Tag Archives: ADF: Byron Babione

Byron Babione on the Zeb Bell Show. | MP3 audio 15:10 mins | Hollingsworth v. Perry resource page

Byron Babione of the Alliance Defending Freedom & Ron Prentice of Protect Marriage on the Janet Mefferd Show. | Broadcast featuring Byron Babione: MP3 audio 19:18 mins | The Broadcast featuring Ron Prentice is here.

Mainline Media News (text of the chat at the link): Join a moderated discussion at 3 p.m. ET on Monday, March 25, about Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Joining Bay Area News Group legal affairs writer Howard Mintz will be Byron Babione, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is helping defend Proposition 8 and supports the federal Defense of Marriage Act; and Christopher Stoll, a staff attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Mercury News: Join a moderated discussion at noon PDT on Monday, March 25, about Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Joining Bay Area News Group reporter Howard Mintz will be Byron Babione, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is helping defend Proposition 8 and supports the federal Defense of Marriage Act; and Christopher Stoll, a staff attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights. (email reminder signup at the link)

Byron Babione at Townhall: Those who remember the old version of the SAT might recall the analogy section: “This is to that as that is to this.” The SAT no longer requires students to demonstrate aptitude in reasoning through this vital cognitive exercise—unfortunate because so many Americans find it difficult to recognize false analogies. And no group has exploited this deficiency more than politicians.

Byron Babione appeared on Citizen Link to discuss marriage. | MP3 audio 8 mins

LA Times: The excitement that Obama’s remarks spurred among advocates of gay marriage was matched by dismay among its opponents. Byron Babione, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, which is co-counsel in the Proposition 8 case now before the Supreme Court, said it was “deeply dishonest to equate the civil rights movement to today’s homosexual activism.” “Civil rights marchers were met with batons, fire hoses, tear gas and nooses. So-called pride parades are met with Fortune 500 corporate sponsorship,” he said. “African Americans were systematically dehumanized, while homosexual activists are lionized by every powerful cultural institution and center of wealth in America.”

American Thinker: Following November 2012′s citizen-initiated referendum to redefine marriage in Maine, marriage within that state will now include same-sex couples. In light of this, clerks with religious and/or conscience objections to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples have found themselves in a quandary.

SCOTUS Blog has listed Brewer v. Diaz as its Petition of the Day. Links to Center for Arizona Policy Amicus prepared by Alliance Defending Freedom Attorneys.

Citizen Link: Unfortunately, we are seeing battles like this all across the country,” said Brett Harvey, who is representing the county along with Senior Counsel Bryan Beauman, both with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

Available for media interviews following preliminary injunction hearing in Coleman v. Hamilton County Government. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are co-counsel in defense of the Tennessee county’s policy that allows public meetings to be opened with an invocation.

Byron Babione at Townhall: And because North Carolina is the 31st state to implement such a constitutional-grade protection, President Obama’s announcement simply proves how out of sync he is with the desires and convictions of the American people.

Byron Babione at USA Today: The union between one man and one woman — marriage — is timeless, universal and special. It is the only relationship absolutely essential to the future of humanity. False characterizations of marriage as something else confuses the discussion about it.

Byron Babione at Townhall: This testimony was provided to the Colorado House Judiciary Committee on May 3, 2012 concerning Colorado S.B. 002, a proposed “civil unions” bill . . . Here’s how the strategy works. Civil union and same-sex “marriage” proponents push for civil unions, claiming that it’s only fair to give some formal government recognition to same-sex relationships. Once passed or judicially imposed, they sue arguing that the laws are discriminatory because they are really marriages deprived of the name.

Civil unions undermine marriage, as has been proven across the country. Well-meaning folks, including legislators, who oppose redefining marriage, yet support civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, do so with a mistaken belief: that both sides of the marriage debate will be satisfied with this apparent compromise.

KGWN.tv: Byron Babione, with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative group that stands for religious freedom, echoed the concerns of some of the opponents when he said civil unions are “marriage without the name.”

WSET.com (ABC13): Opponents argue civil unions undermine traditional marriage and that voters expressed their position on the issue when they banned same-sex marriage in 2006. Byron Babione, with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative group that stands for religious freedom, echoed the concerns of some of the opponents when he said civil unions are “marriage without the name.”

Bryron Babione at Townhall: Imagine a T-shirt print shop run by owners who openly practice homosexual behavior. Let’s call it “Tolerance 101.” They make T-shirts for community events, annual “gay pride” rallies, and sports teams around their city. Now, imagine that a major Christian ministry contacts the company to have them make T-shirts that will be worn at an event supporting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

OneNewsNow.com: But Alliance Defense Fund attorney Bryon Babione maintains that she was fired because she took a stand for her faith. “The right to refer is a pervasive right in counseling, and she followed that, but she was nevertheless laid off for doing that,” he says. “They said it was inappropriate that she told the client that she had personal beliefs which would not allow her to effectively counsel that particular client.”

ABA Journal: Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Byron Babione, who represented Walden, said he was disappointed in the ruling. “It is unlawful to punish a Christian for abiding by her faith, particularly when she made every effort to accommodate the interests of a potential client,” he said in a statement. “We are determining next steps to ultimately vindicate Marcia and the freedoms for which she’s fighting.”

How Appealing links to more coverage of the ruling. __________________ The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Byron Babione regarding the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit today in Walden v. Centers …

ADF Attorney Byron Babione appeared on the Victoria Taft Show. | MP3 audio 9:16 mins

The Baptist Standard (Religion News Service): The conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which asked the Supreme Court to consider the case, was disappointed. “Justice is not well served when unhappy atheists can use the law to mow down memorial crosses and renew the suffering for the survivors,” Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Byron Babione said.

The New American: ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione expressed his disappointment in the High Court’s refusal. “One atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by highway patrol officers and their families,” he said. “Thirteen heroic men fell, leaving their survivors to mourn and memorialize their loved ones, and now those widows, children, parents, colleagues, and many more must suffer through losing the very memorials that honored those heroes. Justice is not well served when unhappy atheists can use the law to mow down memorial crosses and renew the suffering for the survivors.” [more]

Baptist Press: “It is baffling that the Supreme Court did not take this case, in light of the fact that just last year they said that roadside memorials to fallen troopers would not violate the establishment clause,” said Byron Babione, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund.

Crosswalk ReligionToday News Summaries: Justice is not well-served when unhappy atheists can use the law to mow down memorial crosses and renew the suffering for the survivors,” said ADF senior counsel Byron Babione. Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, also harshly criticized the court’s decision, saying it rejected “an opportunity to provide clarity” to an area of law that was “in shambles.”

OneNewsNow.com: But Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Byron Babione tells OneNewsNow that American Atheists claimed the memorials are “a state establishment of religion.” . . . “It is baffling that the Supreme Court did not take this case in light of the fact that just last year they said that roadside memorials to fallen troopers would not violate the Establishment Clause,” the attorney laments.

Christianity Today: The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Byron Babione said, “The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case is baffling in light of its comments just last year that individualized memorial crosses honoring fallen troopers do not amount to a government establishment of religion.” Babione and the ADF helped represent those who paid for and maintained the crosses . . . According to the ADF’s brief, that the crosses were memorials and symbols of sacrifice; they did not represent Christianity. “The [Utah Highway Patrol Association] chose the cross shape because it is the only symbol, given its historical use, that could simultaneously communicate messages of roadside death, commemoration, and highway safety,” the ADF brief said.

WZTV FOX 17 (ADF attorneys Byron Babione and Jim Campbell in the video) Sky Arnold: Attorneys who are fighting a controversial new state law want to see e-mails and documents of those who supported it . . .

WorldNetDaily: The Alliance Defense Fund has been fighting on behalf of the Utah Highway Patrol Association to memorialize fallen troopers “in a way they see fit . . . ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione argued “one atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by highway patrol officers and their families.” “Thirteen heroic men fell, leaving their survivors to mourn and memorialize their loved ones, and now those widows, children, parents, colleagues, and many more must suffer through losing the very memorials that honored those heroes,” he said.

Ken Klukowski at the Washington Examiner: The Utah Highway Patrol Association participated in the case as intervenors represented by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). The ADF’s lead counsel for UHPA, Byron Babione, said, “One atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by highway patrol officers and their families.” ADF would continue to fight to protect these memorials, he added. The slight silver lining in this denial is that Thomas’s dissent suggests that the High Court might not have seen the 10th Circuit’s judgment as covering all roadside crosses, instead regarding it as covering only roadside crosses bearing government insignia (which are presumably rare).

The Washington Post: The conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which asked the court to consider the case, was disappointed. “Justice is not well served when unhappy atheists can use the law to mow down memorial crosses and renew the suffering for the survivors,” said ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione.

The Tennessean: But Byron Babione, an attorney with the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the Family Action Council, said the group’s communications are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to political speech. “Our clients make no apologies for being involved in the political process,’’ Babione said. | Also posted here.

Christian Post: ADF claims that Knox engaged in protected speech, and therefore should not be penalized for her views. “Viki communicated her religious views on a matter of public importance… To punish her for that would be completely illegal,” said ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione. [more]

ADF attorneys Joe Infranco and Byron Babione at The American Spectator: The plain fact is that a memorial cross at this site does not “establish” a religion. The agenda of a few atheists should not diminish the sacrifice of the heroes and victims of 9/11. The place of this potent symbol of our shared tragedy and courage should remain for all time.

ADF attorney Byron Babione appeared on the Mike Janocik Show to discuss the controversy.| MP3 audio 29:21 mins

ADF attorneys Joe Infranco and Byron Babione at the NY Daily News: The lawsuit by American Atheists seeking to remove the World Trade Center cross from the National 9/11 Memorial and Museum badly distorts the meaning of the First Amendment, but it nonetheless provides an excellent opportunity for each of us to understand what the Constitution really prohibits as an “establishment” of religion.

Mercatornet: Seriously. This is their legal complaint. Just like the American Center for Law and Justice, the Alliance Defense Fund is getting used to this.

Christian Post: Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) also insist that the cross’s placement in the museum is legally sound, and claim that the American Atheists’ lawsuit “is completely out of step with the Constitution.” “One atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by the heroes of 9/11,” said ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione in a statement on the group’s website. “A cross like this one simply does not amount to a government establishment of religion under either the U.S. Constitution or the New York Constitution.” Babione added, “Nothing in the Constitution authorizes atheists to scour the landscape on a mission to seek and destroy memorial crosses.”

LifeSiteNews.com: “One atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by the heroes of 9/11,” said ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione, who argued that the cross “simply does not amount to a government establishment of religion.” “The cross is not only known far and wide as a religious symbol, but also as a symbol of death, remembrance, and honor for the dead. Americans have long recognized this. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes atheists to scour the landscape on a mission to seek and destroy memorial crosses.”

OneNewsNow.com: “Government officials cannot use broad commercial reasons to favor non-religious businesses or membership organizations over religious ones. The city’s actions here left this small congregation with a mortgage to pay on a building it could not use for two years and at the same time it had to pay for another meeting place,” explains Babione.

Seeing Red AZ Blog linked in Tucson Citizen: What better time for another accolade* to the Scottsdale-based Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) — a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith? . . . ADF Senior Legal Counsel Byron Babione argued the case of Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenos Nuevas Christian Church v. City of Yuma.

Charisma: Churches should not be singled out for discrimination by a city’s zoning restrictions,” says Byron Babione, who argued before the 9th Circuit in April of last year. “Government officials cannot use broad commercial reasons to favor non-religious businesses or membership organizations over religious ones. The city’s actions left this small congregation with a mortgage to pay on a building it couldn’t use for two years while it had to pay for another meeting place at the same time.”

Cronkite News (7/12): The ruling by the three-judge panel of the court in San Francisco was hailed by Byron J. Babione, the attorney for the church. “We’re happy with the outcome,” Babione said. “Arizona has always had a good commitment to equality, the treatment of property owners and to the free exercise of religion.” [more]

The New American (6/27): Byron Babione, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, goes as far as calling Mr. Obama’s position on DOMA “nonsense,” pointing out that it ignores the fact that the law was designed to protect states’ rights and give them leeway to “determine social policy with respect to marriage.” Babione told Baptist Press News that the federal law “allows states the freedom to protect marriage between a man and a woman and not to have the same-sex marriages of other states imposed upon them….”

Michael Foust at Baptist Press (6/24): Byron Babione, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, has called Obama’s position on DOMA “nonsense.” “DOMA actually protects the right of states to determine social policy with respect to marriage,” Babione told Baptist Press. “It allows states the freedom to protect marriage between a man and a woman and not to have the same-sex marriages of other states imposed upon them…. Repealing DOMA actually does the opposite of protecting states’ rights…. Repealing of DOMA also would do untold damage to the benefits that marriage brings to society. It would open the way to defining marriage and its value out of existence.”

Jason Locy at CNN.com: Byron Babione of the Alliance Defense Fund, a coalition of Christian lawyers, attributed the April ruling to a “political movement afoot to undermine and destroy marriage.” Baptist Press, the publications arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, ran an article that quoted Babione as saying the ruling reflected “a campaign to place adult wants and desires over the best interests of children.”

One News Now: “One atheist group’s agenda should not diminish the sacrifice made by Utah Highway Patrol officers and their families,” contends ADF attorney Byron Babione. “We’re asking the Supreme Court to allow the families of the fallen to honor their loved ones through these constitutionally permissible memorials.”

Christian Post: Conservative legal firm Alliance Defense Fund praised Shurtleff’s action. “One atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by Utah highway patrol officers and their families. We are asking the Supreme Court to allow the families of the fallen to honor their loved ones through these constitutionally permissible memorials,” said ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione in a statement . . . “The Supreme Court recently signaled that individualized memorial crosses honoring fallen troopers simply do not amount to a government establishment of religion,” said Babione. “That guidance applies directly to this case.”

ADF attorney Byron Babione appeared on the Hugh Hewitt Show to discuss the Utah roadside memorial crosses case. | MP3 audio 5:56 mins

WorldNetDaily: “One atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by Utah highway patrol officers and their families. We are asking the Supreme Court to allow the families of the fallen to honor their loved ones through these constitutionally permissible memorials,” said ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione. “The Supreme Court recently signaled that individualized memorial crosses honoring fallen troopers simply do not amount to a government establishment of religion. That guidance applies directly to this case,” he said.

Divided 10th Circuit ruled crosses for fallen troopers unconstitutional despite high court comments indicating otherwise

New American: . . . Babione said the court’s decision tells individuals that “you can go shack up with your boyfriend or girlfriend and that if you decide that you want to play house and have kids, the state has to allow you to come in and seek a child.” He added that it is “mind-boggling that we’ve come to a point in our society where you have a state Supreme Court basically saying that adult sexual desires and wants are the chief end of civil government at the expense of the best interests of children.”

Michael Foust at Baptist Press: “This can impact other states, and I am sure courts will take notice,” Byron Babione, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, told Baptist Press. ADF represented the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee, Act 1′s sponsor. “There is no doubt a political movement afoot to undermine and destroy marriage as we know it, and to eradicate protections that are in place for children when those protections conflict with adult sexual desires…. This lawsuit was part of a campaign to place adult wants and desires over the best interests of children.”

Wall Street Journal: The Alliance Defense Fund, an alliance of Christian lawyers, defended the Arkansas law in court. The Law Blog caught up with ADF attorney Byron Babione. “The court placed adult sexual acts above the best interests of children,” he said. The court “essentially nullified and vetoed the will of the people of Arkansas who raise families and understand what is best for children and know that children should be placed in homes with married mothers and fathers, which is supported by social science,” he said.

LifeSiteNews: The needs of children outweigh the wants of adults. The court’s decision tragically places more importance on the sexual interests of adults than on protecting children,” said Byron Babione, Senior Legal Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. The ADF was representing the Family Council Action Committee, which fought to get Act 1 on the ballot and approved in 2008. “The people of Arkansas believe that children deserve the most safe and stable home possible. They cast their ballots to ensure that children wouldn’t be deprived of the best possible family environment and decisively approved Act 1 for that purpose only, but the court struck down the people’s will anyway,” Babione said.

Washington Times: Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Byron Babione, who defended Act 1 on behalf of its sponsor Family Council Action Committee, said the high court’s ruling “tragically places more importance on the sexual interests of adults than on protecting children.”

Christianity Today: FCAC was represented by Byron Babione, an Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney. “The court’s decision tragically places more importance on the sexual interests of adults than on protecting children,” Babione said. “The people of Arkansas believe that children deserve the most safe and stable home possible. They cast their ballots to ensure that children wouldn’t be deprived of the best possible family environment and decisively approved Act 1 for that purpose only, but the court struck down the people’s will anyway.”

The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday against Arkansas Act 1, a voter-approved law designed to protect adopted and foster children.

One News Now: At the recent oral arguments before the Arkansas Supreme Court, Byron Babione — senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) — explained the law is about protecting kids. “The statute just tried to put children in the safest homes,” says the attorney, “and the other side argues that this violates the right of adults to engage in private sexual acts. It does no such thing — because the state is not trying to go into your home and punish you for what you’re doing. It’s just saying we’re not going to put our children into your home if you are in relationships that are characterized by instability.”

Keen News Service: Defense lawyer Byron Babione, representing the Family Council Action Committee, also told the court that the issues in the case were part of the state’s larger policy of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Act 1, he said, serves to encourage marriage and to channel children into “home environments where they do best” and are “less likely to be subject to risks.”

Washington Times: That is why the court should uphold Act 1, a 2008 voter-passed law that excludes cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples from being foster or adoptive parents, said Byron J. Babione, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund. Cohabitation is associated with risks and instability for children, and even biological parents in Arkansas who split up cannot have custody of their children if they are cohabiting with someone, said Mr. Babione, who represented Family Council Action Committee, a major backer of Act 1.

The measure protects children who are adopted or placed into foster care, but an Arkansas judge struck down the law in a ruling last April that errantly characterized voters as attempting to target “homosexual couples…one politically unpopular group.” Act 1 clearly states that it “applies equally to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals.”

Salt Lake Tribune: “The Utah Attorney General’s Office requested the stay. UHP and its association plans to appeal its case to the Supreme Court, said [Byron Babione], an Arizona-based attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing Utah troopers’ case.”

KSL: “The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to stay an order that would have required Utah to remove 14 large roadside crosses that commemorate fallen Utah Highway Patrol troopers . . . [Byron Babione], an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the UHPA in the lawsuit, said the organization supported the request for a stay filed by the Utah Attorney General’s Office ‘We are certainly appealing, especially since we got two strong dissents on the rehearing denial,’ Babione said. ‘The dissents may attract the Supreme Court to grant our appeal.’”

OneNewsNow: “Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and allied attorneys are working to defend Act 1, the voter-approved measure that protects children who are adopted or placed in foster care . . . ‘It says when it comes to foster and adoptive children — those children that are most in need of homes — the state of Arkansas places a premium on putting those children in homes consisting of a married mother and father. The law does not allow children to be placed in unstable cohabiting environments,” explains ADF attorney [Byron Babione].” ADF News Release

ADF attorney Byron Babione appeared on KFUO with Roland Lettner to discuss the ruling in American Atheists v. Davenport. | MP3 25:05 mins | ADF Media Information

The Alliance Defense Fund’s reaction to the 10th Circuit’s reversal of a district court ruling in American Atheists v. Davenport upholding roadside memorials to fallen Utah state troopers was featured on the Fox News Channel. See three different videos below. ADF News Release: ADF will appeal decision to strike down roadside memorials to fallen Utah troopers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8JsPfMoA1c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDvBsm7PItY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTTkgGkI0Vc

OneNewsNow: “‘I think one of the important things to really understand here is that an atheist group’s agenda should not diminish the sacrifice made by Utah Highway Patrol officers and their families,’ contends Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney [Byron Babione].”

ADF Attorney Byron Babione appeared on Fox News to discuss the 10th Circuit’s decision to strike down roadside memorials to fallen Utah troopers in American Atheists v. Davenport. | MP4 4:19 mins | YouTube | ADF News Release

Baptist Press: “‘One atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by Utah highway patrol officers and their families. The families of the fallen should be allowed to honor their loved ones as they wish,’ said [Byron Babione], an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which was allowed to intervene in the case.”

The Salt Lake Tribune: “[Byron Babione], the attorney representing the UHPA, said the individualized memorials ‘simply do not amount to a government establishment of religion’ . . . ‘We don’t intend to leave this disappointing ruling standing,’ said Babione, senior legal counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund in Arizona. “One atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by Utah Highway Patrol officers and their families. The families of the fallen should be allowed to honor their loved ones as they wish.’” | ADF News Release

“Alliance Defense Fund attorneys are reviewing all options for appeal of a ruling issued Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that struck down roadside memorials to fallen Utah state troopers as unconstitutional.”

Charisma: “This case involves the fundamental right of individual Americans to vote,” said Byron Babione, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and a member of its Marriage Litigation Center. “It is an extremely important issue and one which could be very attractive to the Supreme Court. We are weighing our options about whether to appeal, and we feel like our case would be very strong.”

ADF attorney Byron Babione appeared on the Georgene Rice Show to discuss the recent Defense of Marriage Act rulings out of Massachusetts. | MP3 11:15 mins