson. He was enlisted to the lead the legal defense of Proposition 8 by the measure’s California sponsors, with assistance from the Alliance Defense Fund, a group aligned against gay marriage.”

PR Newswire: “The federal trial over the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 will begin Monday, January 11 with an opening statement by attorney Theodore Olson, who with David Boies is leading the legal team assembled by the American Foundation for Equal Rights to litigate the case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger . . . While Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown were named defendants in their official capacities, along with other state and county officials, Prop. 8 is being defended in court by a prominent conservative organization, the Alliance Defense Fund.”

Theodore B. Olson writing in Newsweek: “It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation’s multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But while the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals.”

Washington Post: “‘We don’t see it as a civil rights issue,’ said Austin R. Nimocks, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents the sponsors of Proposition 8. ‘Marriage is about bringing the two different elements of society — men and women — together in one unit of form that produces and raises the next generation.’” Also published in the Brisbane Times and Sydney Morning Herald.

New York Times: “‘There are very sound public policy reasons to define marriage as one man and woman, including the inevitable fact when you put men and women together, they produce children,’ said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Arizona-based group that will argue for Proposition 8. ‘To put that under the microscope of a compelling state interest test is the wrong thing for the court to be doing.’”

San Jose Mercury News: “‘I think the biggest issue in this case is whether or not we respect the right of the people to make social choices through the democratic process,’ said Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the anti-gay marriage Alliance Defense Fund.”

WorldNetDaily: “‘This case is as much about whether our government is of, by, and for the people as it is about marriage,’ ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum said in a statement released this week. ‘Just imagine how it would change our democracy if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists.’”

Christian Post: “‘What’s at stake in this case is not only the definition of marriage in California but the potential that Americans will be forced to forfeit the core of our democracy by allowing a small group of wealthy activists to impose their will on a state – or an entire nation – through the courts,’ Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defense Fund, told The Christian Post.”

Christian Post: “The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal firm, has set up a multimillion-dollar center for the sole purpose of defending religious speech and expression on school campuses. ADF attorneys lament that many schools have enacted unconstitutional policies and practices censoring Christian speech, banning Christian groups from campus, and punishing educators and students.”

AP: “Jury selection in the trial of a man charged with killing one of the nation’s few late-term abortion providers has been delayed to give prosecutors time to challenge a key ruling in the case.”

“The Supreme Court on Monday ordered at least a two-day postponement of any broadcast of the trial — opening later in the day in San Francisco — of the constitutional challenge to California’s ‘Prop. 8′ ban on same-sex marriage.”

Valley News Online: “The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is mobilizing its forces for battle against the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The basis is a legal case for the abolishment of National Day of Prayer, which is May 6.”

R.J. Snell writing at The Public Discourse: “[M]ore noteworthy are objections [to the Manhattan Doctrine] rising from a camp one might expect to agree with the document: namely, a certain kind of conservative Protestant, often, although not always, of a strongly Calvinistic tendency . . . The notion that the natural law forgets sin and thus depreciates the necessity of Christ and the supremacy of Scripture is an old one, to be sure, and is a common objection raised against the ethics and theology of Thomas Aquinas by this same group of Protestants.”

Liberty Counsel: “Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, is joining with other national leaders on Martin Luther King Jr. Day to protest Planned Parenthood’s creation of the largest abortion clinic in America and the racist roots of the nation’s largest abortion provider . . .”

“The first federal trial to determine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing same-sex marriage gets under way Monday . . . ”

AP: “Bukhsh says a witch doctor advised them to kill the girl after telling them it would make them rich.”

AP: “The Supreme Court is declining to review a Texas school district dress code that prohibited student clothing that featured political commentary.”

MyWay.com (AP): “Already the biggest auto market and steel maker, China edged past Germany in 2009 to become the top exporter, yet another sign of its rapid rise and the spread of economic power from West to East.”

FT.com: “Chinese banks have cemented their position as the most highly valued financial institutions, taking four of the top five slots in a ranking of banks’ share prices as a multiple of their book values.”

Bloomberg: “China supplanted the U.S. as the world’s largest auto market after its 2009 vehicle sales jumped 46 percent, ending more than a century of American dominance that started with the Model T Ford . . . In the U.S., sales slumped 21 percent to 10.4 million, the fewest since 1982, according to Autodata Corp.”

Caroline Mala Corbin, Ceremonial Deism and the Reasonable Religious Outsider (January 4, 2010). UCLA Law Review, Vol. 57. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1531312

“The supposedly objective reasonable person too often equates to a reasonable Christian. Furthermore, just as men might find harmless comments that women would find offensive, certain invocations of God may seem acceptable to Christians that non-Christians would find alienating because of their status as religious outsiders. Finally, reliance on this norm perpetuates Christian privilege rather than ensures religious liberty and equality for all. Consequently, the constitutionally of ceremonial deism should evaluated from perspective of a reasonable religious outsider.”

Peter Rizov, Definition of Religion: Honest Conviction, Regardless of Perception, in a Predominantly Non-Secular Subject Matter (February 23, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1518249

“This comment has a two-part purpose. First, this comment analyzes and critiques the existing definition-of-religion tests developed by the federal courts. Second, the comment proposes a definition of religion based on the concept of belief.”

Adam S. Hofri-Winogradow, The Muslim-Majority Character of Israeli Constitutional Law (December 10, 2009). Middle East Law and Governance, Vol. 2, No. 2, February 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1521605

“This article offers a novel interpretation of Israel’s constitutional discourse. It is well-known that despite its Jewish majority, Israel orders marriage and divorce in a manner similar to that prevalent in most Muslim-majority countries: by granting the traditional religious community courts of the various religious groups which make up its population exclusive jurisdiction over community members’ matters of marriage and divorce. What is less well known is that Israel’s constitutional discourse, too, fits a pattern common in Muslim-majority jurisdictions, in espousing a double commitment to both a religion – in Israel’s case, – Judaism – and human rights.”

Cornelia Koch, Classroom Crucifixes, Teacher Headscarves, Faith Healers and More – The German Experience of Religious Freedom Under a Bill of Rights (August 13, 2009). U. of Adelaide Law Research. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1521307

“As part of the current debate in Australia on the adoption of a bill or charter of rights, the experience of other countries is informative. The German Constitution contains a comprehensive catalogue of rights and freedoms. This includes principles protecting religious freedom, most importantly article 4, which declares ‘inviolable’ the ‘freedom of faith, of conscience, and freedom to profess a religion or a particular philosophy’. It also guarantees the ‘undisturbed practice of religion’. Should Australia opt to adopt a charter of rights in any form, it is highly likely that this instrument will contain some protection of cultural and religious freedom. While initially an Australian charter would not be constitutionally entrenched, a comparison with Germany is still helpful because it can be expected that issues encountered under a constitutional charter also arise under a legislative one. The German experience provides examples of the type of social controversies which the courts are called on to decide in relation to the protection of religious freedom.”