Veritas Rex

Vote on Abortion in the US House Today

My good friend Micah Clark with AFA of IN alerted me to this important issue.  Take a look:

"YOUR CONGRESSMAN NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU BEFORE 3PM TODAY!

This afternoon, the US House of Representatives will consider an amendment authored by Indiana Congressman Mike Pence which takes the nation’s largest abortion provider off the backs of taxpayers.  

Over the years, Planned Parenthood has received billions of taxpayer dollars through Title X funding.  From 2007-2008 Planned Parenthood received nearly $350 million in taxpayer dollars. It can be argued that these funds subsidize their efforts to abort unborn children.   In 2007, Planned Parenthood performed over 305,000 abortions in the United States - an increase of over 15,000 from the previous year. 

Congressman Pence is again attempting to make sure your hard-earned money is not going to help the abortion industry through family planning and pregnancy prevention funds that can go to other groups that do not perform abortions.

Please call your Congressman about their vote on the Pence Amendment occuring this afternoon  (Friday), in an effort to prevent your tax dollars from going to Planned Parenthood.

The Capitol Hill switchboard number is 202-224-3121.

You can view an outstanding speech Congressman Pence recently gave on the House floor about this issue here:"

Just the Change Parents Needed: A High Level Enemy of the Family

    As if parents and grandparents don’t already have enough to worry about with the dangerous content flooding the Internet, now the smut peddlers may soon have an ally at the very highest levels of the government. President Barack Obama has chosen David Ogden to be the second in command at the Department of Justice as the Deputy Attorney General.  This is the same powerful position that the new Attorney General, Eric Holder, held under Janet Reno during the Clinton Administration.  

    On just his fifteenth day in office, the President selected a lawyer for the porn industry to be at the highest levels of the Department of Justice, an agency that can (and should) address obscenity crimes, human trafficking, child exploitation and other decency issues. 

Who is David Ogden?  

•   Ogden has served as a lawyer for Playboy and Penthouse magazines;
•   Ogden also worked as a lawyer for major a distributor of adult films.
•   Ogden has served as a lawyer for the ACLU in various lawsuits.
•   Ogden represented an adult bookstore in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
•   Ogden defended the right of pornographers to produce materials using underage actors.
•   Ogden has also opposed filters on library computers designed to protect children from Internet filth.

• Ogden is also a supporter of same-sex marriage, unlimited abortion and gays in the military.
•   Ogden represented Playboy magazine in a lawsuit against Attorney General Ed Meese becuase Meese wanted Playboy included in a list of pornographic materials for the Attorney General's report on the dangers of pornograhy.  (Psycholgist, Dr. James Dobson served on that groundbreaking effort, which many smut peddlers still despise.) 

   A news report for the adult industry (XBIZ) praised the nomination of Ogden saying, "This is a good sign for the adult industry."

   David Ogden is not the kind of person most parents or grandparents really want in charge of obscenity crime prosecutions or controlling the spread of sex trafficking, child exploitation and other vital decency issues.

    If you would like to let our US Senators know of your view of this choice before they vote on David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General, you can call Senators Lugar and Bayh at these phone numbers:

Senator Richard Lugar’s Washington, DC office: (202) 224-4814
Indianapolis office: (317) 226-5555

Senator Evan Bayh’s Washington, DC office: (202) 224-5623
Indianapolis Office: (317) 554-0750

Happily Never After: So Much for the Myth of Marital Stability

   The lesbian couple who led the way for the dismantling of marriage in America with their court case in Massachusetts that successfully forced same-sex marriage upon that state are apparently not as they appeared or were portrayed in the media.  Julie and Hillary Goodridge have filed for divorce after separating in 2006, just two years after their marriage, which came about through their historic legal battle in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

    The research on the instability of homosexual relationships is fairly well known and easy to find.  Additionally, for quite some time domestic violence has been recognized and acknowledged as a serious problem among homosexuals with rates twice as high as that of heterosexual couples.  The serial nature of multiple short-term relationships, or the lack of monogamy among many homosexuals has also been documented by a variety of sources.  Homosexual activists will often claim that these problems would decline and mirror the heterosexual population rates if only they were granted the stabilizing benefits of legal marriage.

    However, studies of same-sex marriages overseas, particularly in Sweden where long-term data is available, has found that divorce rates among homosexual males is 50% higher than the divorce rate of their heterosexual counterparts.  For lesbians, the numbers are even worse.  Lesbian marriages have divorce rates 167% higher than married heterosexuals.   (Even after researchers controlled for demographic characteristics making divorce more likely, homosexual males were still 35% more likely to divorce and female same-sex couples were unchanged, they are still around 200% more likely to divorce.)

    The only ones who seem surprised by the announcement of the failure of the Goodridge marriage are some in the media who celebrated their overturning of state marriage law, or those who still think same-sex marriage can be a successful social experiment.
    

A Gathering Storm That May Ultimately Reach Indiana

The issue of marriage protection and preserving the importance of mothers and fathers in marriage is coming to a boil again this summer.    Next month, California clerks will begin handing out marriage licenses to homosexual couples following a court ruling that ignored state law and a popular voter-approved referendum defining marriage as only between one man and one woman.  As of today in just the San Francisco area 623 homosexual couples have booked appointments to get a marriage license. 
   
Unlike Massachusetts, California does not have a residency requirement which could place many state's statutes at risk should couples return to their home state and demand recognition of their California marriage. Some homosexual activists are already blogging about ways to nullify state and federal DOMA laws using California marriages.

The Liberty Counsel has also pointed out in a new court filing that California's courts have also swung the door wide open to polygamy, the unavoidable next step in the systematic dismantling of marriage.

Apparently, the Governor of New York couldn't wait for such a challenge. Gov. David Paterson (D) has already ordered all state agencies to revise their policies and regulations to legally recognize California and any other state or country's homosexual marriages.
   
The revisions are estimated to involve at least 1,300 incidents of marriage in state policies including everything from the joint filing of tax forms to the transferring of fishing licenses between spouses.  This is an issue that really should be decided by voters. It is clear that the Governor is trying to circumvent and undermine NY state law, which does not recognize same-sex marriage.  Under his liberal scheme, New York will be the only state that recognizes same-sex marriages from other places, but does not legally allow them.
   
As the storm gathers, the question remains as to what might happen in Indiana since the Democrat House leadership killed the marriage protection amendment. This makes it impossible to significantly protect our marriage laws until 2012 from any potential lawsuits created by the California or New York messes.

Why The Indiana House Should Have Passed SJR 7

Homosexual Activist Wayne Besen Makes a Strong
Case for State and Federal Marriage Protection Amendments

"(T)he California Supreme Court may...come out in favor of same-sex marriage as early as May 23. ...If same-sex marriage becomes a reality in America's largest and most influential state -- and is not overturned by a Constitutional Amendment -- it will be the biggest earthquake to hit in years. The sheer number of couples who will marry (and divorce, it is California, after all) will forever change this debate. It will cause a legal mess, as many of these married couples -- often with children -- migrate to states that still discriminate. The consequences of such relocations will force the entire country to grapple with this issue. No longer will the debate be theoretical, but will focus on the discrimination endured by families whose married status vanishes the moment they cross state lines."

http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=30056

If this scenario put forth by this hopeful homosexual activist (Wayne Besen) is accurate, it will be exactly what many of our nation's founders feared, one large state dictating the public policy of the others.

This battle will be well worth watching. Even in the liberal state of California, a public question was passed overwhelmingly in which voters said that marriage should be only between one man and one woman. (Prop 22) In November, California voters may also be allowed to vote on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage and the importance of both genders to the cornerstone of the family. This is important since, as Besen observes (and hopes), a California court may ignore the will of the people claerly expressed through Prop 22.

In so doing, a liberal judge may well define marriage down to merely the bringing together of two or more people rather than being what it always has been, the bringing together of the two sexes for a vital societal unit.

Ignored by much of the media, however, is the fact that over one million signatures in support of a marriage amendment have already been gathered, far more than is needed to put the measure on the ballot. The impact that effort will have, and the impact of a judge's agenda, is something both sides of this debate will be closely watching.

Until then, it is a painful lesson to observe for the remaining minority of states like Indiana which have not passed Marriage Protection Amendments. Because of the obstructionism of legislators like Speaker of the House Patrick Bauer and Rules Committee Chairman Scott Pelath, whenever other state courts lurch leftward to redefine the family, Indiana's statutes seem woefully unprotected. . . but maybe that's exactly what Indiana House leadership wanted.