September 28, 2008
In the next few weeks Californians will be inundated with media messages about the importance of allowing same-sex marriages. Voters will see TV ads telling them that homosexual love deserves “equality” with heterosexual love. Voters will hear radio
reports about how all gays and lesbians want is to have the same “rights” as all married couples. And the main message that will be repeated is that allowing homosexuals to marry will have no impact on your marriage or your family-so what’s the harm
in giving gays their chance to marry?
Although on the surface these arguments appear convincing, they don’t tell the whole truth. Homosexual marriage will have a direct, intrusive and damaging effect on your family.Public Schools will teach that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are normal and acceptable-and if you disagree, you are a bigot. Books like “Heather has Two Mommies”or “Daddy’s Wedding” will be used to teach kindergartners about homosexual relationships.
When parents in Boston complained about an eighth-grade teacher instructing students about gay sex, the teacher responded, “Give me a break. It’s legal now.” Churches will be required to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies or face prosecution under anti-discrimination laws.
The California Supreme Court recently ruled that medical professionals may not defer treatment to another professional based on their religious objections. In other words, Christians and those with moral beliefs must check their conscience at the door when they arrive at work. The same case law will apply to churches. Pastors will no longer be allowed to refuse marrying
homosexuals based on their religious beliefs.
Businesses will be prosecuted for not participating in homosexual ceremonies. A New Mexico photography company is being prosecuted for refusing to photograph the “commitment ceremony” of a homosexual couple. The full force of the government will
used to make citizens publicly accept homosexuality.
Married couples will no longer be considered “bride and groom,” but “Party A and Party B.” A young couple in Placer County wrote the terms “bride” and “groom” on their marriage license, which was returned from the state as an “unacceptable alteration.”
A husband and wife are legally referred to now as Party A and Party B according to the California government.
By redefining marriage, every marriage has already been affected.
The role of parents will be diminished. The family unit is already under assault with no-fault divorce, acceptance of single parenthood, and nanny government usurping the role of fathers. Homosexual marriage worsens this trend by giving government
approval to single-sex parenting. Children need both a mother and a father. By approving homosexual marriage, government and society denies children their right and need for both parents.
These are just a few of the negative, damaging consequences of allowing homosexualmarriage in our society. When you encounter a neighbor, church member, work associate, or family member who says, “I’m not a bigot-and homosexual marriage won’t affect
me,” remind them of just how much it will impact their family and all families. This is not an issue of bigotry, but of ensuring marriage isn’t redefined by four activist judges. Wanting children to be raised by both of their parents isn’t bigoted either. What’s truly bigoted is telling Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people
of faith that their beliefs must be silenced.
January 18, 2008
Eagle Forum of California State President, Orlean Koehle, received word from Damon Conklin, aid to California State Senator Tom Harmon that Senator Harmon has already signed the Eagle Forum “Protect American Sovereignty” resolution, and will be urging other members of the Republican Senatorial Caucus to sign it as well.
The resolution was presented to Senator Harman and to all the California state legislators in individual packets by attendees and leaders of various grass-roots groups who were part of a two-hour “Protect American Sovereignty” Rally Monday, January 14, on the west steps of the Sacramento Capitol Building. The rally was organized and led by Eagle Forum of California.
The packets contained information about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the NAFTA Superhighway, and the movement towards forming a North American Union, similar to the European Union, all being done under the wire by the executive branches of the United States, Canada, and Mexico with no U.S. congressional oversight or oversight by the parliaments of Canada or Mexico.
After giving information about all of the above, the resolution states “…the Legislature of the state of California urges the United States Congress and California’s Congressional Delegation to use all of their efforts, energies, and diligence to withdraw the United States from any further participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership…and to withdraw the United States from any other …activity with seeks to advance, authorize, fund, or in any way promote the creation of any structure to accomplish any form of North American Union.”
State President, Orlean Koehle, expressed her gratitude to Senator Harman who has taken the lead in the Senate on the resolution and in standing up for border protection in California. Mrs. Koehle stated, “It is wonderful to have a state senator who has the courage to take a stand for what he knows to be true, even though it may not be popular or deemed to be ‘politically correct.’ We need more elected officials like him.”
Other Eagle Forum leaders who spoke at the rally and did the lobbying that afternoon were: Georgiana Preskar, Director Sacramento Eagle Forum and author of a newly published book, Diversity Addiction; Jeanne Goodin, Vice President and Long Beach Chapter Leader and Anthony Moreno, 17-year old President of Teen Eagles of Sonoma County and first place state debate winner.
Other speakers at the rally and leaders of the grass-root groups that were part of the coalition were: Barbara Coe – Director California Coalition for Immigration Reform; Duane Wildie – Northern CA Leader for the John Birch Society; Brad Dacus – Director and Founder of Pacific Justice Institute; Lyman Stucky – Director of Sovereignty USA; Charles Bartlett – East Bay Immigration Reform and Golden Gate Minutemen; Art Bush – Redwood City Coalition for Immigration Reform; and Chelene Nightingale – Media Director of Southern California Save our State.Com.
All of the speakers were outstanding. Those in attendance felt it was well worth being there even though many of them had to travel several to attend. Several flew in from Southern California. Beautiful patriotic music and the sound system was provided free of charge by a great patriot disc jockey, Joe Oliver. Many attendees had never done lobbying before but were committed to protecting our nation’s sovereignty and actually ended up enjoying speaking to and passing out the packets to the legislators or their aids. All 130 packets were delivered to the various legislators’ offices.
The purpose of the rally was to do exactly what is now happening, to encourage state legislators to sign on to the resolution. It is based on a similar one that have been passed by at least one house of 19 state legislations and officially passed in both the house and the senate of three states: Idaho, Montana, and Oklahoma. Once the resolutions are signed by both branches of the state legislation they will be sent to the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the House and to members of the California congressional delegation urging them to do what the resolution says – take a stand and stop the movement towards a North American Union!
October 20, 2007
Time to Bring an End to the DREAM Act
By Phyllis Schlafly
Monday, October 15, 2007
The American people rose up out of their usual apathy and soundly defeated the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 that would have given amnesty to illegal immigrants. Now, some senators are trying to get Congress to pass a backdoor amnesty by calling it the DREAM Act, and it’s really a nightmare for Americans.
The cutesy title DREAM, which is meant to be a double-entendre, is an acronym for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors.
The DREAM Act would allow any illegal immigrant of any age who entered the United States before age 16 and has a high school diploma or equivalent to enroll in any state university and pay only the in-state tuition rate. Being an illegal immigrant is the prerequisite to getting this preferential treatment, which is denied to legal aliens with valid student visas.
In-state tuition can amount to a taxpayer subsidy of up to $20,000 a year, depending on what the university charges students from the other 49 states. The illegal immigrant also becomes eligible for taxpayer-paid federal student loans and federal work-study programs, for which lawful foreign students are ineligible.
There is no upper age limit; any illegal immigrant is eligible for this preference by declaring he entered the U.S. illegally before his 16th birthday. The illegal immigrant doesn’t have to prove when he entered the U.S.; he can simply make a sworn statement.
But that’s not all. The illegal immigrant would be rewarded with conditional lawful permanent resident, green card, status, which can be converted to a non-conditional green card. The immigrant can use his new legal status to seek green cards for the parents who brought him into the United States.
The student has six years to convert his green card from conditional to non-conditional. He just needs to complete two years of study at a college or serve two years in the military, and if he has already had two years of college, he can convert his green card to non-conditional immediately.
The illegal immigrant who applies for the DREAM Act can count his years under conditional green card status toward the five years needed to attain citizenship. That’s a fast track to citizenship that is not available to aliens who are lawfully present in the United States.
Section 4(f) provides that, once an illegal immigrant files an application, the government cannot deport him. A federal officer who shares with another federal agency any information on the illegal immigrant’s application, such as admission of illegal entry, can be fined $10,000.
Giving in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants is so unpopular with many Americans that the only way a Congressman could support this bill is by hoping it passes before the public discovers how bad it is. Arizona’s Proposition 300, which specifically bars Arizona universities from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants, passed in 2006 with a majority of 71.4 percent.
Support for in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants was the No. 1 issue that caused the upset defeat of former U.S. Rep. Tom Osborne, R-Neb. (the former University of Nebraska football coach) in his campaign for governor of Nebraska in 2006. He fumbled and endorsed in-state tuition for illegal immigrants while his opponent, Republican Gov. Dave Heineman, vetoed it and ran campaign ads against it.
The DREAM Act would give amnesty not only to illegal immigrants, but also give amnesty to 10 states that have been flagrantly violating federal law. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act expressly forbids a state to give in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants unless that subsidy is also granted to all U.S. citizens nationwide.
The DREAM Act would retroactively repeal that law, thereby saving the 10 states from punishment and equal-protection lawsuits filed by out-of-state U.S. citizens and law-abiding foreign students. The 10 states that have been engaging in a 21st century use of the 19th century theory called nullification, defying a federal law the state doesn’t like, are California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington.
We are indebted to professor Kris W. Kobach of the University of Missouri-Kansas City for publicizing how the DREAM Act treats illegal immigrants more favorably than U.S. citizens and legal aliens. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has not been successful in attaching it to a defense authorization bill, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says he will bring it up in November.
Tell your U.S. senators the DREAM Act must be defeated.
February 13, 2007
Transcription of Phyllis Schlafly’s Testimony
Before Arkansas State Agency & Governmental Affairs House Committee
on ERA Bill, (HJR1002)February 7, 2007
(In less than ten minutes)
Schlafly Bio: Phyllis Schlafly was recently named one of the one hundred most important women of the twentieth century by the Ladies’ Home Journal. She is a Constitutional lawyer and president of Eagle Forum which has chapters in every state. Her syndicated column appears in one hundred newspapers, her radio commentaries are heard daily on 460 stations, and her radio talk show, "Phyllis Schlafly Live" is heard weekly on forty stations. Schlafly is the author of twenty books and has testified before more than fifty Congresisonal and State Legislative committees. The mother of six children, Mrs.Schlafly was the 1992 Illinois Mother of the Year. Friends and foes of Schlafly give her credit for galvanizing the grassroots movement that defeated ERA in its ten-year battle from 1972to 1982 when Presidents of both parties and the media had all endorsed it. [And all these feats were accomplished without an Equal Rights Amendment]
Transcription of Testimony:
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: Thank you for allowing us to hear a non constituent. I have a special place in my heart for Arkansas because my husband’s family owned the Mountain Valley Spring in Hot Springs from 1900 to 1987; and my husband brought me there on our honeymoon. I still drink Moutain Valley water, now owned by Arkansas people, and it is the finest water in the world. So thank you.
Now you have heard about an hour and half of advocacy for the Equal Rights Amendment; but I note that you didn’t hear about one single law, federal or state, that discriminates against women that this amendment will remedy. I note that you didn’t hear a single benefit that women will get out of the Equal Rights Amendment. This thing was debated for 10 years, from 1972 to 1982; and it was rejected by fifteen states outright and five more that rescinded and changed their mind.
I think the main reason it was rescinded and rejected was that it is a fraud. It pretends to help women, but it does nothing for women; and they are not able to show any benefit, any correction of law that the Equal Rights Amendment will do. You know that the amendment does not put women in the Constitution, and it does not put gender in the constitution. It puts sex in the Constitution. Now we are at the mercy of the judges. The Equal Rights Amendment does not say whether it is the sex you are or the sex you do. We leave all those decisions up to the judges.
Now in looking for what the Equal Rights Amendment will do, I look to the best top authority on that subject. And the leading lawyer in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment those years was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is now on the United States Supreme Court. She wrote a book, a 230 page book, to tell exactly how the Equal Rights Amendment will affect federal law; and she is very explicit in it. I think there probably is no higher authority about what it will actually do.
What it will do is make all our laws sex neutral. Now we have the matter of the draft. Now nobody denies that if you have strict scrutiny you are going to have women not only subject to the draft, when and if there is a draft, but also subject to combat. We know women are exempted from infantry combat and submarines today. Those differences are there. Now a very powerful Democrat today, Congressman Charlie Rangel has got his bill to reinstate the draft; and, of course, it is sex neutral. I am going to do everything I can to prevent his bill from passing. But if it passed, there is no question about the effect of ERA. It would treat women exactly the same as men, and women do not want to be treated the same as men in the military and in combat.
Now among other things that Ruth Bader Ginsburg says in this, and what she doesn’t say, is that it is going to have no effect on the Constitution itself because the Constitution is already sex neutral. The Constitution does not say men are created equal. That is in the Declaration of Independence. Fortunately you are not amending the Declaration of Independence. We are talking about the Constitution. And the Constitution uses exclusively sex neutral terms, we the people, citizens, residents, inhabitants, president, ambassador, representative. Women have every Constitutional right that men have.
Also this book makes clear that it has nothing to do with employment. It is not going to give women a raise or make them equal in the board rooms or in the legislatures because our employment laws are already sex neutral; and this book makes that clear.
However, there are some differences. One of the differences is the effect it would have on homemakers in this country. One of the most offensive things that Ruth Bader Ginsburg says in this book is that the concept of dependent wife must be eliminated from the code. What does that mean? The social security system rests on the concept of the dependent wife. I get my social security based on my husband’s income over the years, and I am sure that is true of many women here today. Social security is a very pro-women institution because it gives the benefit to the dependent wife, the dependent wife who is not, herself, in the workforce. According to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that is a concept that must be eliminated from the code under ERA. This book was written to describe how ERA will affect federal laws.
And then she [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] goes into how it will change the words when you say you can’t discriminate on account of sex. She gives a whole list of words that will have to be changed. And among the words that would have to be deleted from the federal code are husband and wife. Now that is a direct attack on the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, which says that marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. Feminists don’t like that. They want to put us into a sex neutral world, and it certainly would have a direct effect on the Federal DOMA.
She [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] makes very clear that the ERA would require treating sex like we treat race. That is one of their arguments. And it would require everything that is separated according to sex to be sex integrated. Now, she specifically says that this would include the Scouts. It is discriminatory to have Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts. They would have to be put together. She says fraternities and sororities would have to be combined. She says even prisons would have to be sex integrated.
There are all kinds of mischief she [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] has in this book under her name, in a book published and paid for by the US government. She makes arguments that I never dared to make, that it will wipe out the laws against prostitution and the laws against bigamy – that it would reduce the age of consent to 12; She even goes after Mother’s Day because that would be sex discriminatory.
Of course, in the matter of marriage, it would open up the courts to all kinds of litigation by the gay rights movement which is working very hard on every type of judge they can find to give them whatever they want to have. Again, the Equal Rights Amendment says you can’t discriminate on account of sex, and that is what you are talking about. If you deny a marriage license to a man and a man, you have discriminated on account of sex. All of the highest legal authorities from Harvard and Yale have all said that the equal rights amendment would okay same sex marriage.
I was on the platform with the great Senator Sam Irvin, considered then the leading legal authority in the Senate, the great Watergate Senator, who said the only people who would profit by the Equal Rights Amendment would be the homosexuals; and you could have all kinds of litigation on that.
On the matter of abortion, we know that the New Mexico case is very clear. The argument of the feminists is abortion is something that happens only to women; therefore, if you deny any rights or any funding on abortion, you have discriminated on account of sex within the meaning of the Equal Rights Amendment. Now we do not have nineteen states with state ERA’s. There are only six of the states that have ERA’s in the same language as the proposed federal ERA. One of those is New Mexico, and that is why New Mexico said that it is discrimination to deny funding for abortion in New Mexico.
Another one of those states is Hawaii, which is where they okayed same sex marriage based on the state’s ERA. Hawaii had to pass another Constitutional amendment saying in effect, "No, we didn’t mean that."
So there are all kinds of problems that come along, and I think it would move the whole area of family law to the federal government because of Section II. Section II says the Congress will have the power to enforce it by appropriate legislation and there are all kinds of family property laws, divorce, child custody, that would then become federal matters under the ERA.
This country wisely rejected it after long debate, and I think what it comes down to is how the judges interpret it. And we have no confidence – you asked for assurance of what the judges are going to do – we don’t know what they are going to do.
But in any event, I think the country made a very good decision in voting it down in a ten-year battle that went on all across the country; and I hope that we a leave it decently buried.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, for listening.
Chairman – Thank you very much and without pausing said, Seeing there are no questions (then goes to next witness)
The committee defeated the ERA bill by one vote, 10 to 10. They needed 11 votes to get it out of committee.
This article can be read online at this link: http://www.wpaag.org/ERA%20-%20Schlafly%20Testimony%20in%20AR%202-7-07.htm