Two Mums Two Dads Now Legal
h11/5 -christiantoday.com - Australia


The Federal Senate has voted to amend the Family Law Act to allow lesbian partners of mothers of children to be "parents" in law, something they clearly are not by natural law.

Also, homosexual men who have acquired children under State surrogacy laws will also be presumed to be "parents".
A Coalition amendment to make it clear that parenting is not gender neutral
failed in a tied vote in the Senate after the Greens, Labor and South
Australian independent Nick Xenophon joined to defeat the Coalition and
Family First's Steve Fielding.

Meanwhile a Victorian Government bill removes the idea that kids should have a right to both a mother and a father. Victoria's Assisted
Reproductive Treatment Bill 2008 seeks to expand access to fertility
services, such as IVF and surrogacy, to almost anyone who wants to have a child, irrespective of their circumstances. The bill will allow single men,
single women, homosexual couples and heterosexual couples access to
assisted reproductive treatment to help them have a child. Infertility
treatment used to be just that - a treatment for couples who were medically infertile.

Under the new bill, eligibility for treatment is not dependent on medical
need. Instead, anyone who is unlikely to conceive a child in their current
circumstances can access treatment, meaning that people who simply lack a partner of the opposite sex with whom to start a family can now use IVF and surrogacy in order to have a child. Obviously, if a same-sex couple uses such services, only one of them will be related to the child; nonetheless, the bill will allow both partners to be legally recognised as equal 'parents', endorsing the fiction that a child has two fathers or two mothers.

A Queensland parliamentary committee has also recommended that surrogacy for same-sex couples be allowed, which also denies a child's right to a mother and father.

Sex Crime Sexism in Idaho?
Posted: Nov 13, 2008 07:27 PM
Updated: Nov 13, 2008 09:50 PM
Sex Crime Sexism in Idaho?



BOISE, IDAHO -- It's hard to forget former Seattle elementary teacher Mary Kay Letourneau.
Cameras followed her every move from the time she was first accused of having sex with a 13 year-old student, to her wedding to the same person years later.
The story was water-cooler chat for years, as were teachers Debra LeFave and Pamela Rogers, both convicted of having sexual relationships with their teenage students.
And it's not just a national thing.
Local news has been filled with stories of women accused of sex crimes against kids--women like Lauren Palmer, a former Centennial High School softball coach.


Police arrested Palmer for sexual battery after she was caught with a 16 year-old student in an Eagle park at 1:00 in the morning.Palmer pleaded down to felony injury to a child, then only got probation. BSU sociology professor Dr. Steve Patrick says such leniency for women is reflective of a cultural bias.
"Males are supposed to be more rational and calculating and predatory, where women are emotional," Patrick said.

Then there are cases like Laura Hester,33 accused of having sex several times with a teen less than half her age.
That same week Nathan Ray Ostrom of Kuna was arrested for allegedly committing the exact same crime.
But when it came to setting bond, Hester's was set at $100,000. Ostrom was held on five times that amount.



So why the double standard?"Young men or boys become men by having sex with an older woman, and we celebrate that in our culture," said Dr. Lisa Bostaph who teaches criminal justice at Boise State.



Even Idaho's law is written in a way that makes it impossible for a woman to commit rape. "It's one of the few in the country that's still written gender-biased," Bostaph said. "That kind of places some restrictions and puts prosecutors in a box in terms of what they can do in trying to charge these situations.
Take Deanna Buttram. She sexually abused a disabled woman with the mental capacity of a 6-year-old using sexual devices like bondage. She even streamed images of the abuse over the internet.


A rape charge could have put Buttram behind bars for life, but that wasn't an option. Instead, she was sentenced to 15 years in prison and can ask for parole after three years. Then there's Roseanna Villaneueva who had an ongoing sexual relationship with a 14-year-old boy. She also ended up having his baby.Villaneuva was able to plead down to felony injury to a child, and got just six months in jail.
Doctor Patrick says it sends a false message that while girls are victims, boys will be boys.
"They are victims. They have had their innocence taken," he said.
We should note in most cases, the sexual contact was consensual. Experts say that doesn't matter.
They say teens are often sexually confused, and adults who take advantage of that should be fully prosecuted. Even if they happen to be women.

Sex Crime Sexism in Idaho?
Posted: Nov 13, 2008 07:27 PM
Updated: Nov 13, 2008 09:50 PM
Sex Crime Sexism in Idaho?

<SCRIPT LANGUAGE='JavaScript1.1'>if (document.layers) {document.write('<SCR' + 'IPT language=JavaScript1.1 SRC=/Global/ad.asp?type=single&cls1=News&src1=loc& spct1=100&sz1=wnsz_20&callType=script />'); document.close();}</SCRIPT>


BOISE, IDAHO -- It's hard to forget former Seattle elementary teacher Mary Kay Letourneau.
Cameras followed her every move from the time she was first accused of having sex with a 13 year-old student, to her wedding to the same person years later.
The story was water-cooler chat for years, as were teachers Debra LeFave and Pamela Rogers, both convicted of having sexual relationships with their teenage students.
And it's not just a national thing.
Local news has been filled with stories of women accused of sex crimes against kids--women like Lauren Palmer, a former Centennial High School softball coach.
Police arrested Palmer for sexual battery after she was caught with a 16 year-old student in an Eagle park at 1:00 in the morning.Palmer pleaded down to felony injury to a child, then only got probation. BSU sociology professor Dr. Steve Patrick says such leniency for women is reflective of a cultural bias.
"Males are supposed to be more rational and calculating and predatory, where women are emotional," Patrick said. Then there are cases like Laura Hester,33 accused of having sex several times with a teen less than half her age.
That same week Nathan Ray Ostrom of Kuna was arrested for allegedly committing the exact same crime.
But when it came to setting bond, Hester's was set at $100,000. Ostrom was held on five times that amount.
So why the double standard?"Young men or boys become men by having sex with an older woman, and we celebrate that in our culture," said Dr. Lisa Bostaph who teaches criminal justice at Boise State.
Even Idaho's law is written in a way that makes it impossible for a woman to commit rape. "It's one of the few in the country that's still written gender-biased," Bostaph said. "That kind of places some restrictions and puts prosecutors in a box in terms of what they can do in trying to charge these situations.
Take Deanna Buttram. She sexually abused a disabled woman with the mental capacity of a 6-year-old using sexual devices like bondage. She even streamed images of the abuse over the internet.
A rape charge could have put Buttram behind bars for life, but that wasn't an option. Instead, she was sentenced to 15 years in prison and can ask for parole after three years. Then there's Roseanna Villaneueva who had an ongoing sexual relationship with a 14-year-old boy. She also ended up having his baby.Villaneuva was able to plead down to felony injury to a child, and got just six months in jail.
Doctor Patrick says it sends a false message that while girls are victims, boys will be boys.
"They are victims. They have had their innocence taken," he said.
We should note in most cases, the sexual contact was consensual. Experts say that doesn't matter.
They say teens are often sexually confused, and adults who take advantage of that should be fully prosecuted. Even if they happen to be women.

Are opponents of same-sex 'marriage' protected by law?
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 11/21/2008

The Becket Fund has released a study of religious liberty implications of same-gender "marriage. " The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty reviewed more than a thousand state anti-discrimination laws in all 50 states. Attorney Lori Windham says people of religion are not well-protected now.

"You have laws that ban, say, marital status discrimination, and right now it might not be much of a concern for churches or religious individuals. But if marital status is changed to mean same-sex 'marriage,' then suddenly those are laws which same-sex couples could use to sue churches or sue religious individuals for refusing to provide them employment Lori Windhamor other services," she explains.

Windham urges states to revisit those laws and make changes for the sake of people of faith. "When states have gone in and put in sexual orientation discrimination, they've been careful to put, in most cases, exemptions for religious organizations," she adds. "They understand that it's a problem -- but they weren't so careful with marital status or gender discrimination laws because no one was really thinking about this problem back when those were written."

The full summary is available on The Becket Fund website www.becketfund.org

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

Executive Summary

The Becket Fund undertook a survey of over 1000 state anti-discrimination laws to assess
how those laws would affect conscientious objectors to same-sex marriage if same-sex marriage
were legally recognized. We looked specifically at whether state laws prohibiting discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, or marital status could be applied to penalize religious
people and organizations with moral objections to same-sex marriage. The survey revealed that
over 350 separate state anti-discrimination provisions would likely be triggered by recognition of
same-sex marriage. The survey found that marital status and gender anti-discrimination statutes
are more common than laws banning sexual orientation discrimination. Yet sexual orientation
laws are also far more likely to feature religious or conscience exemptions than laws governing
gender or marital status discrimination.

Based on this data, we conclude that if same-sex marriage is recognized by courts or
legislatures, people and institutions who have conscientious objections to facilitating same-sex
marriage will likely be sued under existing anti-discrimination laws—laws never intended for
that purpose. Lawsuits will likely arise when religious people or religious organizations choose,
based on their sincerely held religious beliefs, not to hire individuals in same-sex marriages,
refuse to extend spousal benefits to same-sex spouses, refuse to make their property or services
available for same-sex marriage ceremonies or other events affirming same-sex marriage, or
refuse to provide otherwise available housing to same-sex couples. This wide-ranging conflict
between governments and conscientious citizens would take years of litigation to resolve,
assuming that it could be resolved.

To avoid this conflict, we recommend that before taking steps to recognize same-sex
marriage, courts, legislatures, and the general public consider how to accommodate
conscientious objectors. Specifically, we recommend that legislatures amend state anti-
discrimination statutes now to include robust exemptions for those with religious or other
conscientious objections to same-sex marriage.

Activists backing anti-marriage judges
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 12/1/2008
Raising funds to defend pro-homosexual judges.

Activists want to build a one-million-dollar war chest to defend any judge threatened with recall for ruling in favor of homosexual "marriage." Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families tells OneNewsNow the details.

"I don't know of any recall effort that's going on, but they might be thinking about Ron George, the chief justice who was the deciding vote in favor of homosexual marriages on May 15," he explains. "George is the only California Supreme Court Justice up for reelection in the 2010 election."

Thomasson says he does understand, though, why people become angry when there is activism from the bench and justices make laws rather than focus on the constitution. "What is printed in the constitution is what these judges have to defend," he contends. "If they do not go with what's printed in the constitution, if they make up something that is different than what's printed in the constitution, then they may well have violated their oath of office and be found derelict in duty."

Justices are now considering whether to overturn Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Discipline Body Removes Judge Halverson, Citing ‘Bizarre’ Staff Treatment

Posted Nov 18, 2008, By Debra Cassens Weiss (ABA Journal)

The voters have already decided that embattled Las Vegas Judge Elizabeth Halverson should not remain on the bench, and now the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission has issued a strongly worded opinion that says she should never return.

The commission said Halverson’s relationship with her staff was “bizarre” and her interactions with superiors were sometimes paranoid and combative, the Las Vegas Review Journal reports. The ethics body found that Halverson had slept during portions of three jury trials, had improper contacts with two juries, was “unnecessarily disrespectful” toward staff, hired bodyguards without security clearance who accompanied her to court, and made improper statements to the press, according to the Las Vegas Sun.

The troubles began, the commission said, with Halverson’s apparent anger over a decision the chief judge had made before Halverson became a judge.

The commission said Halverson had been a law clerk with the Las Vegas court until Kathy Hardcastle was elected chief judge and fired Halverson because she wanted someone with outside experience. Halverson then ran for the bench and won the second time she sought a seat.

“It didn’t take long for [Halverson] to demonstrate that she truly believed the chief judge was her nemesis and that the chief judge was out to get her,” the commission said in its opinion (PDF). “There is no hard evidence to substantiate this paranoid outlook, and the commission has concluded that Judge Halverson went out of her way to create a conflict with the chief judge.”

The commission said a panel of judges convened by Hardcastle tried to assist Halverson “but she did not have the good judgment to accept.”

“Having been thrown a proverbial rope by the chief judge that could have been used to save her from professionally drowning in her own sea of inexperience as a litigator, her lack of technical knowledge in the area of criminal trial procedure and her limited and stilted interpersonal skills, Judge Halverson chose not to grab onto the rope,” the commission said. “Instead she chose to sink, and she chose to try to pull the district court down with her.”

The commission also said Halverson "had a bizarre relationship with her immediate or personal staff … [and] her treatment of them, as with so many others she encountered, was unnecessarily disrespectful.” It found that Halverson had asked her bailiff to massage her feet, neck and shoulders, and used profanity to refer to other employees.

Other accusations about Halverson’s mistreatment of staff did not meet high levels of proof, the commission said, but Halverson “should not take any solace” in the fact. “The commission finds it regrettable that any of the many allegations had a foundation at all. … No employee, even those inured to a judge’s mercurial temperament and foul mouth should have to experience what Judge Halverson made her immediate staff live and work through on a routine basis.”

The commission said most of Halverson’s actions were willful and there was no mitigating evidence to lessen the punishment. “The damage resulting from her antics and willful misconduct will be felt by the judicial system for a significant future period of time,” said the commission. "Some judges are in office for an entire career and do not accumulate the type of dismal professional history that the record in this case establishes."

The commission's decision had been delayed after Halverson received severe head injuries when her husband attacked her with a frying pan. Edward Halverson pleaded guilty to battery with a deadly weapon last month.

Michael Schwartz, Halverson's lawyer, told the Las Vegas Review Journal that the facts of the case did not merit removing his client from office. Halverson has 15 days to appeal the decision with the Nevada Supreme Court.

Pro-Family Response to California Supreme Court
Agreeing to Hear Challenges to People's Vote on Prop. 8
Thomasson: "If the court disobeys the constitution
by voiding Prop. 8, it will ignite a voter revolt." (Campaign for Children & Families)

Sacramento, California -- In response to today's decision by the California Supreme Court to hear the challenges to Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment, Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a leading California-based pro-family organization, issued the following statement:

"It's unfortunate that the judges are giving time to the mushy, subjective arguments of homosexual activists who reject the clear reading of the constitution and the clear reading of Proposition 8. If the court disobeys the constitution by voiding Prop. 8, it will ignite a voter revolt. It will also threaten the validity of all future constitutional amendments.

"The court is playing with fire by threatening to destroy the people's vote on marriage. The California Constitution clearly says that the voters have the right to alter the highest law of the land. It's the beauty of the American system of government. The four Supreme Court justices who unconstitutionally invented homosexual 'marriages' -- Ron George, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno -- seem to be ignoring the fact that the people get the last word, not the judges.

"The clear reading of the constitution, as well as California's legal and legislative history, tells us there is a world of difference between a constitutional amendment and a constitutional revision. Proposition 8 is a single-subject, voter-initiated amendment, not a legislature-initiated, multi-issue, whole-scale revision that alters many sections of the state constitution.

"If Prop. 8 gutted the constitution, why is it only one subject in one section of the constitution? If Prop. 8 doesn't stand, then our constitution doesn't mean anything, the people's vote doesn't mean anything, marriage has been utterly disrespected, and judges lied when they swore to uphold the constitution. Prop. 8 must stand, because the constitution is above the judges, not the other way around.

"Marriage is, was, and should always remain a natural, beautiful relationship between a husband and a wife. Marriage between a man and a woman is an essential, beneficial role model for children to emulate.

"Fortunately, the California Constitution tells us 'all political power is inherent in the people' and that 'they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require'" (California Constitution, Article II, Section 1).

Explaining the clear distinction between an amendment and a revision is University of California, Berkeley Department of Public Science Chairman Emeritus Dr. Eugene C. Lee, who, in 1991, wrote:

Specific changes to the California constitution may be proposed by amendment. Substantial changes may be proposed by a constitutional convention or by the legislature as constitutional revisions. Regardless of their origin, all changes must be approved by a majority of the electorate voting on the issue.

Legislative amendments, the method most commonly used, require a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature. Initiative amendments may be placed on the ballot by a petition of registered voters equal in number to 8 percent of the total vote cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. By explicit language in the constitution concerning initiatives and by court interpretation with respect to measures arising in the legislature, amendments are required to be limited in scope. As far back as 1894, the California Supreme Court distinguished between a revision of the constitution and a mere amendment thereof (Livermore v. Waite, 102 Cal. 113). As reiterated in 1978, the court held that a revision referred to a "substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions" (Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 208).

Whether in the public and explosive setting of a constitutional convention, as in 1879, or in the relatively calm, almost academic environment of a revision commission some 90 years later, the revision process is intensely political....To be successful, revision requires gubernatorial as well as legislative leadership. Given the requirement of a two-thirds legislative vote, revision involves negotiation and compromise. The agreement implied in an extraordinary legislative vote does not guarantee popular support. Thus, an effective political campaign is essential. But even with a good campaign, success at the polls is not assured. Constitutional revision can be a high-risk endeavor and will continue to be so. These conclusions should be taken seriously in any legislative consideration of constitutional revisions. In addressing the current imperfections of the California constitution, the costs and risks of revision must be weighed carefully against the alternative of carefully targeted amendments.
-- Eugene C. Lee, "The Revision of California's Constitution," April 1991, commissioned by the California Policy Seminar, University of California, Berkeley

Judge Throws Out Defamation Claim by “Pledge” Challenger Michael Newdow (TMLC)
Thursday, December 11, 2008

ANN ARBOR, MI – Michael Newdow, who gained national attention for his near successful efforts to have the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance only to be thwarted by the Supreme Court on technical grounds, has suffered another court loss. This time a California state court dismissed Newdow’s defamation action against Reverend Austin Miles.

Newdow’s defamation lawsuit was based on an article Reverend Miles wrote, opining that Newdow had lied to the court by claiming his daughter was forced to recite the words “under God, ” contained within the Pledge of Allegiance, at school. Reverend Miles noted that Newdow’s daughter was actually a Christian who willingly said the Pledge.

In June 2004, Newdow had convinced the initial judge hearing this case to enter a default judgment in the amount of $1 million against Reverend Miles — who didn’t even know he had been sued. After learning of the massive judgment, Reverend Miles contacted the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Law Center persuaded the Court to set aside the default judgment and allow the case to proceed to trial. Attorney Mark A. Thiel, of Stockton, California, assisted the Law Center as local counsel.

Law Center attorney Brandon Bolling ultimately tried the case. After a lengthy trial, Judge Barbara Zuniga entered judgment in favor of Reverend Miles on November 20, 2008. Judge Zuniga declared that Newdow was not defamed, nor entitled to any damages, and dismissed the defamation claim against Reverend Miles with prejudice.

Bolling, commented, “We are pleased with the court’s decision. It was very clear from the start that Newdow’s claims against Reverend Miles had no merit.”

Iowa Supreme Court hears arguments on same-sex "marriage". (MassResistance)

More judicial madness.

Last year an Iowa trial court judge ruled that the state's 10-year-old law defining marriage as one man and one woman was unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution's language regarding "equal treatment" and "due process." The ruling was overturned on appeal. The case moved into the Iowa Supreme Court. On Tuesday the court heard oral arguments.

New York Times article: Iowa Justices Hear Same-Sex Marriage Case
(If this link doesn't work, try Googling the title to get it directly)

According to the New York Times report, the oral arguments centered around the usual topics: the age-old definition of marriage, comparison to inter-racial marriage bans, marriage and procreation, gay adoption, etc. (Iowa already allows homosexuals to adopt children, which adds to the problem.)

Unfortunately, too many "conservative" lawyers are too timid to argue about the uncomfortable issues, including the destructive aspects of the homosexual lifestyle and how it will super-charge the homosexual agenda aimed at children in schools.

And of course there's the real issue: The courts are being allowed to overstep their bounds. No court can just step in and claim to have the power to drastically change society -- in this case, to repeal the laws of nature! -- and simply spit in the face of the citizens. The American Revolution was fought over less than that.

As we've said many times, this is the only way the homosexual movement can succeed - through un-democratic means that ignore the wishes of the people. And it must be stopped in its tracks.