Paternity Defrauded

Far too many children are deprived of knowing who their Real Father is by virtue of the 'Turkey Baster Codes' adopted by many activist / misandrist Judges and Legislatures. Weimar Kalifornia is amongst the most vicious in its support of the separatist / neo-exterminationist agenda of Dyke Misandry - and Men have almost completely been eliminated in Dyke Law -where they now have no Legal Existence in cases involving Children they Fathered (albeit at a 'Dead Beat Dad' factory / sperm bank).

The article by "Mr. Dad" (Armin Brott 7,16,8 - "Protect Yourself from Paternity Fraud" touched upon this trend, without discussing fully its roots, when he said:
.................................................. .................................................. ..........................
"In many states, when a child is born during a marriage, the husband is presumed to be the father — biology is irrelevant. So even if DNA shows that he's not the father, he'll still owe child support.

Why are the courts making men pay for children who aren't theirs, whom they may never have met or known about or have no legal rights to see? Unfortunately, it's big business. Many states receive government funds for every child support claim they issue, and they may take a percentage of money collected — often to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per year. .................................................. .................................................. .....

Indeed - and yet there is More than just Money at stake - as said elsehwere:

Turkey Baster Creationist Courts:
The recent 'reporting' by the myopic seeing eye 'watchdogs' of our Old Media of New Laws and Important / Milestone Legal events in the Radical Gender Feminist / Homosex 'Cannibal Soup' Pander or Perish Pogrom (where one either joins voluntarily as a diner, or involuntarily as dinner), including the Attack on Marriage and Male Fathers, is interesting if only for the significance of what it fails to include or explain, and why.

Sitting like the veritable Elephant in the Middle of the Press Room are numerous sticky issues that our watchdogs of the fabled 'Fourth Estate' of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial & Tabloid branches) have decided it is better to largely ignore, or spin only in small sound bites.

For Example; a new flood of Pro-Homosex Pander or Perish Laws, passed like sewer gas by the Democrap controlled Weimar Kalifornia Legislature, and signed by our RINO Hollyweird Child Pimp Uberkommandant - Der Arnold, are now ready for Ruthless (BAMN - BAMN: Bash Men, By Any Means Necessary!) Enforcement by the Thought Police.
When they actually do mention such Pander or Perish pogroms, the media euphemistically refers to them as anti-discrimination Laws - such as when Pro -Family / Religious / Childrens bookstores are required to hire and publicly promote homo-anal dirty diaper sado masochistic bondage flogging activists as normal and healthy & proper employee representatives.

However, the combination of Monumental Importance and Studied Media Ignorance / Biased Reporting found in the California Turkey Baster Trio of Cases, simultaneously published by the Misandrist (male hating) disgrace of a state supreme court on August 22, 2005 (K.M., v. E.G.: S125643 / Elisa B.v. Superior Court ; S125912 / Kristine H. v. Lisa R.: S126945) - highlights like no other story the same old story of Pro-Homosex propagandizing in service of Misandry (Hatred of Men) that is a media staple year in and male hating year out.

Built on a foundation created by decades of hyper zealous radical Mau Mauing by Dyke (Dyke = Hyper Militant Misandrist) Hatemongers and their allies, as well as ruthless censorship, silencing and punishment of opposition through use of Thought Policing tactics Stalin would admire, these cases represent nothing less than endorsement of Dyke Separatist / Neo-Exterminationist Misandry as State Policy by the California Supreme Court.

It seeks to enshrine in the law a Double Standard Against MEN So Bizarre that it is destroyed by the very contradictions in internal logic of the argument presented; not that this hinders or even mildly embarrasses the Court in its rush to Pander.

Stepping through the warped looking glass sold the Court by the twisted systerhood of Separatist / Neo-Exterminationist Dyke Hatemongers, it is easy to see the results of decades of Radical Homosex Indoctrination in the Legal profession, particularly the pathetic farce of rank Misandry that characterizes the Gender field of Legal Education.
But for the student of both science and the law, it is the Courts rending of both in to tattered shreds to shroud its disgrace, that so astounds and bemuses. Long story short - The California Supreme Court has Defined Fatherhood for All Time and it has Nothing to Do with being MALE!

In Fact, in the opinion of Californias Supreme Judges - to be Fatherless is to lack a proper source of Financial Support, and Not a Man who is your Daddy. They have therefore logically deduced that while children may Not Have Three Parents (why, they dont really say), the same children May Have Two Dykes and No Daddy, even if (as in one case) they are Siblings who were intended at conception to be biologically related to each other through the Non-Father/ donor:

"We rejected the suggestion of amicus curiae that both the wife and the surrogate could be the childs mother, stating that a child can have only one mother, but what we considered and rejected in Johnson was the argument that a child could have three parents: a father and two mothers. We did not address the question presented in this case of whether a child could have two parents, both of whom are women." Elisa B. case.

Mind you now - this is Not about Adoption, but rather courts redefining ˜Natural" Parenting (we recognized in In re Nicholas H., supra, 28 Cal.4th 56, that natural as used in the UPA does not always mean biological).

Future posts will discuss in greater detail the language of the decision, and the blatant Rejection of Definitive DNA Science (a legacy of case of the Adoption of Michael H. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1043 case) in favor of validating the desire of Dykes to Legally Exterminate Men as Fathers - relegating them to the role of un-gendered insemination sources without any parental rights to their children.

In essence The Sperm Donor is Not a Father (and has No Legal Liability) if he does not touch the woman with his penis, and instead uses a Deadbeat Dad Factory / Sperm Bank as intermediary in his desire to produce as many children as possible without any responsibility for them: As the supreme court said:

"the California Legislature has afforded unmarried as well as married women a statutory vehicle for obtaining semen for artificial insemination without fear that the donor may claim paternity, and has likewise provided men with a statutory vehicle for donating semen to married and unmarried women alike without fear of liability for child support."Jhordan C. v. Mary K. (1986)

BUT - and as they say in fashion circles, this is a big but, if the Man Engages in Normal Heterosexual Relations (what they call in Law School Rape because they teach that women are mentally incapable of consenting to Heterosex), even if he Did Not Want Children and was deliberately Lied to by the mother - Well, Use a Penis, Go to Jail is just the new truth de jour in Dyke-topia. Or as the state supreme court said:

"Usually, whether there is evidence of a parent and child relationship under the UPA does not depend upon the intent of the parent. For example, a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman who assures him, falsely, that she is incapable of conceiving children is the father of a resulting child, despite his lack of intent to become a father."K.M. v. E. G. 2005.

There you have it in a nutshell INTENT Doesnt Matter - For a Man. Donate as many children as you Want to create, just so long as you dont actually touch the womyn.

Touch her, and it doesnt matter what you intended or what she told you was true - liability is unlimited, and the choice whether to make a Man a Father of a Child, or abort a fetus, is hers alone.

By contrast to the treatment of Intentional Deadbeat Donors, consider how the supreme court treats womyn in analogous situation:
"A woman who supplies ova to be used to impregnate her lesbian partner, with the understanding that the resulting child will be raised in their joint home, cannot waive her responsibility to support that child. Nor can such a purported waiver effectively cause that woman to relinquish her parental rights." K.M. V. E. G. 2005.

The majoritys rule validates such agreements when its conditions are satisfied -conditions that include the fact the parties to the agreement Must Be Dykes.

Or, as a dissent by one justice read:
"Although the majority denies that its rule depends on sexual orientation the opinion speaks for itself; The majority has chosen to use the term lesbian no less than six times in articulating its holding.
Moreover, the majority prevents future courts from applying its holding automatically to persons other than lesbians.

I see no rational basis, and the majority articulates none for permitting the enforceability of an ovum donation agreement to depend on the sexual orientation of the parties. Indeed, lacking a rational basis, the rule may well violate equal protection."

Violate Equal Protection! Gosh, how did they ever come up with that one?
After all, California would have to change its Official State Policy of Punishing and Censoring discussion of the topic of Discrimination against the Despised and Disposable Male Minority, just for the rest of us (Males) to be allowed to talk about equal protection...

And I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for such a sea change either.
Best keep quiet about it though wouldnt want to spread any "Ism- Obia"now would we? What with everything else going around and all...

Ohso.
"Not merely the validity of experience but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy the heresy of heresies was common sense." George Orwell 1984 On the Thought Police (

California Supreme Court Upholds the People’s Right to Vote on Marriage in Upcoming Election (Liberty Counsel)

Liberty Counsel: San Francisco, CA – Today the California Supreme Court rejected the case brought by same-sex marriage advocates, who intended to prevent California voters from voting on the California Marriage Protection Act (“Amendment”) in November. The court’s decision means the Amendment will stay on the ballot. It also allows the Secretary of State to print voter information pamphlets on the issue.

Last month Liberty Counsel filed a motion to intervene in this lawsuit, asking the court to allow the people to vote on the Amendment. Liberty Counsel represents the Campaign for California Families, Randy Thomasson, and Larry Bowler. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three voters and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the ACLU and Equality California against California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, who certified the Amendment.

On June 2, 2008, the Amendment was certified by the Secretary of State for the November ballot. The Amendment states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." If passed, the Amendment would nullify the 4-3 ruling of the California Supreme Court issued on May 15 and would ban same-sex marriage in California.

The same-sex marriage advocates were seeking to remove the Amendment from the November ballot, erroneously arguing that "the rules for revising the California Constitution were not properly followed." Their brief claimed that an initiative was not enough to put the Amendment on the ballot, since it must also be approved by two-thirds of the legislature. The suit also alleged that petitions for the initiative, which were circulated prior to the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, were misleading because they stated the Amendment would not change existing law and would not have a financial impact on the state. Liberty Counsel's motion to intervene disproved these claims.

Most Californians want the Amendment. A poll conducted on May 30, 2008, by ccAdvertising shows that 56% of California residents support marriage as one man and one woman. Another poll by the Los Angeles Times similarly revealed that 54% of those polled supported the Amendment and only 35% opposed it.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "If the people have an opportunity to participate in the democratic process, they will vote for marriage as one man and one woman.

Those who push for same-sex marriage are willing to destroy both marriage and democracy to achieve a selfish result. Marriage between a man and a woman is best for our children and for our country."

Weapons of Mass. Destruction (FRC)

The Massachusetts legislature is pulling out all the stops to recapture its title as the most liberal state in the union on marriage. Yesterday, the Bay State Senate voted to repeal a 95-year-old law that former Gov. Mitt Romney enforced to prevent out-of-state homosexuals from "marrying." To justify the move, the Senate pointed to a report commissioned by the state that claimed non-resident "marriages" would bring in an estimated $110 million. As groups like FRC have argued, money can't undo the damage done to society by the state's campaign to expand homosexual "marriage."

Massachusetts liberals are hoping to throw open their borders to same-sex couples from the 24 states without marriage protection amendments. The region most likely to take advantage of the invitation is nearby New York, whose governor, David Paterson (D), made the unilateral decision to recognize out-of-state "marriages" without putting the idea to a democratic test.

Marc Solomon of MassEquality brushed off criticism of the Senate vote, saying, "We think this issue has lost some of its edge. It's just not a big deal. Americans look at this and they wonder why these groups are constantly talking about gay marriage when gas prices and the war in Iraq are so much more critical."

On the contrary, the issue is enough of a "big deal" that Massachusetts senators held a cowardly voice vote on the repeal to ensure that senators votes would be anonymous, and state voters would be unable to hold them accountable.

As to this notion that same-sex "marriage" is growing more popular, it's simply not true. In a July Pew Research Center poll, only 15 percent of Americans surveyed "strongly favored" legislation that would "allow gays and lesbians to marry legally." More than double that (31 percent) "strongly opposed" the idea.

The bill to overturn the 1913 law now heads to the House, where it is expected to pass before heading to Gov. Deval Patrick's (D) desk.

FRC Pamphlet: Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right

Additional Resources
AP: Mass. Senate votes to let out-of-state gays marry

Federal Appellate Court Hands Traditional Marriage Another Victory
Tue, Jul 18, 2006


ANN ARBOR, MI – On Friday, July 14th, a federal appeals court reversed a lower federal court ruling that had struck down Nebraska’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. The constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages had been passed by seventy per cent of that state’s voters in 2000.


In Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reinstated Nebraska's constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In a first such ruling by a federal appeals court, a three-judge panel unanimously held that Nebraska voters had not violated the Constitution by seeking to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, since "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests."


The opinion was written by Chief Judge James B. Loken and joined by Circuit Judges Bowman and Smith. Writing for the court, Judge Loken held that the express intent of traditional marriage laws to encourage heterosexual couples to bear and raise children in committed relationships is a legitimate state interest.


The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, advised the Nebraska Attorney General's office in the case, and also filed an amicus brief arguing that the Nebraska marriage protection amendment did not violate the Constitution's equal protection jurisprudence as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).



The Eighth Circuit panel spent the majority of its opinion on precisely this issue, agreeing with the Thomas More Law Center that the Nebraska constitutional amendment is "rationally related to a legitimate government interest" under the Romer analysis.


According to Kim Daniels, the Trial Counsel for the Law Center who authored the amicus brief on behalf of the Law Center, "The Eighth Circuit's unanimous opinion in Bruning represents a significant step forward in the fight to preserve traditional marriage.



The Nebraska voters who overwhelmingly passed this amendment have been vindicated, and it's heartening to finally see a federal appeals court affirm that citizens have the right to enact laws preserving the institution of marriage."


Amicus briefs supporting Nebraska’s position were submitted by eleven other states, numerous public interest organizations, the Nebraska Catholic Conference and members of the Nebraska Legislature.
Earlier in the month, the highest courts in New York and Georgia rejected attempts to gain marriage rights for same- sex couples.


On July 5th, the Thomas More Law Center filed a lawsuit against Michigan State University (MSU) challenging that institution’s recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships for the purpose of providing benefits. The lawsuit claims that MSU’s policy violates Michigan’s Marriage Amendment, passed by the voters in 2004, which provides that “the union of one man and one women in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose,” as well as Michigan statues that prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages.

Christian counselor fired for trying to help lesbian
Referral to another adviser classified as 'homophobic'

July 16, 2008 2008 WorldNetDaily

A Christian counselor has been fired on directions from government officials for trying to help a lesbian by referring her to another adviser who was supportive of homosexual "marriage," according to a lawsuit filed on her behalf.

The action has been brought by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Marcia Walden, who was fired from her position with a contractor for the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta because her religious beliefs conflicted with the homosexual's goal of rebuilding a same-sex relationship and she reassigned the client to another counselor.

"A woman shouldn't lose her job for merely upholding the highest professional standards," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. "It is unconstitutional to punish Walden for following her Christian faith, particularly when she made every effort to accommodate the needs of a potential client. Referring her to another competent counselor instead of attempting to offer her own counsel in such a situation was the ethical thing to do for the person seeking help. It's egregious to be fired for honoring professional and ethical obligations."

The ADF lawsuit names the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the counselor's former employer, Computer Sciences Corp., as well as Christie Zerbe, an official with the CDC.

In August 2007, a woman working at the CDC sought help from Walden, a counselor at CSC which operated a counseling service under the federal agency's employee assistance program, regarding a same-sex relationship.

"Walden explained that the client's needs would conflict with her religious beliefs and that, therefore, it would be unfair for her to serve as the woman's counselor. As a result, Walden referred the individual to a colleague," the law firm said. "After the meeting with the client, Walden's colleague told her that she had done 'the right thing' by referring the woman to him."

However, it apparently was not enough that her counseling needs were addressed, because the lesbian complained about Walden, alleging the Christian counselor was "homophobic."

The lesbian, who was counseled by Walden's colleague, Ken Cook, told Walden's supervisor, Gordon Hughes, Walden should not be employed because of her beliefs and asked to file a formal complaint against her.

Walden explained the conflict between the woman's desire for furthering a same-sex relationship and her Christian beliefs and that that was the reason for her referral. She confirmed she had counseled other individuals involved in same-sex relationships for various reasons without complications when their issues did not conflict with her religious principles.

"Following this incident, Ms. Walden endured religiously based questioning from her CSC supervisors including Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes asked Ms. Walden why she told [the lesbian employee] about her religiously based conflict; he told Ms. Walden that if a similar situation arose in the future, Ms. Walden should tell the client something else – for example, that she was not experienced in relationship counseling – instead of discussing her religiously based conflict," the lawsuit said.

Walden responded that it would be inappropriate to misrepresent her conflicts.

The company told WND it would not comment on the case.

But Walden was placed on unpaid suspension on Aug. 24, and during that time Jacqueline Byrum, a CSC employee relations specialist, advised her to set aside her religious beliefs.

Then Zerbe, the CDC worker responsible for overseeing the employee assistance contract with CSC, demanded Walden be removed, and CSC then dismissed her, even before its investigation was finished.

The company said the results of its investigation didn't matter.

Within weeks, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a "right to sue" letter to Walden based on her allegations the CSC discriminated against her because of her religious beliefs in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Walden's rights under the First and Fifth Amendments as will as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Civil Rights Act were violated, along with compensatory and punitive damages.

Related:

"The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

"Moonbeam" Monkey Biz...
(*furriners reading this should know that Jerry Brown is the former democrap governor of CA, son of a governor, and current attorney general - who has long been known as "moonbeam", particularly during his hapless run for president)

Weimar Kalifornia's Attorney General (and former governot / mayor of Oakland) "Moonbeam" Brown is at it again, following in the hoof prints of his Male Rape Baiting Predecessor (now treasurer of a bankrupt state) Bill "Wild Bull" Lockyer...

Just another example of how 'Term Limits' passed by the people is defeated by the musical chairs game of the Democrap Power Structure, who like to cycle all the bad apples through all the high paying pork barrels.

Best keep quiet about it though - wouldn't want to spread any "Ism-Obia", what with everything else going around and all.

Ohso.

Not merely the validity of experience but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. George Orwell 1984 On the Thought Police.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Don't Believe Everything You Read (FRC)

As California families fight tooth and nail to preserve marriage in November, the state's attorney general made no secret of which side of the debate he was on when he launched a surprise attack on the language of Proposition 8, the initiative defining marriage as the union of a man and woman.

Attorney General Jerry Brown sabotaged the amendment's description in an obvious attempt to influence voters. Rather than use the original text, which states, "[Proposition 8] provide[s] that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," Brown's version makes sweeping claims that banning same-sex marriage would have a negative impact on the state's economy.

He editorializes the description to state: "[Proposition 8] changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, like little fiscal impact on state and local governments."

Perhaps the most infuriating part of the new language is that it suggests homosexuals will somehow be deprived of a "right" to marry that does not exist (except in the minds of four activist judges). Brown speculates that there will be "revenue loss... in the several tens of millions of dollars," which is a totally unsubstantiated accusation.

Knowing how the economy looms on voters' minds, Brown is using people's pocketbooks to prejudice them against the amendment. To cloud the issue with Brown's personal bias is simply indefensible.

ProtectMarriage, the coalition on the ground in California, announced this morning that it will file a lawsuit seeking to block the biased summary from appearing on the ballot. We will keep you updated on the case as it develops.

Additional Resources
Opponents of gay marriage say they'll sue over changed wording in Proposition 8

The Following from Mass Resistance details the snowball of (excrement deleted) that followed from their own high court pimping the citizens on behalf of the Radical Homosex agenda...

And from there, well - S.F.D.H. as they say.
.................................................. ..............................

House repeals "1913 Law" by 119-36 vote. Opens door to exporting "gay marriage" across America. (Mass Resistance.)

Yesterday afternoon, despite widespread internal dissention and overwhelming negative outpouring from the public, the House leadership kept their promises to the homosexual lobby and forced a vote to repeal the "1913 Law".

That law has prohibited homosexual couples (or anyone) to get "married" in Massachusetts if that marriage would be illegal in their home state. Now it looks like the doors will be open.

Bill S800 passed 119-36 on a roll call vote (including two who voted afterwards). The bill now goes to the Governor, who has promised to sign it into law.

S800 had been submitted and "killed" in a study earlier this year, thanks to a strong outpouring from MassResistance. But then this month the leadership suddenly brought it back.

The leadership of both houses had publicly promised the homosexual lobby to repeal this before the end of the session, July 31. But after the Senate passed it with a cowardly voice vote on July 15, public outrage erupted.

It's generally agreed that outpouring against the bill came in at a 6-1 ratio. Newspaper reports indicated that lot of reps were very uncomfortable (we promised to remember their vote this November).

Over the last few days the bill had been on the calendar but not taken up. And Monday evening, State House News reported that MassResistance had spoken to reps who guaranteed a voice vote would be demanded in the House. Finally, on Tuesday the leadership put their foot down and forced the issue.

Right before taking it up, the House Democrats met in a caucus for over an hour. Then, during the proceedings, Mass. Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus lobbyist Bill Conley stationed himself at the door to "remind" any reps coming or going that the gays were watching. Nevertheless, unlike in the Senate there was unabashed, bipartisan, and very public objections and criticism of the bill during debate.

Tranny Tyranny Terror Trial...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center today announced that it will act as legal counsel for a coalition of citizens, businesses, and religions in Hamtramck, Michigan seeking to overturn an ordinance enacted by the City Counsel in June, which gives special privileges to homosexuals and so-called “transgendered” individuals. The citizen’s group is called, “Hamtramck Citizens Opposing `Special Rights' Discrimination.”

The challenged ordinance makes it legal for men who perceive themselves as women to use women’s bathrooms in any school, business or public facility. In classic Orwellian doublespeak, the ordinance defines such behavior as “Natural Rights of Hamtramck Residents.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated, “Radical homosexual activists have taken over city councils like Hamtramck all across the nation. These ordinances end up being used to bully and prosecute Christians who faithfully practice their religion.”

Continued Thompson, Hamtramck’s draconian provisions for investigation, prosecution and civil actions with treble damages, with attorney’s fees, to force acceptance of this bizarre behavior would make any Communist regime envious.”

At a rally and press conference held in front of the Hamtramck City Hall on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 a group of citizens and their leaders announced that over a thousand signatures were gathered, more than twice the amount needed to place the initiative on the ballot to overturn the ordinance. Accordingly, voters will decide in the November 2008 general ballot whether this anti-religious ordinance remains on the books. One of the proponents of the ordinance, Councilwomen Katrina Stakpoole, called the gathering of religious a “hate rally.”

Contrary to the deceptive title of the ordinance and assurances of the city council and their lawyer, this ordinance was specifically enacted to give special privileges to homosexuals and so-called “transgendered.” The State of Michigan and the County government already cover, through various Civil Rights Acts, every other group identified in the ordinance besides the homosexuals and so-called “transgendered.” In effect, this ordinance will help these two groups discriminate against faithful Christians and others that find the acts of homosexuals and so-called “transgenders” antithetical to their faith, their right to practice their faith, and their free speech rights to pronounce their objections to these deviant lifestyle choices.

Some of the more disturbing aspects of the ordinance include:

·Excessive entanglement by the city in internal aspects of religious organizations

·Men being allowed to use women’s restroom facilities and other facilities specifically designated for women. To even question a man on the propriety of them using the women’s facilities—whether dressed as a women or not—could be grounds for a discrimination complaint, $500 fine for each day this occurs, and a civil lawsuit.

·Men dressed as women teaching your grade school children

·Civil litigation to force businesses, schools, and even religions to conform and accept these deviant lifestyle choices


The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.