Tag Archives: ADF: Media Clips

Santa Fe New Mexican: The Alliance Defense Fund, calling itself “a legal alliance of Christian attorneys,” appealed the decision to the state appellate court, which last week upheld the commission, so now the fund says it will appeal to the Supreme Court, which may choose whether to hear the case or not.

Reuters: When considering Romer, the Supreme Court found the Colorado constitutional amendment to be extremely broad and unjustified because it took away even the most basic protections for homosexuals. “That’s not the case with marriage,” said Dale Schowengerdt, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, which has supported the prohibition on same-sex marriage in California.

Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy: In any event, I hope that Huguenin and her lawyers (the Alliance Defense Fund) seek review by the New Mexico Supreme Court, and, if that fails, even by the U.S. Supreme Court. I will also blog shortly about the other major issue in the case, Huguenin’s separate claim for a religious exemption from the state antidiscrimination law. | Related Post: Do Religious Freedom Restoration Acts Apply When Courts Enforce Civil Causes of Action?
I blogged earlier today about the New Mexico Court of Appeals decision in Willock v. Elane Photography, which held that a wedding photographer could be held liable for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. I argued that the decision violated the photographer’s First Amendment rights not to create expressive works (such as photographs) that she doesn’t want to create.

Family Research Council: ADF Attorney Jordan Lorence disputed the other side’s claim that the city has an obligation to “keep worship out of school.” “It is discriminatory to punish churches,” he explained, especially since religious student groups are allowed to hold meetings in the same space. “I think [the city officials]… do not understand that the government should accommodate freedom of speech for religion. They view religions as something evil or bad that needs to be driven from the public schools. All we are asking is that we are treated the same as everybody else,” Lorence said.

Mirror of Justice: Bronx Household of Faith obtained a preliminary injunction and is now seeking a permanent injunction against New York City, which would stop the City from excluding Bronx Household and any other religious organization from equal access to public school facilities. [ADF not mentioned]

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund will appeal a New Mexico Court of Appeals decision that upheld a ruling by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission against an Albuquerque photography company

Alan Sears at Townhall: This is a microcosm of how the culture of death has lessened our vision, twisted our thinking, and dulled our emotions over the past four decades. We’ve come to a point where the leader of the free world was neither embarrassed nor ashamed to oppose legislation which would have spared the lives of girls who are being killed because they are girls and would have spared the lives of boys who are being killed because they are boys.

The New American: “This is a clear-cut case of arbitrary use of power,” explained the family’s attorney, Viktor Kostov, who is working with the international Alliance Defense Fund on the case. “The authorities are trying to scare the family into bowing down to the [Social Services Child Protection Unit]’s demand that the child go back to school … they have absolutely no grounds for accusing the father and mother of a crime.”

One News Now: ADF attorney Joel Oster responds. “Faith-based groups shouldn’t be singled out for discrimination — especially a group like this that’s provided such selfless service to at-risk youth and their parents for many years,” says the attorney.

WYTV.com (AP): The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports Friday that the Washington, D.C.-based Alliance Defense Fund has added Wayne Helper and Carrie Kolesar, owners of lumber and sawmill businesses, to the federal lawsuit filed last month by Geneva College, in Beaver Falls.

KASU 91.9 FM (includes audio): The ruling won’t go into effect until it can be appealed, most likely to the U.S. Supreme Court. Which will certainly happen, says Dale Showengert, an attorney at the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. He says the legislatures in the states and Congress are the ones to decide what a legal marriage looks like. DALE SHOWENGERT: Marriage is a particularly important social institution, and so any watershed change in its definition should come through the legislative process and not the courts.

Christian Post: “I think that Judge [Loretta] Preska is with us,” said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, in an interview with The Christian Post after the hearing.

Michael Foust at Baptist Press: Baptist Press asked Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, to answer some legal questions about the case. Following is a partial transcript . . .

David Gibson at the Christian Century: “Under this rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too,” said Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. “The federal government had the authority to step in against polygamy at one time in our nation’s history, and it has the authority to step in against this attempt at marriage redefinition as well.”

Jordan Lorence at the Speak Up Movement Church Blog: Bronx Household of Faith has filed a motion asking the District Court to grant a permanent injunction against the New York City Department of Education’s policy barring religious groups from conducting worship services in the public schools during nonschool hours. New York City is asking the Court to uphold the policy.

Alan Sears at TellADF: Few cases illustrate so clearly the lengths to which many in today’s legal culture will go to undermine your Christian heritage and religious liberties as one Alliance Defense Fund attorneys are currently appealing in Greece, New York.

Dale Schowengerdt appeared on the The Hugh Hewitt Show to discuss the issue. | MP3 audio 5:41 mins

Greg Baylor appeared on the radio to discuss the litigation. These broadcasts were recorded within the last two weeks. | Viewpoints with Lockwood Phillps, MP3 audio 20:03 mins | The Hugh Hewitt Show, MP3 audio 10:22 mins | ADF comment on 12 new lawsuits against Obama abortion pill mandate

Kevin Theriot appeared on Family Policy Matters with Bill Brooks on the NC Family Policy Council. | MP3 audio 14:29 mins | ADF launches new nationwide effort to change unconstitutional policies at public universities

Jordan Lorence on the Hugh Hewitt Show a couple of weeks ago to survey the landscape. | MP3 audio 5:26 mins

Richard Viguerie at Conservative HQ: Dale Schowengerdt, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund — a Christian advocacy group that has defended California’s gay marriage ban in court — noted that, “Under this [the court’s] rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too.”

Examiner (AP): The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (http://bit.ly/L8m8T6 ) reports Friday that the Washington, D.C.-based Alliance Defense Fund has added Wayne Helper and Carrie Kolesar, owners of lumber and sawmill businesses, to the federal lawsuit filed last month by Geneva College, in Beaver Falls

The New American: The ADF’s Dale Schowengerdt argued that Wilken’s reasoning was outrageous. “To say that a law that was passed overwhelmingly by Congress is the product of animus is — I don’t know how to say it — it’s unbelievable,” Schowengerdt was quoted by the Christian Science Monitor as saying. “It’s just unbelievable that a judge would be making that sort of value judgment against the entire government, the Congress, and President Bill Clinton.” Brian Camenker of the Massachusetts-based pro-family group Mass Resistance reacted to the most recent court rulings, saying that “federal judges just seem so … out of touch with reality [and] completely disjointed from the Constitution and the rule of law.” Bill Duncan of the Marriage Law Foundation added that “the best way to say it is: These judges are substituting their judgment about what’s good public policy, because they want to see same-sex marriage mandated on the country.”

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Attorneys for ADF have now added as plaintiffs Wayne L. Helper and Carrie E. Kolesar, father-daughter co-owners of the Cranberry-based Seneca Hardwood Lumber Co. and a related sawmill company.

MinnPost (Christian Science Monitor): A powerful affirmation, or a bridge too far? Gay rights advocates praised the decision, while those supporting the traditional definition of marriage denounced it. “Society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it,” said Dale Schowengerdt, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund. “In allowing one state to hold the federal government and potentially other states hostage to redefine marriage, the First Circuit attempts a bridge too far,” he said.

Huffington Post (RNS): Still, social conservatives saw the decision as an ominous sign. “Under this rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too,” said Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. “The federal government had the authority to step in against polygamy at one time in our nation’s history, and it has the authority to step in against this attempt at marriage redefinition as well.”

ABC: Society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it,” said Alliance Defense Fund Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt. “In allowing one state to hold the federal government, and potentially other states, hostage to redefine marriage, the 1st Circuit attempts a bridge too far. Under this rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too.”

One News Now: Even if she’d been doing the same types of activities at a Boys and Girls Club, or a scouting organization or something like that, she would’ve received credit under the old policy,” explains litigation staff counsel Matt Sharp. “But because she chose to do that work at a church, she was originally denied any credit and ultimately put on probation with the National Honor Society.”

The Sun Chronicle: Conservatives said they hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn the appeals court and find the law constitutional. “Society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it. The federal Defense of Marriage Act provides that type of protection, and we trust the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the 1st Circuit’s erroneous decision,” said Dale Schowengerdt of the Alliance Defense Fund.

Florida Baptist Witness (Baptist Press): Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said society should protect and strengthen traditional marriage rather than undermine it. ADF, a Christian legal group, has worked to defend DOMA. “The federal Defense of Marriage Act provides that type of protection, and we trust the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the First Circuit’s erroneous decision,” Schowengerdt said in a statement. [more]

Washington Times: But Dale Schowengerdt, an attorney for Alliance Defense Fund, one of dozens of groups defending DOMA, said that in “allowing one state to hold the federal government, and potentially other states, hostage to redefine marriage, the 1st Circuit attempts a bridge too far.” “The federal government had the authority to step in against polygamy at one time in our nation’s history, and it has the authority to step in against this attempt at marriage redefinition as well,” Mr. Schowengerdt said. DOMA protects marriage “and we trust the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the 1st Circuit’s erroneous decision.”

CNA: Dale Showengert, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, also criticized the decision. “Society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it,” he said May 31. “The federal Defense of Marriage Act provides that type of protection, and we trust the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the 1st Circuit’s erroneous decision.”

Babble.com: An opponent of the law and representative of the Alliance Defense Fund, Dale Schowengerdt, said that “society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it.”

Reuters: Dale Schowengerdt, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian advocacy group that has defended California’s gay marriage ban in court, added, “Under this rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too.”

Digital Journal: “Society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it.” said Dale Schowengerdt, counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian lawyers. He said the ruling allowed one state (Massachusetts in this case) to hold the federal government and potentially other states “hostage.” Schowengerdt said that “under this rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it too.”

World Magazine: Smith added that IFI is working with the Alliance Defense Fund to see whether his group has standing to oppose the lawsuits and to evaluate the legal options. The situation “is discouraging for a lot of reasons,” said Laurie Higgins, a cultural analyst for IFI, not least because the Illinois news media are declining to address key issues. For example, she pointed out, gay rights proponents insist that marriage has nothing to do with gender or having children—but if marriage is just about subjective feelings, why should the government be involved at all?

USA Today: The Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian lawyers who support the federal law, said it expects the Supreme Court will reverse the appeals panel and uphold the law’s constitutionality. “Society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it,” said Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the fund. Schowengerdt said that under the appeals court’s rationale, “if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too.”

Christian Post: Opposing the ruling, Alliance Defense Fund Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt said the court went too far in its rationale. “In allowing one state to hold the federal government, and potentially other states, hostage to redefine marriage, the 1st Circuit attempts a bridge too far. Under this rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too,” he contended.

Wall Street Journal: “The federal government had the right to step in against polygamy at one time in our nation’s history,” said Dale Schowengerdt of the Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes gay marriage, “and it has the right to step in against this attempt at marriage redefinition as well.”

LifeSiteNews: Alliance Defense Fund Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt said the “federal government had the authority to step in against polygamy at one time in our nation’s history, and it has the authority to step in against this attempt at marriage redefinition, as well.”

NPR (includes audio): When people debate gay marriage, some argue that it could lead to legalized polygamy. Host Michel Martin asks how, and if it would even matter. She speaks with Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund and Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution.

Boston Globe: “Society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it. The federal Defense of Marriage Act provides that type of protection, and we trust the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the 1st Circuit’s erroneous decision.” “In allowing one state to hold the federal government, and potentially other states, hostage to redefine marriage, the 1st Circuit attempts a bridge too far. Under this rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too. The federal government had the right to step in against polygamy at one time in our nation’s history, and it has the right to step in against this attempt at marriage redefinition as well.” — Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, an alliance of Christian attorneys

NY Times: “Society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it,” said Dale Schowengerdt, counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian lawyers. “In allowing one state to hold the federal government, and potentially other states, hostage to redefine marriage, the First Circuit attempts a bridge too far,” he said. “Under this rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too.”

Dave Cortman appeared on the Bob Dutko Show. | MP3 audio 7:20 mins

Greg Baylor appeared on Common Cents with Josh Kimbrell. | MP3 audio 18 mins

Alan Sears appeared on WAVA radio on the Don Kroah Show with guest host Tim Googlein. | MP3 audio 10:53 mins.

NC Register: Alliance Defense Fund filed a formal comment with the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of the Catholic schools, including Benedictine College, Christendom College, John Paul the Great Catholic University and Wyoming Catholic College.

One News Now: “We’re not sure if this was ignorance or hostility,” Sharp comments. “We know that there was some history with hostility towards Christian groups there at the school and pressure in the past to form interfaith clubs.” . . . “The Equal Access Act in the Constitution both protected the right of students to form uniquely Christian clubs or clubs of any faith and to maintain the religious identity of that club without interference from school officials,” the attorney explains.

Dale Schowengerdt appeared on the Janet Mefferd Show to discuss the ruling. | MP3 audio 12:50 mins

One News Now: He believes these incidents keep occurring throughout the country because school officials are afraid some parents will complain about their children receiving literature with religious content. Meanwhile, birthday party invitations are allowed. “That is not a constitutionally sound reason to say ‘no’ to religious speech,” the attorney asserts. “It’s called a heckler’s veto. You can’t restrict speech because somebody else doesn’t like that speech.” [more quote by Jeremy Tedesco]

Austin R. Nimocks at Townhall: You think you’ve seen and heard every argument regarding same-sex “marriage,” and then the Baltimore Sun writes an editorial that divorce has now somehow strengthened the case for same-sex “marriage.”

National Review Comment by Alan E. Sears: As with proponents of same-sex “marriage,” proponents of abortion and the culture of death have long used all kinds of media to try to convince the American people that they want something other than what they actually want. They’ve tried to put words in our mouths, thoughts in our minds, and, when allowed, even to speak for us as if we were in complete agreement with their efforts to redefine marriage or eviscerate life in the womb. [more]

Casey Mattox at the American Thinker: Proponents of the culture of death have long reaped fruit from various forms of their “quality of life” verbiage. From pleas for “safe” and “legal” abortions for mothers with “unwanted” pregnancies — aka pregnancies impacting the mother’s preferred quality of life — to fights for legalized killing of the physically or mentally handicapped — aka children who, if born, could not enjoy the preferred quality of life adults assume — those who’ve spoken loudest for the culture of death have spoken in unity: our value is in our capacity, not our humanity.

CaliforniaHealthLine.org: Meanwhile, the Alliance Defense Fund — a group that opposes gay marriage — said the ruling likely will be appealed. Dale Schowengerdt, the group’s legal counsel, said, “This will end up at the Supreme Court at some point, and we’re confident and hopeful that the [Defense of Marriage Act] will be upheld” (Sacramento Bee, 5/26).

MinnPost (“Gay marriage: Judge overturns DOMA, stepping up pressure on Supreme Court”): She also cited a 1996 US Supreme Court decision on a Colorado anti-gay initiative that found gays and lesbians are protected from “burdensome legislation that is the product of sheer antigay animus and devoid of any legitimate governmental purpose.” That argument is outrageous, says Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which supports DOMA. “To say that a law that was passed by overwhelmingly by Congress … to say that that’s the product of animus is — I don’t know how to say it — it’s unbelievable,” he says. “It’s just unbelievable that a judge would be making that sort of value judgment against the entire government, the Congress, and President Bill Clinton.” “Every civilization throughout history has found that marriage involves a man and a woman, and we’re confident that once the Supreme Court has this case, they will find there’s no animus and that the opposite sex was granted in a rational basis,” he says.

TexasGOPVote.com: This is just ridiculous: Nederland ISD has been sued by the Alliance Defense Fund who is representing Michael Metcalf, the father of a 3rd grade student at Hillcrest Elementary School who was prohibited from giving a classmate friend an invitation to go to church with him.

LiveInsuranceNews.com: However, an Arizona group against gay marriage called the Alliance Defense Fund has asserted that the ruling made by the judge will be appealed. This could mean that the current regulations will be held over a number of months, or perhaps even years. Legal counsel for the group, Dale Schowengerdt, said that this case will, at some point, find itself before the supreme court, and that the group is both hopeful and confident that the current law will be held in place.

Alaska Dispatch: She also cited a 1996 US Supreme Court decision on a Colorado anti-gay initiative that found gays and lesbians are protected from “burdensome legislation that is the product of sheer antigay animus and devoid of any legitimate governmental purpose.” That argument is outrageous, says Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which supports DOMA. “To say that a law that was passed by overwhelmingly by Congress … to say that that’s the product of animus is – I don’t know how to say it – it’s unbelievable,” he says. “It’s just unbelievable that a judge would be making that sort of value judgment against the entire government, the Congress, and President Bill Clinton.” | Dragovitch v. U.S. Department of the Treasury

HeraldNet.com: The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona group that opposes gay marriage, said Friday the ruling will surely be appealed. That would keep the existing policy in place for months if not years. “This will end up at the Supreme Court at some point and we’re confident and hopeful that the law will be upheld,” said Dale Schowengerdt, the group’s legal counsel.

News-Journal.com: On Friday Wood County Commissioners decided after a brief executive session to retain services from the Alliance Defense Fund and Liberty Institute for representation in a pending lawsuit over prayer and the posting of “In God We Trust” in the courtroom.

Fox News: ADF legal counsel Jeremy Tedesco said it’s up to the group, not the school, to characterize it’s beliefs. “Saying that a Christian club isn’t religious is flatly absurd,” said ADF Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “The First Amendment forbids the government from determining what is and what is not ‘religious,’ yet the university [was] doing exactly this by telling a Christian group that it is not religious.”

Jay Schalin at National Review Phi Beta Cons Blog: Recently, the school relented and gave Make Up Your Own Mind the right to exclude based on belief. The reversal occurred after the Alliance Defense Fund filed suit on behalf of Make Up Your Own Mind.

The Church Report: The Alliance Defense Fund said Tuesday the suit had served its purpose by forcing the school to give the group called ‘Make Up Your Own Mind’ access to university facilities and funding like it does for other groups.

Beaumont Enterprise: Jeremy D. Tedesco, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, is representing the boy and his family. Tedesco said the boy’s father, Michael Metcalf, is suing the district for a violation of his son’s constitutional rights.

OneNewsNow: Since then, ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco says the school has clarified its non-discrimination policy, which officials admitted to misinterpreting. “[They] essentially clarified that they have an exemption to their non-discrimination policy that allows all belief-based clubs, including religious clubs, to restrict their members and leaders to the beliefs of the group,” Tedesco details. “And that’s a good thing not only for the Make Up Your Own Mind group, but for all groups moving forward as well.”

LifeSiteNews: The Whole Woman’s Health Funding Priority Act, an initiative of Republic State Representative Daryl Metcalfe and co-written by the Susan B. Anthony List and the Alliance Defense Fund, will place facilities that provide abortions at the bottom of a priority list for funding, allowing more money to go to health care providers that offer services for women such as dental care, mammograms, and treatments for anxiety disorders.

Catholic.org: The bill has been presented by state representative, Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler) and will put all abortion providers at the bottom of the state’s funding list. The bill is known as the Whole Women’s Health Funding Priority Act. The bill was co-authored by the Susan B. Anthony List and the Alliance Defense Fund.

Inquisitr.com: Metcalfe will introduce the Whole Woman’s Health Funding Priority Act on Wednesday, a bill that would place abortion providing health care providers at the end of the priority list for state funding. The bill was co-written by anti-abortion activist group Susan B. Anthony List and the Alliance Defense Fund.

Ms. Magazine: According to the Huffington Post, the bill was co-written by the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List and Alliance Defense Fund.

InsideNova.com: Foreman also said the council needed to hear the input of Doug Anderson, a Woodbridge attorney affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund. The goal of the fund is to educate the public and government about constitutional rights, particularly freedom of religious expression.

PR Newswire: WCF VI is organized by HazteOir.org (the local host committee) and The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society. Co-conveners for WCF VI in Madrid include Alliance Defense Fund, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute and Focus on the Family. World Congress of Families is also supported annually by our 35 partners, in 11 countries. Click here for a complete list of WCF Partners.

LifeSiteNews: The Alliance Defense Fund is handling three lawsuits against the mandate on behalf of Louisiana College, Geneva College, and a private employer. ADF President and General Counsel Alan Sears said, “These new cases… join the growing list of evangelical, protestant, and Catholic religious organizations and employers who are taking a stand in objecting to the government when it forces any religious institution or individual to provide or fund morally repugnant services.”