News

Christian apologists sue City of Dearborn and Carleton University

1 Comment

First, the evil city of Dearborn, Michigan is being sued.

Excerpt:

If you’ve been following this blog for the past two years, you’ve seen Muslim security guards assault our sister Mary Jo Sharp at the Dearborn Arab Festival. You’ve seen Dearborn’s own Corporal Kapanowski assault our sister Negeen. You’ve seen falsified police reports, written by corrupt police officers trying to justify their unlawful arrests. You’ve seen police officers (who take an oath that they will support and defend the Constitution) take us into custody for attempting to hand out copies of the Gospel to Muslims outside the festival. You’ve seen lies from the Mayor, lies from police, and even lies from Christians trying to curry favor with the local Muslims.

For a complete summary of our experience in Dearborn, click here.

Enough is enough. Today, the Thomas More Law Center filed a massive 96-page Complaint against the City of Dearborn. Mayor John B. O’Reilly, Police Chief Ronald Haddad, seventeen Dearborn police officers, and two members of the Arab Chamber of Commerce are officially being sued. If the City of Dearborn refuses to honor the U.S. Constitution, we hope this lawsuit will help persuade them that, so long as Michigan is part of the United States, they have no choice in the matter.

Of course, the City of Dearborn is no stranger to civil rights lawsuits. A Christian wrestling coach sued the City after he was targeted for his faith by a Muslim principal. (The City settled out of court.) Two more Christian teachers at a majority Muslim high school are now suing after being targeted and persecuted for their faith.

And what about Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada?

Excerpt:

Members of an anti-abortion group at Carleton are suing the university for discrimination.

The $225,000 lawsuit filed in Ontario Superior Court Feb. 18 by Carleton students Ruth Lobo and John McLeod claims the university breached its own human rights policies and procedures by refusing to let a campus club called Carleton Lifeline set up a controversial display featuring large images of aborted fetuses and genocide atrocities in the Tory Quad, a high-traffic square at the centre of campus (university officials offered the group space at a different spot).

Claiming the university was trying to censor its message by suggesting the group set up its displays in an alternative location, Carleton Lifeline attempted to set up its display in Tory Quad last October and were arrested by Ottawa police and campus security.

“Carleton University’s decision to have Carleton Lifeline arrested, charged with trespassing and fined was excessive, unjustified and constituted an attempt to bully, intimidate and censor them,” the statement of claim says.

The lawsuit names the university, its president Roseann O’Reilly Runte and three other senior officials.

[…]Lobo, a human-rights major, and McLeod, who’s studying business, claim Carleton breached its fiduciary duty to provide them with a free and open campus environment to discuss and debate controversial ideas and, through its actions, stripped them of their freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination.

As a result, the students say their grades and reputations have suffered.

“Their university experience has been tarnished, their reputation, individually and as a group, has suffered and they have lost their trust in Carleton University’s professors and administrators,” the lawsuit claims.

The pair also claim being arrested and detained last fall infringed on their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They are seeking $100,000 in general damages for wrongful arrest and pain and suffering, $100,000 for punitive damages and $25,000 for the Charter violations.

I have an idea. Let’s make more children into Christian lawyers. And then let’s make them work for the Alliance Defense Fund, the Thomas More Law Center, the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, American Center for Law and Justice, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Institute for Justice, etc. Yes, I know – the children won’t like it. They will prefer to play Nintendo and go to the movies with their annoying friends, (the same as what I wanted when I was a spoiled little brat!). But who cares what they think?

News

Obama administration believes that traditional marriage is unconstitutional

4 Comments

From CNS News.

Excerpt:

The Justice Department has announced that it will no longer defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the president and Attorney General Eric Holder now believe the law is unconstitutional.

“After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment,” Holder wrote in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) Wednesday.

Section 3 of DOMA is the portion of the law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Obama and Holder now support the claims of the law’s opponents that the traditional definition of marriage violates the Constitution.

Holder explained that he and Obama felt that the government could not defend the traditional definition of marriage as a rational distinction in federal court, saying that any morality-based defense of DOMA would amount to “animus” and “stereotype-based thinking” that the Constitution prohibits.

“The [legislative] record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against,” Holder wrote.

In other words, because Congress enacted DOMA for moral reasons, the Obama administration will not defend it, because it thinks those moral reasons amount to “animus” towards homosexuals.

Holder said that Obama had decided that the traditional definition of marriage could not be defended from charges that it is not discriminatory, given what Holder said was a “history” of anti-homosexual discrimination.

“After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny,” Holder said.

“The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional,” he added.

Congress, as the author of DOMA, can still defend the law in federal court.

It’s so strange to me that so many of the people who voted for Obama aspire to marriage and claim to love children. But they support the Democrat party that undermines marriage in so many ways. From subsidies for single mothers, to no-fault divorce, to opposition to shared-parenting laws, to supporting recreational pre-marital sex, to supporting same-sex marriage… Obama and the Democrats are opposed to traditional marriage. They do not believe in a lifelong commitment of one man and one woman, and a stable environment in which to raise children. They believe in feminism. They believe in big government. They believe in easy no-fault divorce. They believe in single motherhood and sole custody of children for the mother. They believe in sex education. They believe in subsidized abortion. They believe in normalizing the homosexual lifestyle (with the higher rates of promiscuity and domestic violence it entails). They believe in making people feel better about living in selfish, risky and costly ways.

Why do these people who vote Democrat expect children to grow up with a mother and a father? Why do they expect men to commit to marriage? After you have undermined every reason for men to choose to marry and become fathers, you don’t then turn around and expect people to marry, do you?

If you are a democrat, then don’t expect that you will be married. If you are a Democrat, then don’t expect to grow up with a father and a mother. If you are a Democrat, then don’t expect your parents to stay married. If life is about recreation and selfishness and having someone else pay for your risky, irresponsible behavior – this is the Democrat platform – then don’t expect to marry. Marriage isn’t free, and it doesn’t happen without the right conditions. If you are a Democrat, you destroyed marriage. Everything the Democrats stand for is anti-marriage. Democrats are anti-marriage. If you vote Democrat, then you are anti-marriage. You are causing the decline of marriage. And you are hurting children who need a mother and father.

Related posts

Commentary

How more compassion and less moral judgments increases teen pregnancy

17 Comments

From the centrist City Journal. (H/T Ruth Blog)

Excerpt:

Within my lifetime, single parenthood has been transformed from shame to saintliness. In our society, perversely, we celebrate the unwed mother as a heroic figure, like a fireman or a police officer. During the last presidential election, much was made of Obama’s mother, who was a single parent. Movie stars and pop singers flaunt their daddy-less babies like fishing trophies.

None of this is lost on my students. In today’s urban high school, there is no shame or social ostracism when girls become pregnant. Other girls in school want to pat their stomachs. Their friends throw baby showers at which meager little gifts are given. After delivery, the girls return to school with baby pictures on their cell phones or slipped into their binders, which they eagerly share with me. Often they sit together in my classes, sharing insights into parenting, discussing the taste of Pedialite or the exhaustion that goes with the job. On my way home at night, I often see my students in the projects that surround our school, pushing their strollers or hanging out on their stoops instead of doing their homework.

Connecticut is among the most generous of the states to out-of-wedlock mothers. Teenage girls like Nicole qualify for a vast array of welfare benefits from the state and federal governments: medical coverage when they become pregnant (called “Healthy Start”); later, medical insurance for the family (“Husky”); child care (“Care 4 Kids”); Section 8 housing subsidies; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; cash assistance. If you need to get to an appointment, state-sponsored dial-a-ride is available. If that appointment is college-related, no sweat: education grants for single mothers are available, too. Nicole didn’t have to worry about finishing the school year; the state sent a $35-an-hour tutor directly to her home halfway into her final trimester and for six weeks after the baby arrived.

In theory, this provision of services is humane and defensible, an essential safety net for the most vulnerable—children who have children. What it amounts to in practice is a monolithic public endorsement of single motherhood—one that has turned our urban high schools into puppy mills. The safety net has become a hammock.

The article contains a case study, so you really get the feel for what’s behind the statistics.

Remember that fatherlessness is not good for children – so we should not be encouraging fatherlessness.

Related posts