October 28, 2009

Mr. President, here's how 'hate crime' laws trample religious freedom

California using 'LGBT hate crime' definitions to squash people's cherished moral values

Sacramento -- SaveCalifornia.com, a leading West Coast pro-family, pro-child organization, is warning Americans that the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual "hate crimes" law signed today by President Obama will, unrestrained, lead to "LGBT rights" trampling religious freedom and everyone else’s rights.

California's experience with "hate crime" laws clearly demonstrates how moral conscience is trampled by placing definitions of anything-goes "sexual orientation" and "gender" into the law.

"In 1998, California first placed homosexuality into the state's hate-crime law," said Randy Thomasson, a legislative analyst and president of SaveCalifornia.com. "Ten years later, largely hidden from the general public, these hate-crime definitions are being used to sexually indoctrinate schoolchildren, trample parental rights, and infringe upon the religious rights and moral standards of business owners and property owners."

“By awarding special preference to alternative lifestyles in hate-crimes laws, today in California, the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda has more legal power than religious citizens, parents, business owners and property owners,” said Thomasson. “Children, parents, contractors, business owners, and physicians have all been hurt by the ‘LGBT hate crimes’ law. Given California’s experience, it is reasonable to expect that, unless restrained by voters, Congress will expand the federal ‘LGBT hate crimes’ definitions throughout the U.S. Code, trampling religious freedom, parental rights, moral standards, and ownership rights in the process.”

"Connect the dots," said Thomasson, "and you'll see how 'LGBT hate crimes' definitions are the beginning of the intolerant homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda trampling other people's basic rights throughout the law. It's imperative to understand that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender activists are demanding their own way at the expense of Americans' basic rights to exercise their religious and moral beliefs."

DOCUMENTATION: From the Penal Code to the Education, Civil and Government Codes

California in 1998 enacted a law that makes the offense of vandalism a “hate crime” because of a person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation.

California's "hate crimes" law set forth in the Penal Code, Section 422:55 and 56, became the foundation for the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual "rights" agenda in the rest of state law.

Penal Code Section 422:55
For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.
(b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of Section 422.6.

California Penal Code, Section 422:56
(h) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
(c) "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

California laws advancing the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda, empowering “LGBT rights” to trump everyone else’s rights, is based on Penal Code 422.55 and 56:

Based on Penal Code, Section 422.56, the California Government Code allows fines up to $150,000 against business owners and property owners who are morally opposed to homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.

• Government Code, Section 12926
(p) "Sex" includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. "Sex" also includes, but is not limited to, a person's gender, as defined in Section 422.56 of the Penal Code.
(q) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality.

Based on the Government Code, which is based on Penal Code, Section 422.56, the California Civil Code requires businesses open to the public to elevate homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality above their own religious values or moral standards.

• Civil Code, Section 51
(4) "Sex" has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (p) of Section 12926 of the Government Code.
(6) "Sexual orientation" has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (q) of Section 12926 of the Government Code.

Based on Penal Code, Section 422.56, the California Education Code allows teachers and other school employees to cross-dress and be openly homosexual and bisexual in front of children, and indirectly requires positive portrayal of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to schoolchildren in school "instruction" and campus "activities." (See http://rescueyourchild.org/SB_777.html and http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0501-0550/ab_537_bill_19991010_chaptered.html)

• Education Code, Section 200
It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor.

• Education Code, Section 220
No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.

• Education Code, Section 51500
No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

• Education Code, Section 66251
It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons, regardless of their sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, mental or physical disability, or regardless of any basis that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the postsecondary institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor.

• Education Code, Section 66270
No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, color, or mental or physical disability, or any basis that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial aid.

Source: http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=fc263a98bdef40ddd99f5fd34&id=ff35d074d4

Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children-- DUH!

October 15th, 2009

By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

As mental health professionals, it’s our ethical and moral obligation to support policies that are in the best interest of those we serve, particularly those who are most vulnerable—namely, children. Same-sex marriage may be in the best interest of adult homosexuals who yearn for social and legal recognition of their unions, but it’s not in the best interest of children.

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe love is all children really need. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as by loving parents of the opposite sex. But that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is naively simplistic and denies the complex nature and core needs of human beings.

According to decades of research, the ideal family structure for children is a two-parent, mother-father family.^(1,2,3) That research consistently shows that children raised in such families are more likely to thrive—psychologically, mentally, and physically—than children reared in any other kind of family configuration.

Extensive research also reveals that not only mothers, but also fathers, are critical to the healthy development of children. Swedish researchers reviewed the best longitudinal studies from around the world that assessed the effects of fathers on children’s development. Their review spanned 20 years of studies and included over 22,000 children, and found that fathers reduce behavioral problems in boys and psychological problems in girls, enhance cognitive development, and decrease delinquency.⁽⁴⁾

It’s clear that children benefit from having both a male and female parent. Recent medical research confirms genetically determined differences between men and women and those fundamental differences help explain why mothers and fathers bring unique characteristics to parenting that can’t be replicated by the other sex. Mothers and fathers simply aren’t interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father. One-sex parenting, whether by a single parent or a homosexual couple, deprives children of the full range of parenting offered by dual-sex couples.

Only mother-father families afford children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier and more comfortable for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. Overall, having a relationship with both a male and female parent increases the likelihood that a child will have successful social and romantic relationships during his or her life.⁽⁵⁾

Moreover, existing research on children reared by homosexuals is not only scientifically flawed and extremely limited ^(6,7,8) but some of it actually indicates that those children are at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes.⁽⁶⁾ Other studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves.^(5,6,9) And for those children who later engage in non-heterosexual behavior, extensive research reveals they are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders, abuse alcohol and drugs, ⁽¹⁰⁾ attempt suicide, ⁽¹¹⁾ experience domestic violence and sexual assault, ⁽¹²⁾ and are at increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened life spans.^(13,14,15)

It shouldn’t be surprising that studies find children reared by homosexuals are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves ^(16,9,17) since extensive worldwide research reveals homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.^{(18,19,20,21)} There’s no question that human sexuality is fluid and pliant.⁽²²⁾ Consider ancient Greece and Rome—among many early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. That was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather because sexuality is malleable and socially influenced.

Same-sex marriage no doubt will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously.

It also must be expected that if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of non-traditional marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping also will be deemed discriminatory. In fact, such legal maneuverings have already begun. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous.

To date, very little research exists that assesses long-term outcomes for homosexually parented children. According to Charlotte Patterson, a self-proclaimed, pro-same-sex-marriage researcher, there are only two longitudinal studies of children raised by lesbians.⁽²³⁾ And no long-term studies of children raised by homosexual men. A professional organization dedicated to the welfare of its patients cannot and should not support drastic change in social policy based on just two, small and non-representative longitudinal studies.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving toward children as heterosexual couples, but children need more than love. They require the distinctive qualities and complementary natures of a male and female parent. The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years concludes that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. This time-tested wisdom is now supported by the most advanced, scientifically sound research available.

Importantly, and to their credit, many self-proclaimed pro-same-sex-marriage researchers acknowledge that there is as of yet no definitive evidence as to the impact of homosexual parenting on children. Regardless, some of those advocates support same-sex marriage because they believe it offers a natural laboratory in which to assess the long-term impact on children.⁽²⁴⁾ That position is unconscionable and indefensible.

Same-sex marriage isn’t in the best interest of children. While we may empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we cannot allow the children to lose.

CAMFT, like all mental health organizations, must base policy decisions on scientific evidence and research findings, not personal belief and political opinion. Most importantly, they must never allow children to be used as guinea pigs in unwise and potentially harmful social experiments.

Subsequent to publication of the May/June 2009 special issue (Volume 21, Issue 3), homosexual activists within and without the organization pressured CAMFT to not only apologize, but also expunge from their organizational archives those articles that voiced opposition to same-sex marriage. CAMFT capitulated to those demands. The Director of CAMFT apologized for publishing articles critical of same-sex marriage and all the “offending” articles were censored from the CAMFT website archives. So much for intellectual debate and freedom of opinion.

Pornography is a Trap

Thomas S. Monson, “True to the Faith,” Ensign, May 2006, 18–21

"Many years ago, on an assignment to the beautiful islands of Tonga, I was privileged to visit our Church school, the Liahona High School, where our youth are taught by teachers with a common bond of faith—providing training for the mind and preparation for life. On that occasion, entering one classroom, I noticed the rapt attention the children gave their native instructor. His textbook and theirs lay closed upon the desks. In his hand he held a strange-appearing fishing lure fashioned from a round stone and large seashells. This, I learned, was a maka-feke, an octopus lure. In Tonga, octopus meat is a delicacy.

The teacher explained that Tongan fishermen glide over a reef, paddling their outrigger canoes with one hand and dangling the maka-feke over the side with the other. An octopus dashes out from its rocky lair and seizes the lure, mistaking it for a much-desired meal. So tenacious is the grasp of the octopus and so firm is its instinct not to relinquish the precious prize that fishermen can flip it right into the canoe.

It was an easy transition for the teacher to point out to the eager and wide-eyed youth that the evil one—even Satan—has fashioned so-called maka-fekes with which to ensnare unsuspecting persons and take possession of their destinies.

Today we are surrounded by the maka-fekes which the evil one dangles before us and with which he attempts to entice us and then to ensnare us. Once grasped, such maka-fekes are ever so difficult—and sometimes nearly impossible—to relinquish. To be safe, we must recognize them for what they are and then be unwavering in our determination to avoid them.

Constantly before us is the maka-feke of immorality. Almost everywhere we turn, there are those who would have us believe that what was once considered immoral is now acceptable. I think of the scripture, “Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.” Such is the maka-feke of immorality. We are reminded in the Book of Mormon that chastity and virtue are precious above all things.

When temptation comes, remember the wise counsel of the Apostle Paul, who declared, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”

Next, the evil one also dangles before us the maka-feke of pornography. He would have us believe that the viewing of pornography really hurts no one. How applicable is Alexander Pope’s classic, An Essay on Man:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

One of the most accessible sources of pornography today is the Internet, where one can turn on a computer and instantly have at his fingertips countless sites featuring pornography. President Gordon B. Hinckley has said: “I fear this may be going on in some of your homes. It is vicious. It is lewd and filthy. It is enticing and habit-forming. It will take [you] down to destruction as surely as anything in this world. It is foul sleaze that makes its exploiters wealthy, its victims impoverished.”

Avoid any semblance of pornography. It will desensitize the spirit and erode the conscience. We are told in the Doctrine and Covenants, “That which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.” Such is pornography."

THERE IS SO MUCH BEAUTY IN THE WORLD! LET US FILL OUR LIVES WITH THAT!

Dallin H. Oaks-- Religious Freedom at Risk

SALT LAKE CITY 13 October 2009

An apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said religious freedom is being threatened by societal forces intimidating those with religious points of view from having a voice in the public square.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks made the comments today in a major address to Brigham Young University-Idaho students on the importance of preserving the religious freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Elder Oaks has had a front-row seat in observing what he calls the “significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion” in public life. Prior to his appointment to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Oaks had an illustrious law career. He served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court, was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School and clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court.

Although his address on religious freedom was not written in response to the Proposition 8 battle over same- sex marriage in California, Elder Oaks likened the incidents of outrage against those who prevailed in establishing marriage between a man and a woman to the “widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South.”

He said members of the Church should not be deterred or coerced into silence by threats. “We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues, and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice.”

Elder Oaks also said religious freedom is being jeopardized by claims of newly alleged human rights. As an example, he referred to a set of principles published by an international human rights group which calls for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity. Elder Oaks said, “This apparently proposes that governments require church practices to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines should be resisted by all believers.”

Noting that the students he was addressing were among the generation that would face continuing challenges to religious freedom, Elder Oaks offered five points of counsel:

• Speak with love and show patience, understanding and compassion to those with differing viewpoints.
• Do not be deterred or coerced into silence by intimidation from opponents, insisting that churches and their members be able to speak out on issues without retaliation.
• Insist on the freedom to preach the doctrines of their faith.
• Be wise in political participation, remaining respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and contributing to reasonable discussion.
• Be careful to never support or act on the idea that a person must subscribe to a specific set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for public office.

“Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms,” Elder Oaks concluded. “I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our ‘First Freedom,’ the free exercise of religion.”

Jeffrey R. Holland -- Book of Mormon Is True

Jeffrey R. Holland, “Safety for the Soul,” Ensign, Nov 2009, 88–90

"For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.”

I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this latter-day work—and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these, our times—until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit."