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.”
- Posted: 04/08/2011
- |
- Category: ADF in the News
- |
- Source: www.bpnews.net
- Tags: ADF: Byron Babione, ADF: Media Clips, Alliance Defense Fund, Category: Marriage and Family, Group: Arkansas Family Council, State: Arkansas, Topic: Adoption, Topic: Homosexual Agenda, ZZ: Cole v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
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.
- Posted: 04/08/2011
- |
- Category: ADF in the News
- |
- Source: blogs.wsj.com
- Tags: ADF: Byron Babione, ADF: Media Clips, Alliance Defense Fund, Category: Marriage and Family, Group: Arkansas Family Council, State: Arkansas, Topic: Adoption, Topic: Homosexual Agenda, ZZ: Cole v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
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.
- Posted: 04/08/2011
- |
- Category: Uncategorized
- |
- Source: www.lifesitenews.com
- Tags: ADF: Byron Babione, ADF: Media Clips, Category: Marriage and Family, Group: Arkansas Family Council, State: Arkansas, Topic: Adoption, Topic: Homosexual Agenda, ZZ: Cole v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
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.”
- Posted: 04/08/2011
- |
- Category: ADF in the News
- |
- Source: www.washingtontimes.com
- Tags: ADF: Byron Babione, ADF: Media Clips, Alliance Defense Fund, Category: Marriage and Family, Group: Arkansas Family Council, State: Arkansas, Topic: Adoption, Topic: Homosexual Agenda, ZZ: Cole v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
|

Latest Posts
-
05/23/2013
Sadly, the Boy Scouts Executive National Council’s decision disregards not only the nearly 19,000 Americans who signed a petition urging BSA to ‘uphold the values that have defined the organization for over 100 years,’ but also the millions of Americans who have supported the program. Those promoting the agenda to change what the Boy Scouts have always been won’t rest until there is complete acceptance of any sexual preference for both leaders and members.
-
www.washingtonpost.com
05/23/2013
Washington Post: Jewish leaders in the media are in large part responsible for American acceptance of gay marriage, Vice President Biden said Tuesday night.
-
www.nationalreview.com
05/23/2013
Ed Whelan at National Review: There are two good reasons why the DOJ attorney’s argument that vindicating the RFRA rights of the business owners would violate the Establishment Clause was an “unexpected twist.” First, DOJ never made that argument in either of its Seventh Circuit briefs in the two cases. Second, there is good reason that it didn’t, for the argument is inane.

|