-----Original Message-----
From: Citizen Link [mailto:citizenlink@family.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:33 PM
To: LinkMembers@LISTSERV.FAMILY.ORG
Subject: Daily Update - June 29, 2004
CITIZENLINK
June 29, 2004
========================= EDITOR'S NOTE:
Write Michael Moore -- at Home -- with Your Opinions of
"Fahrenheit 9/11"
Filmmaker Michael Moore, writer/director of the new
Bush-bashing documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," has made quite
a career out of marketing himself as a man of the people,
a populist everyman who fights passionately for the little
guy.
That's why we wanted to make sure "little guys" could let
Moore know exactly what they think about his new movie.
So, if you have an opinion about the film -- in which
Moore plays fast and loose with the facts to build a case
that President Bush is an idiot and the war in Iraq is all
about oil profits -- we suggest you send it to the
following address:
Michael Moore
225 W. 83rd St.
Unit 17L
New York, NY 10024
That's his home -- a condominium this man of the people,
so critical of capitalism, spent $4.5 million on seven
years ago. And please don't worry that it's wrong to use
this address; it's public record, obtained through New
York State mortgage records and Federal Election
Commission filings.
Besides, Moore himself endorses the publication of this
kind of information: In "Fahrenheit 9/11," in fact, he
projects on screen the private office number of a
congressman whose views he opposes -- and urges viewers to
call it.
=========================
HIGH COURT FAILS TO PROTECT KIDS:
Supreme Court leaves in place an injunction against the
Child Online Protection Act.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0032708.cfm
NEW EFFORT TO FUND UNFPA IN OFFING:
Liberals once again trying to fund group some say finances
forced abortions in China.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0032705.cfm
LAWMAKERS ATTEMPT TO REMOVE JUDGES:
Could a bill in the Massachusetts Legislature end
court-imposed gay marriage?
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0032703.cfm
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR MEDICINAL MARIJUANA CASE:
California women seeking the right to grow the drug under
a doctor's care.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0032702.cfm
TRANSPORTATION LETTER A TRAVESTY:
Secretary of transportation urges employees to celebrate
Gay Pride Month.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0032701.cfm
NEWS BRIEFS:
-- New York City Council Wants Contractors to Extend
Same-Sex Benefits
-- Learn More About Defending Traditional Marriage from
Dr. Dobson
(Please see "News Briefs" section below.)
Encourage a friend to sign up for this e-mail:
http://www.family.org/cforum/clinksignup.cfm
To visit our Web site:
http://www.citizenlink.org
To contact your congressman or senators:
http://www.family.org/citizenaction
To learn more about judicial tyranny:
http://www.family.org/cforum/judicial_tyranny/
To register to vote:
http://capwiz.com/fof/e4/nvra/?action=form&state=
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
EDITOR'S PICKS: Resources for Impacting (and Living in)
Your World.
"The New Strong-Willed Child"
by Dr. James C. Dobson
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=4740&refcd=CE04FCZL&tvar=no
Dr. James Dobson, America's foremost parenting expert,
shares advice on shaping the will of the strong-willed
child. Learn the strategies that succeed, those which
fail, and the encouragement of knowing how that headstrong
child can become a man or woman of great character.
Completely updated and revised.
Item Code: D00003B
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----------------------------------------------
CITIZENLINK BREAKING NEWS:
----------------------------------------------
High Court Fails to Protect Kids
by Pete Winn, associate editor
SUMMARY: The U.S. Supreme Court decided today to leave in
place an injunction against the Child Online Protection
Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court let stand today an injunction
against a federal law that would require pornographers to
prevent children under 16 from accessing X-rated sites on
the Internet.
Justices' 5-4 decision affirmed a ruling by the 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court order
barring enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act
(COPA).
That law merely requires porn merchants to obtain a
customer's proof of age before allowing him or her to view
material on a Web site. In other words, anyone who wants
to look at a hardcore site has to access it with a credit
card, a personal identification number or an adult access
code.
Pat Trueman, who headed the nation's fight against
obscenity in the 1980s and early 90s, said the decision is
devastating to the welfare of children.
"The Supreme Court is ruling that our Constitution
requires that hardcore porn sites be available to children
of any age," he said.
Jan LaRue, chief counsel at Concerned Women for America
and a former anti-pornography attorney herself, called
today's decision a "devastating defeat for kids, parents
and the Constitution."
"Minors have no First Amendment right to view this kind of
porn, and smut-peddlers have no right to expose them to
it," LaRue said. "If COPA involved cigarettes and kids,
the law would have been enforced without the threat of any
legal challenges. And anybody who opposed it would have
been an ash heap. Remember 'Joe Camel'?"
Justices sent the case back to federal district court in
Philadelphia for a trial on the merits of the case, and
Ben Bull, a vice president with the Alliance Defense Fund,
said that fact indicates the battle with pornographers is
unresolved but not dead.
"Today's decision," Bull said, "allows the fight to
continue."
Writing on behalf of the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy
said there have been important technological advances in
the five years since a federal judge first blocked the law
from taking effect.
"It is important to note that this opinion does not hold
that Congress is incapable of enacting any regulation of
the Internet designed to prevent minors from gaining
access to harmful materials," Kennedy wrote. "This opinion
does not foreclose the District Court from concluding,
upon a proper showing by the Government that meets the
Government's constitutional burden as defined in this
opinion, that COPA is the least restrictive alternative
available to accomplish Congress' goal."
But Daniel Weiss, media and sexuality analyst at Focus on
the Family, said it is very disturbing that the Court's
main concern is that there may be less restrictive
alternatives to COPA, with Kennedy citing filtering
technology as a possibility.
"If filtering technology is less restrictive, which it may
be, it still puts the onus on parents, or even children
themselves, to not see this stuff," Weiss said. "It
doesn't put the onus on those who would peddle it to
children. That's a different approach than they've taken
in the past."
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Clarence Thomas
and Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Kennedy in the
decision. Trueman said, once again, Justice Clarence
Thomas was in the majority "deciding that protecting
pornography is more important than protecting children."
"This is not his first time to be in the majority striking
down an anti-pornography case," Trueman said. "He was a
deciding vote on a key child pornography case about six
years ago requiring that federal investigators rework how
they investigate child pornography -- making it much more
difficult to investigate child pornographers."
Weiss, meanwhile, is incensed at the courts seemingly
cavalier attitude about the effects of pornography on
children.
"When you read the Court's rulings on pornography over the
last decade, they seem to be very concerned about
potential damage to the First Amendment," he said, "but
they don't to seem to be that concerned with the damage to
individuals that comes with this material."
Weiss has a recommendation: "I think it's time to have
another commission on pornography" -- referring to the
1986 Attorney General's Commission on Pornography,
convened by Attorney General Ed Meese.
"Maybe the approach we need this time," he said, "is not
to have an attorney general's commission, but to have a
Surgeon General's commission."
FOR MORE INFORMATION: To learn more about the harmful
effects of pornography, and how porn addiction can be
overcome, visit the Focus on the Family Web site
PureIntimacy.org.
http://www.pureintimacy.org/
----------------------------------------------
FAMILY NEWS IN FOCUS STORIES:
----------------------------------------------
New Effort to Fund UNFPA in Offing
by Keith Peters, Washington, D.C., correspondent
SUMMARY: Liberal lawmakers are once again trying to funnel
your tax dollars to an organization some say finances
forced abortions in China.
The House International Relations Committee will attempt
next week to restore funding to the United Nations
Population Fund (UNFPA), a group that has been charged
with using your tax dollars to promote forced abortion in
China.
Sarah Craven, a spokeswoman for the UNFPA, said she is
hopeful the United States will restore the funding.
"The U.S. is a leader in population and family planning
and . . . is the largest bilateral provider of family
planning assistance throughout the world," Craven said.
"So we see the U.S. as a leader in this area and we would
hope to once again receive their funding and their
support."
But Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute
said funding UNFPA is a bad idea.
"They've been involved in China's 'one child' policy from
the beginning," Mosher said. "This is a policy that
involves forced abortion, forced sterilization and forced
contraception. It's one that the American people would not
want us to be funding and that the Bush administration has
made a very wise decision not to fund."
A 2002 letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell to
Congress, in fact, said the UNFPA had provided computers
and vehicles to the Chinese government to enforce China's
family-planning policy. He also said that UNPFA violated a
1985 law banning the United States from giving money to
agencies involved in forced abortion or sterilization.
Michael Schwartz, vice president of governmental relations
at Concerned Women for America, said the committee vote to
restore funding via amendment sponsored by Rep. Nita
Lowey, D-N.Y., will be extremely close.
"If Lowey has her way, we'll be faced with another
crisis," Schwartz said, "a showdown between Congress and
the president on whether the United States should begin to
export abortion. We've never done that."
Schwartz said people need to get in touch with their
representatives in Congress to let them know they support
the Bush administration policy of refusing to fund any
organization involved in coerced abortion or
sterilization.
TAKE ACTION: Please contact your representative in
Congress and ask him or her to oppose any action to
restore U.S. funding to the United Nations Population
Fund.
For help in contacting your lawmaker, please see the
CitizenLink Action Center.
http://capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/
----------------------------------------------
Lawmakers Attempt to Remove Judges
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
SUMMARY: Could a bill in the Massachusetts Legislature end
court-imposed gay marriage?
Two bills are making their way through the Massachusetts
Legislature that would remove the judges who foisted gay
marriage on the Bay State.
The procedure involves what is called a "bill of address."
Under it, a majority vote of the Legislature can remove a
judge. State Rep. Philip Travis said his bill calls for
the dismissal of Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret
Marshall, who lobbied for the same gay organization that
brought the gay marriage case she presided over.
"She had done that two or three times, which is against
the rules -- the code of ethics for judges in
Massachusetts under the constitution," Travis said.
"(Based upon that) alone she should step down."
At one of those fund-raisers, Marshall told the
organization she would see to a gay-favorable outcome of
the case.
"It's almost like we're watching an opera unfold onstage,"
Travis said, "and it's being directed and produced by
Margaret Marshall."
The other bill would remove all the justices who voted for
gay marriage. Rep. Emile Goguen authored it.
"The four justices made a law that same-sex marriage would
be kosher in Massachusetts," Goguen said. "The Legislature
makes laws and the governor approves them. They had no
right to change a law."
The bills represent the best chance for a stay of the
court ruling legalizing gay marriage in the state, but
they're stuck in committee. Even at that, Matthew Spalding
of The Heritage Foundation said the prospects don't look
good.
"I don't see how either one of those is viable in the
current political situation up there," Spalding said.
"It's not anywhere near there being a working majority
that would support this kind of thing."
The Massachusetts House has 136 Democrats and only 23
Republicans.
----------------------------------------------
Supreme Court to Hear Medicinal Marijuana Case
by Stuart Shepard, correspondent
SUMMARY: California women seeking the right to grow the
drug under a doctor's care.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about
smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes, and the outcome
may determine how far the federal government can reach in
its efforts to battle illegal drugs.
The case, which justices are expected to take up in the
winter, involves two California women who wanted to grow
and smoke marijuana under a doctor's care. The Golden
State allows it, but the federal government outlaws the
drug -- for any purpose.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- the San
Francisco-based court that famously found the Pledge of
Allegiance unconstitutional -- ruled in favor of the
women. It found that the federal Controlled Substances Act
could not be applied to the non-commercial growing and use
of marijuana within a state's borders. Government lawyers
had argued that the federal law trumps state law.
Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana
Policy Project, agrees with the 9th Circuit, arguing that
if pot is not sold or transported over state lines, it's
out of the U.S. government's reach.
"Seriously ill patients should not have to live in fear of
federal agents kicking in their door to take them off to
jail," he said. "This gets it back to what the Founding
Fathers designed, which is a system in which states have
some control over what goes on within their own borders."
Trent England, a legal policy analyst with The Heritage
Foundation, said there is an essential problem if the high
court affirms the 9th Circuit ruling and sides with the
women: No one can tell a medical marijuana plant from any
other marijuana plant.
Rafael Lemaitre with the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy agreed.
"Often we see the medical marijuana issue as a Trojan
horse," he said, "essentially used by people who want to
make drugs more available, as a stepping stone towards
eventual legalization of marijuana and other drugs."
----------------------------------------------
Transportation Letter a Travesty
by Terry Phillips, correspondent
SUMMARY: Secretary of transportation urges employees to
wholeheartedly celebrate Gay Pride Month.
A government worker recently found that diversity doesn't
apply to Christianity when her boss e-mailed a letter
gushing over Gay Pride Month.
In the letter, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman
Mineta urges workers to embrace homosexuality, something
one family advocate calls a "tragedy."
"There's really nothing to be proud of in homosexuality,"
said Peter LaBarbera, executive director of the Illinois
Family Institute.
That's the way one of the letter writers to Focus on the
Family felt last week. She's a transportation department
employee and a Christian, but her boss's letter tells her
to "appreciate" the differences between heterosexuals and
homosexuals.
Melissa Fryrear, a gender-issues analyst at Focus on the
Family, said that's the wrong attitude for any employer to
take.
"In situations like this," she said, "you have other
employees of the transportation department who are being
forced to accept homosexuality."
Fryrear, a former lesbian, has her own dream of
"appreciating" differences.
"I look forward to the day when we can also celebrate the
thousands of men and women who have made the decision to
leave homosexuality," she said.
Regina Griggs, of P-FOX, an organization that celebrates
the truth that change is possible for homosexuals, said a
month honoring ex-gays would be soundly opposed by liberal
media like the Washington Post.
"The Washington Compost will not put this on the front
page of their paper," she said. "Ever."
FOR MORE INFORMATION: The rhetoric surrounding the
acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is everywhere
Parents have children suddenly "coming out." Organizations
are accused of "intolerance." And it seems that everyone
agrees it's OK to be gay. Learn how to address the issues
surrounding same-sex attraction and its implications for
society in "101 Frequently Asked Questions About
Homosexuality" by Focus on the Family's Mike Haley, a
thought-provoking book by a man who's been there.
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=4641&refcd=CE04FCZL&tvar=no
----------------------------------------------
NEWS BRIEFS:
----------------------------------------------
New York City Council Wants Contractors to Extend Same-Sex
Benefits
The New York City Council voted Monday to overturn a veto
by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that requires companies seeking
municipal contracts to offer benefits to the domestic
partners of their employees, The New York Times reported.
The 41-10 vote adds New York to the list of large cities
that require contractors to offer same-sex couples the
same health insurance benefits provided to other
employees.
Bloomberg has said his administration will likely file a
lawsuit to prevent the ruling from taking effect.
"It is not something we believe is legal for the City
Council to do," Bloomberg said. "We should not be using
our procurement policies to push social issues no matter
how much we believe in them."
Unless a lawsuit blocks the new law, it will take effect
in 120 days and applies to companies with contracts valued
at more than $100,000.
----------------------------------------------
Learn More About Defending Traditional Marriage from Dr.
Dobson
Insight into the reasons traditional marriage needs to be
defended can be found in Dr. James Dobson's new book,
"Marriage Under Fire." In it, the Focus on the Family
founder and chairman lays out several reasons same-sex
marriage is bad for the family and for society.
You can check out some of those reasons in the third
installment in a series of five excerpts on our
CitizenLink Web site. To access this special feature,
click on the link below.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032430.cfm
----------------------------------------------
QUOTEWORTHY:
----------------------------------------------
"That government is the strongest of which every man feels
himself a part."
-- Thomas Jefferson
CE04FCZL
===================
Gary Schneeberger
Editor
Pete Winn
Associate Editor
Trish Amason
Assistant Editor
Wendy Cloyd
Editorial Coordinator
Peter Brandt
Director, Issues Response
Tom Minnery
Vice President, Government & Public Policy
Don Hodel
President and CEO, Focus on the Family
Dr. James C. Dobson
Founder and Chairman, Focus on the Family
---------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2004, Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. CitizenLink is a policy and culture information service of Focus on the Family, a ministry sustained by the contributions and prayers of supporters. This e-mail may not be used for commercial or political purposes.
Subscribers are encouraged to send this e-mail to others and/or print it in its entirety, without any changes, for noncommercial and nonpolitical use only. Because of the time-sensitive nature of the material published in this e-mail newsletter, subscribers are permitted to reprint individual articles in their entirety, without any changes, for noncommercial and nonpolitical use only. Individual articles must be accompanied by the author's byline, as well as the following copyright information:
"Copyright (c) 2004, Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. This article appeared in CitizenLink Daily Update published (date), a policy and culture information service of Focus on the Family. For more information, see http://www.citizenlink.org."
For all other reprint requests, please send your request in writing to family-permission@custhelp.com or by fax at 719-531-3391.
CitizenLink does not regularly print letters to the editor, but if you would like to submit a comment or question, send it to citizenlink@family.org. PLEASE NOTE: Due to the volume of e-mails we receive, it is possible that we may not be able to respond to your e-mail.
If you would like further information on Family News in Focus stories, call (800) 782-8227.
REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: If you would like to be removed from the list, please send an e-mail to listserv@listserv.family.org with the text UNSUBSCRIBE LINKMEMBERS as the body of your message.