Can You Hear Me Now?

August 2006

Dear Friends,

Greetings to you all. There are a couple of very important matters that I must share with you as the summer months draw to a close. The first is a follow-up to my June newsletter in which I described a potentially disastrous development in California. You'll recall that the legislature there was trying quietly to pass a bill requiring every public school in the state to teach the contributions of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to every child from kindergarten (five-year-olds!) through grade 12. All the textbooks for every subject, including math, science and language arts, would have been rewritten and re-illustrated to comply with the law. Remember that a high percentage of kids in public schools can't even read, yet the legislature was about to require them to study homosexuality in every class. It was one of the most outrageous efforts in memory to capture the hearts and minds of this generation of children. Even the liberal Los Angeles Times1 and The Sacramento Bee 2 opposed the bill, which speaks volumes about the radical nature of the California legislature.

Well, my letter describing this danger went out to 1.2 million people asking you, our readers, to let your voices be heard. We also devoted three radio programs to the issue. What happened in response was most encouraging. Every member of the state legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger were inundated with demands that the bill be defeated. On the day announced for the vote in the Assembly (the Senate had already passed it by a wide margin) the Democratic leadership pulled the bill from consideration. We've been told that 10 assemblymen reportedly changed their votes, and there were not enough supporters remaining to pass the bill. What great news.

Be aware, however. The homosexual lobby and the leftist legislators in California desperately want this bill to pass, and they are almost certain to make another run at it. They are determined to gain control of children who hold the key to the future. They could wait for activist judges sitting on the "Ninth Circus" to do their bidding, but that would take time. The most direct route to the minds of kids is through the Legislature. That's why it is highly likely that the bill will be brought back when they think no one is watching. Focus on the Family will be monitoring this development, and I promise to let you know about any new effort immediately.

I just wish the people of California who care about children would continue to let their state representatives know how they feel about this attempt to manipulate their kids. Give them a call when you can. For a full listing of members, along with their phone numbers, please visit www.citizenlink.org. For now, however, I want to thank all of you from around the country who took the time to help knock down this wretched bill. You stopped it right in its tracks.

By the way, I just learned that while the Legislature was conniving to rewrite the curricula in California, the National Education Association was basically attempting to accomplish the same thing on a nationwide scale. According to insiders at their annual convention in Orlando last month, the majority of the 9,000 delegates approved an action item calling for educators to replace the word "tolerance" with "acceptance and/or respect" in NEA materials dealing with "sexual orientation." 3 In early June, delegates received packets outlining a proposed resolution that promoted "legal rights" for homosexuals, including "adoption . . . domestic partnerships, and civil unions and/or marriage" — in other words, a not-so-subtle endorsement of gay marriage. 4 After word leaked out, the NEA was forced to backpedal, replacing the proposed resolution with a watered-down version that limited endorsement of gay marriage to already "legally recognized" unions.

That raises the second important issue we need to discuss. It deals with the Marriage Protection Amendment, which was considered in the U.S. Senate on June 7. The results were very disappointing, to say the least. In the aftermath of the vote, I wrote the following article which was posted on the CNN Web site. It has an average of five million visitors every day, and my editorial created quite a stir among them. Here is what I wrote:

Commentary: Media provides cover for assault on traditional marriage
By James C. Dobson, Ph.D.

Special to CNN
Thursday, July 6, 2006; Posted: 3:27 p.m. EDT (19:27 GMT)

Editor's note: James C. Dobson is founder and chairman of Focus on the Family Action. He has a Ph.D. in child development and is author of the best-selling book, Bringing Up Boys. He's currently working on a follow-up, Bringing Up Girls.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (CNN) — On June 7, the U.S. Senate voted for a second time on an amendment to define marriage in the U.S. Constitution as being exclusively between one man and one woman.

Again this year, the amendment failed to pass by a wide margin, falling 18 votes shy of a required two-thirds majority. The final tally was 49 in favor, 48 opposed.

Rarely has there been a greater disconnect between members of the Senate and the American people who put them in power. With the help of the media, which laid down "cover" by claiming voters didn't care about marriage, 40 Democrats, one Independent and seven Republicans turned their backs on this most basic social institution.

Let's examine the claim that traditional marriage lacks support in the court of public opinion. As it always does when conservative issues are being debated, the liberal press produced a series of trumped-up polls indicating the issue was of no interest nationally. However, there was another "poll" that the media completely ignored. In fact, there were 19 of them. They represented the 19 states in which voters overwhelmingly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Not one state has chosen by popular vote to permit marriages between homosexuals. Support for the family has been affirmed in every instance.

In Mississippi, traditional marriage was approved by a whopping 86 percent majority. Other state votes registered similar wide margins: Nevada (70 percent), Arkansas (75 percent), Georgia (77 percent), Kentucky (75 percent), Louisiana (78 percent), Nebraska (70 percent), Missouri (71 percent), Montana (66 percent), North Dakota (73 percent), Ohio (62 percent), Michigan (59 percent), Oklahoma (76 percent), Utah (66 percent), Kansas (70 percent) and Texas (75 percent). Even states considered to be more liberal voted for traditional marriage, including Hawaii (69 percent), Alaska (68 percent) and Oregon (57 percent).

Indeed, on the day before 48 senators bailed on marriage, a 20th state voted on its own constitutional amendment. It was Alabama, which supported traditional marriage by 81 percent to 19 percent! A search of the database Nexis revealed that not one reference to this dramatic vote in Alabama was published in the print versions of The New York Times or The Washington Post. There was virtually no mention of the story in other national newspapers. Yet, each of them devoted considerable coverage to the Senate's defeat of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

CNN and the mainstream televised news networks uttered hardly a peep about the Alabama decision. [FOX News also gave it scant coverage.] Why was the issue buried? Because the "poll" in Alabama and 19 other states didn't match the template put forward by those who wanted the amendment to be crushed. Their bias against the family is breathtaking.

As for the senators who voted against the amendment, the excuses they gave were pitiful. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Sen. Judd Gregg, (R-N.H.), and many others thought they had the perfect alibi. They claimed that the issue should be handled at the state level. What hypocrisy!

All of these senators are smart enough to know that, first, it would create utter chaos to have 50 different definitions of marriage in one country, where every state is required by the Constitution to support the laws of the other 49. Come on, Senator McCain and company. You and your colleagues know better than that.

Second, senators wanting the states to define marriage are fully aware that the people will not be permitted to make their own decisions. Arrogant activist judges, most of them appointed by President Bill Clinton or President Jimmy Carter, will simply overturn the will of the electorate.

It has already happened in Nebraska, Georgia and Louisiana. Furthermore, nearly 20 cases in 10 states are currently pending that challenge the traditional definition of marriage. For example, a federal judge in Washington state is considering a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. And finally, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas, made it clear that he and his colleagues are likely to redefine marriage when given an opportunity.

The senators who voted against marriage this month knew exactly what they were doing. The truth is they don't give a hoot about the traditional family. The majority of them have voted repeatedly to weaken or undermine this great institution. Check the record.

Most of them consistently supported the marriage penalty tax, which for 32 years (1969 to 2001) imposed a heavier financial burden on moms and dads struggling to feed and nurture their children. Liberal senators are still trying to re-impose that outrageous election of a president who will fight for the surcharge even today.

So where does the issue go from here? Time will tell. It took William Wilberforce more than 30 years to bring about an end to Britain's slave trade in the 1800s. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of a protracted victory.

If the battle to protect marriage takes even five more years, liberal judges and activist will have destroyed this 5,000-year-old institution, which was designed by the Creator Himself. Even now, they are close to achieving the coveted objective.

I ask my fellow Americans to note the senators who did and did not defend marriage in its hour of need, and then to "vote their consciences" in 2006 and 2008. If large numbers of them do so, there could be some new faces in the Congress soon.

The angst of voters could also result in the election of a president who will fight for the preservation of the family. That would be sweet, indeed.

* * * * * * *

More than 4,000 emails were received by CNN on the first day after posting this editorial. The company provided many of these comments on its Web site. About half of them were in agreement and the rest were decidedly negative. The most vicious responses showed up on various other Web sites, as might be expected. I was called everything from a "homophobe" and "homobigot" to a "fat, old, poorly dressed white man who promotes bigotry and religious intolerance" to a "professional gay-hater" and someone who spreads "mendacious propaganda." One guy wrote a letter telling me he hoped I would have another stroke, and ended by suggesting that I "drop dead". Who would have believed just two or three decades ago that a person could be subjected to such hatred simply for believing in and defending traditional marriage?

It is clear that a significant portion of the U.S. Congress continues to disregard the welfare of the family. They left it twisting in the wind this summer. Here is the final tally for the Marriage Protection Amendment: In the U.S. Senate, 87 percent of Republicans voted in favor and 96 percent of Democrats voted against it. 5 In the House of Representatives, July 18, 202 of Republicans along with 34 Democrats voted yes and 159 Democrats along with 27 Republicans and one Independent voted no. 6 Politics aside, there's no doubt about which party is supportive of traditional marriage and which is not. It is very important for you to know how your individual legislators voted. You can find that information and much more on our Web site at www.citizenlink.org. I warn you, however, it is not a pretty picture.

Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.) admitted his disdain. He said, "This type of social agenda or social policy-making at the congressional level is of no interest to me. They may be successful in certain districts, but they certainly aren't successful in my district. My constituents are well-informed and well-educated and prepared to make a lot of these decisions themselves and they don't want the government to be involved. 7"

Fortunately, others disagree. Sam Brownback (R-KS), said, "If members of the United States Senate would vote as their states have voted on this amendment, the vote [would] be 90-10 in favor of this constitutional amendment." 8 The Senator is exactly right. The truth is that 48 Members of the Senate and 187 members of the House are woefully out of step with the American people.

Despite that distressing outcome in the nation's Capitol, it is my pleasure now to give you some very encouraging news that you may not have heard. Seven courts handed down rulings in the past month that were unexpected — and amazingly — supportive of marriage. Each of these decisions gave us reason to celebrate, as follows:

• New York's highest court ruled on July 6 that marriage will remain exclusively between one man and one woman. 9 We had been very concerned about the outcome of this case, because that court is one of the most liberal in the nation. Nevertheless, the vote was 4 to 2 for traditional marriage. What a shock!
  
• On the same day, the State Supreme Court of Georgia overturned a decision by a lower court that had invalidated a state constitutional amendment.10 The high Court ruled that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. So there were two highly significant victories within a few hours.
  
• On July 10, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in another remarkable decision, ruled that the people of that state could vote on the definition of marriage in 2008 if the legislature approves a constitutional amendment in both 2006 and 2007. 11 This was very good news from the only state in the nation to have authorized same-sex marriage to this point. Yet predictably, members of the Democrat controlled legislature delayed the vote until November 9 — two days after the general election. In other words, they didn't want to be held accountable for their position on Election Day. Still, the decision by the Supreme Judicial Court was most encouraging.
  
• The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Nebraska's marriage protection amendment, which had received support from 71 percent of the electorate in 2000. 12 Federal Judge Joseph Bataillon, a Clinton appointee, struck down the amendment in 2005. Conversely, the three judge panel that overturned his decision was appointed by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. This outcome demonstrates dramatically how critically important the appointment and confirmation of every federal judge has become. When you vote for a president or for a senator, you are also voting for the judges they will eventually support or oppose.
  
• In Tennessee, the State Supreme Court unanimously rejected the ACLU's attempt to block a statewide vote on a constitutional marriage amendment this November. 13 The ACLU, which claims to support basic Constitutional rights, tried again to keep citizens from having their say. Instead of ours being a government "of the people, by the people and for the people," the ACLU prefers that all the great moral issues be decided exclusively by liberal judges. This time, they bet on the wrong court.
  
• A trial judge in Connecticut rejected an attempt to redefine marriage. 14
• And finally, the Supreme Court in Washington state, by a 5-4 decision, affirmed traditional marriage, overturning a lower trial court's decision. In the majority opinion, the Justices said pointedly, "A judge's role when deciding a case . . . is to measure the challenged law against the constitution and the cases that have applied the constitution. Personal views must not interfere with the judge's responsibility to decide cases as a judge and not as a legislator. 15" In a concurring majority opinion, Justice Johnson wrote, "We conclude that the legislature was justified in enacting DOMA to clarify and reaffirm Washington marriage law by a compelling governmental interest in preserving the institution of marriage, as well as the healthy families and children it promotes. This conclusion may not be changed by mere passage of time or currents of public favor and surely not changed by courts. 16" Amen!

What a wonderful month it has been in the courts for the welfare of the family! But did you happen to hear about these developments on the nightly news? Were they strung together significantly in this way? I doubt it. The mainline media downplayed the importance of these rulings, or they editorialized against them. Even some Christian publications have been less than enthusiastic about the decisions. For example, Christianity Today, which increasingly leans toward liberal perspectives, couldn't resist sneering a bit about them. It carried this headline on its Web site, "Civilization saved from the brink of destruction." 17 What do you suppose the editors were trying to say by this headline? Were they suggesting that conservatives have overstated the threat of same-sex marriage? Why else would the editors use such a headline to make an editorial statement? I think we know the answers. A Focus staff member posed that question to an editor of Christianity Today and he received this reply: "Well, it was intended to be a short commentary on the way in which minor and technical actions like these two court decisions are often played up as momentous events for cultural war purposes." The effort to save marriage, mind you, is now a "minor and technical action" that is "played up!"

Click for larger image

Eventually, the people of the United States will yet have their say about what marriage is and is not. Liberals in the Congress will not be able to deny them forever, nor can the judiciary impose its will on so strong a force. Yes, we can expect opposition and disappointments along the way. But the tide is turning. So long as Americans continue to educate themselves about this issue and learn the truth from alternative media, the ranks of citizens supporting a federal marriage protection amendment will grow.

The passage of a Constitutional amendment is almost always a complex and lengthy process. It can take many years to accomplish. Focus on the Family will continue to make every effort to keep our friends informed about all aspects of family life. We have been working hard to accomplish that goal in recent years. In the weeks leading up to the June vote in the Senate, for example, we ran radio and newspaper ads and sent frequent e-mail updates to our supporters. I'm grateful to the many Focus friends who gave us the resources to fight this battle. Thank you for that support, and for letting your voices be heard in the nation's Capitol. Your congressmen and senators got the message, but some chose to ignore it. The beauty of our representative form of government is that we can hold our elected leaders accountable when they let us down.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the most important thing you or I can do now is to pray for the family. It needs all the friends it can get. We must also continue to intercede on behalf of the country at large. It is facing enormous dangers now, at home and abroad, and we must ask the Lord to protect and bless this great nation. Finally, we at Focus on the Family would appreciate you remembering us in prayer as we attempt to defend the things we all believe. And as you know, your financial help keeps us on the cutting edge of the culture.

Let us hear from you when time permits.

Sincerely,

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Founder and Chairman

P.S. I hope you'll consider joining me in Washington, D.C., for the Washington Briefing: Values Voter Summit on September 22-24, 2006. This inaugural event is sure to be an essential gathering for anyone who cares about the moral direction of our country. A number of national leaders, policy makers and pundits will be speaking in addition to me, including such invited guests as Sens. George Allen, Sam Brownback and Bill Frist. Also invited are Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Gary Bauer, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Bill Bennett and Peggy Noonan to name just a few. You'll also have the opportunity to participate in breakout sessions that will equip you to more effectively defend your values in the arena of public policy. For more information, please see the enclosed flyer. To register for the briefing, please visit frcaction.org or call 888-372-2284. I look forward to seeing you there!

ENDNOTES

1. Politically Correct History," The Los Angeles Times, 9 May 2006, p. B12.
2. "California History; What's Sexual Preference Got to Do With It?" The Sacramento Bee, 8 May 2006, p. B4.
3. "RA Action: News From the NEA Annual Meeting," nea.org, 6 July 2006.
4. See: family.org/cforum/briefs/a0041176.cfm
5. Carl Hulse, "Senate Rebuffs Same-Sex Marriage Ban," The New York Times, 8 June 2006, p. A20.
6. Kate Zernike, "House GOP Lacks Votes for Amendment Banning Gay Marriage," The New York Times, 19 July 2006, p. A1.
7. Jim Kuhnhenn, "GOP Agenda Aims to Motivate Loyal Voters," Associated Press, 19 July 2006.
8. The Abrams Report, MSNBC, 7 June 2006.
9. Amy Goldstein, "Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Out in New York, Georgia; Courts Back Man-Woman Couples," The Washington Post, 7 July 2006, p. A4.
10. Ibid.
11. "Massachusetts Court Clears Way to Ban Same-Sex Marriage," The Associated Press, 11 July 2006.
12. Kevin O'Hanlon, "Gay-Marriage Opponents Win in Court in Two States," Washington Post, 15 July 2006, p. A3.
13. Ibid.
14. Susan Haigh, "Judge Rules Gay Couples Not Harmed by Civil Unions Law," Connecticut Post Online, 14 July 2006.
15. Supreme Court of the State of Washington, Docket Number 75934-1, Majority Opinion, 26 July 2006.
16. Ibid.
17. See: christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/127/41.0.html