The Battles Ahead

January 2006

Dear Friends:

Ronald Reagan once said, "Every new day begins with possibilities. It's up to us to fill it with things that move us toward progress and peace." 1 I believe that statement holds great relevance for each one of us as we kick off 2006 and consider what lies ahead in the effort to defend families and promote biblical values in our culture. The concept of "New Year's resolutions" has become a bit of a cliché, but I genuinely believe that the upcoming 12 months hold promising opportunities for those of us who are willing to stand up in support of traditional principles whenever the opportunity arises.

The year 2005 ended with a number of encouraging signs that the pendulum of public opinion — particularly as it relates to homosexual activism — continues to swing in our direction. At the end of November, the Swedish Supreme Court cleared a Pentecostal minister in that country of committing "hate crimes" against homosexuals. The charge was initially made not because the pastor, Ake Green, was inciting violence against gays or expressing personal animosity toward them. Rather, his "crime" was simply proclaiming, during a 2003 sermon, that homosexual behavior is condemned in Scripture and detrimental to society.

For stating this view, which is shared by millions of people of faith all over the world, Pastor Green earned the distinction of being the first clergyman to be convicted under Sweden's sweeping "hate crimes" legislation. He bravely appealed the ruling, and it was eventually overturned by an appeals court. However, Sweden's chief prosecutor appealed the acquittal to the Supreme Court. Amazingly, the court ruled in Pastor Green's favor, arguing that the "offending" sermon was protected by freedom of speech and religion under the European Convention on Human Rights. 2 It isn't often that the European courts — and particularly those in an ultraliberal nation such as Sweden — rule in favor of those who espouse biblical values. Although Pastor Green's victory may be an isolated case, it is encouraging nonetheless.

In contrast to Europe, support for traditional marriage in the United States is not confined to a few isolated corners of the continent. In fact, it is more clear than ever that the majority of American citizens believe that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman. In every state where this question has been allowed to be decided by the people — rather than by unelected, unaccountable judges — the traditional definition of marriage was upheld. In November, Texas, by an overwhelming 3-to-1 margin, became the 19th state to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

A recent column in the Daily Texan helped to explain this phenomenon. The author, James Burnham, wrote: "Texas has now become the 19th state to pass a marriage amendment. This is quite a large number of states where such acts have passed by staggering margins. It has passed in Republican states and also in Democratic ones. Deep blue Hawaii passed such an amendment with 69.2 percent in favor and Oregon passed theirs with 57 percent supporting. One wonders, then, why is it that people as diverse as Hawaiians and Mississippians feel compelled to preclude homosexual marriage constitutionally? The answer lies in judicial overreaching and the usurpation of democratic law making." 3

Mr. Burnham's analysis is right on the money. We know, of course, that a majority of Americans support traditional marriage as a matter of principle. The motivating factor in their taking this issue to the federal courts, however, has been the alarming tendency of our nation's judiciary to create new laws regarding homosexuality and to impose them on the populace. With regard to the issue of gay marriage, this process began with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case. That decision provided the foundation for a subsequent ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that legalized "gay marriage" in that state. Now, homosexual activists are looking to the courts to side with them in imposing "gay marriage" on a number of states, particularly those that do not yet have marriage amendments in place.

The courts' role in advancing the radical homosexual agenda is only the tip of the iceberg, of course. The judicial branch of the government — which was created to interpret existing statutes rather than to create and impose new laws — is responsible for eroding a number of important American values and principles, from religious freedom and parental rights to the sanctity of human life and the freedom of speech.

Perhaps the most egregious offender is the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. If you've listened to the "Focus on the Family" radio broadcast or read my letters over the past couple of years, you're probably already familiar with this particularly leftist group of judges. It was the 9th Circuit, under the leadership of Stephen Reinhardt, that handed down the infamous 2002 decision declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it contains the words "under God." Mr. Reinhardt and his cronies on the 9th Circuit are responsible for countless rulings designed to remove all vestiges of God from public life, strip parents of the right to train and educate their children, among other grievances.

The most recent example of the 9th Circuit's audacity came late last year, when the court ruled that public schools in California had the right to teach children anything that administrations and boards deem appropriate, without parental supervision or consent. The case in question involved an explicit "sex survey" given, without parental permission, to third and fifth graders in the Golden State. The survey asked children for their thoughts on "touching themselves," "touching other people's private parts," "thinking about having sex" and so on. In any other context, discussing such topics with children, without the consent or involvement of their parents, would be considered child abuse. However, the 9th Circuit upheld this perverse practice as a "right" and overrode the objections of parents. It was an outrageous decision, but one consistent with the ultraliberal record of the 9th Circuit.

In his decision, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said, "Parents have a right to inform their children when and as they wish on the subject of sex. [Thanks so much, Sir.] They have no constitutional right, however, to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so." What an arrogant, shocking statement! When discussing this issue on the "Focus on the Family" radio program, Focus board member and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Al Mohler aptly noted that the 9th Circuit's decision was akin to a dictatorial pronouncement out of communist China or "a bad dream from the Soviet Union." Indeed, during the dark years of communist rule in the U.S.S.R., children were encouraged to become agents of the state against their parents. The Soviet government claimed the exclusive right to educate children, and would take them out of the home if necessary in order to do so. The 9th Circuit's decision was chilling in its totalitarian overtones, and yet few people seemed to notice or care.

It's worth noting at this point that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned court in America. From 1990 to 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a full 73 percent of the 9th Circuit's rulings that they heard, compared to an average of 46 percent for the other circuit courts. And in 1997 alone, an astonishing 27 of the 9th Circuit's 28 rulings heard by the Supreme Court were overturned, with nearly two-thirds of those reversals coming from unanimous vote! Clearly, something has gone terribly awry at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Reinhardt and his colleagues were appointed to lifelong positions on the court, and therefore cannot be "voted out" of office. However, our Congress holds the constitutional authority to rein in not only Judge Reinhardt, but also other justices who are intent on legislating from the bench. The time has come for them to do so!

Although the 9th Circuit in San Francisco is perhaps the most left-leaning appellate court in the United States, it is hardly the only one. Since the 1970s, there has been a disturbing trend throughout the federal judiciary to usurp parental rights and to limit religious freedom. The campaign began in earnest when judges began handing down decisions that granted children the "right" to obtain abortions without their parents' approval or knowledge. Whether by creating a constitutional "right" to abortion (as the Supreme Court did on Jan. 22, 1973), removing all references to God and the Christian religion from public life, or seeking to redefine or eliminate altogether the institution of the family as it has been celebrated and understood for millennia, our nation's courts have slowly but surely chipped away at our nation's moral foundation.

The issue of judicial tyranny is particularly important this month, as the Senate holds confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. As of this writing, the hearings have yet to take place. However, by the time you read this letter, they may be underway, or will perhaps have already concluded. Either way, the battle over Judge Alito's nomination is expected to be fierce. Some pundits believe the leftist Democrats [Kennedy, Schumer, Reid, Clinton, Durbin, Leahy, etc.] will attempt a filibuster to get their way.

The mounting concern among members of the liberal establishment over Judge Alito's nomination is a strong indicator that he is a nominee about whom conservative Christians should be enthusiastic. Certainly, his judicial record to date and his vast experience make him one of the most outstanding Supreme Court nominees in memory. Samuel Alito has a 30-year history of public service, working as an assistant U.S. attorney, assistant to the solicitor general, deputy assistant attorney general and U.S. attorney for the district of New Jersey. He was appointed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when he was only 39 years old, and was confirmed to that position by a 100 percent vote in the Senate. All told, Judge Alito has served on the bench for more than 15 years and has, during that time, issued hundreds of opinions. In terms of sheer credentials, he has had more judicial experience than 105 of the 109 Supreme Court justices in U.S. history!

Most importantly, Samuel Alito is, without question, a judicial conservative, which means that he will interpret the Constitution as it was originally written and understood, rather than endeavor to rewrite it or ignore it altogether. We have every reason to believe that, as a Supreme Court justice, Judge Alito will consider modern legal questions in light of the enduring text of the U.S. Constitution.

Late last year, professor Robert George, a graduate of Harvard Law School and professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, appeared on the Focus radio program to discuss Judge Alito's nomination. He said at the time: "The pro-life and pro-family movement has never asked for anything more when it came to judicial appointments than that the person appointed be a true constitutionalist — someone who would respect the law as written, as handed down by the framers and ratifiers of our Constitution — and not substitute his own independent political views for those that are embodied in the Constitution. And Sam Alito is that kind of judge. He is just what the doctor ordered." I can't think of a more ringing endorsement than that!

Nevertheless, liberal Senators and political action groups are pulling out all the stops to ensure that Judge Alito never makes it past the confirmation process. Already the wolves are closing in for the kill. Late last year, when asked about the Left's efforts to oppose the nomination of Judge Alito, a senior Capitol Hill staffer reportedly stated, "Not just pushback, we really want the knives to come out." 4 Around the same time, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) asked the staff members for several of his liberal colleagues to work with "outside groups" such as the National Abortion Rights Action League and People for the American Way in opposing Alito. Apparently, Senator Reid was asking these extremist groups to do the Democrats' "dirty work," in much the same way they did when attacking Judges Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.

The Left's bitter opposition to Samuel Alito reveals a glaring inconsistency, particularly among Senate Democrats. As I have already noted, when Alito was nominated to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, he received a 100 percent approval rating from the Senate. Now, many of the same senators who voted in his favor feel he is somehow "unfit" to serve on the Supreme Court. Ted Kennedy, for example, praised Samuel Alito in 1990, commending him for his long service in the public interest. Recently, however, Senator Kennedy has changed his tune dramatically, suggesting that Judge Alito has a "troubling record" and that his nomination to the Supreme Court was "based on weakness, not strength." 5

Ken Salazar, the Democratic Senator from Colorado, experienced a similar turnaround in the wake of Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. In 1999, he told the Rocky Mountain News that he was opposed to hiring quotas. However, this year he told the same newspaper that he had concerns about Samuel Alito, based in part on "a 1985 job application in which Alito said ‘racial and ethnic quotas' should not be allowed." 6 This isn't the first time that Senator Salazar has "flip-flopped" his position since being elected to the Senate. During his 2004 campaign, he indicated his support for "an up-or-down vote in the full Senate on judicial nominees." 7 However, soon after being elected senator, he joined his Democratic colleagues in Washington in their efforts to obstruct the president's judicial nominees and to hijack the process at every turn. While Senator Salazar never admitted to breaking his campaign promise, he was at least honest enough to concede that his position on up-or-down votes for all judicial nominees had "changed" since coming to Washington. 8 No kidding! [The enclosed insert is an example of an advertisement Focus Action ran in Colorado urging citizens to hold the senator accountable to the campaign promise he made.]

This political maneuvering by the liberal Democrats — along with the cutthroat efforts of liberal groups to derail Samuel Alito before the confirmation hearings even begin — shows us just what is at stake. With the majority of Americans on the side of traditional values and morality, and with Republicans holding sway in the White House and both houses of Congress, the Left realizes that the courts — and especially the Supreme Court — are the primary means remaining to impose its immoral agenda on America. Therefore, the Left is endeavoring to convince the American people that Samuel Alito is somehow "radical" in his views. As Focus on the Family Vice President Tom Minnery has previously pointed out, consider some of the "radical" decisions he is likely to make if confirmed to the court:

• Nativity scenes are proper for public display at Christmas.
• Marriage should be between one man and one woman.
• Our national motto, "In God We Trust," is constitutional, as are the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
• Voluntary prayers at public events and in public schools are constitutional.
• Limits on abortion are constitutional.

Again, every one of these "radical" views is shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans!

The makeup of the Supreme Court will determine how the critical moral issues facing our nation are decided — not only now, but for generations to come. The decisions the Court makes now may well determine whether our children grow up in a country that embraces the values of our founding fathers, or descends further into a quagmire in which parental rights are stripped away, religious expression in the public square is forbidden, the traditional understandings of marriage and family are eliminated, and helpless babies in the womb continue to be slaughtered through abortion-on-demand.

With these thoughts in mind, it is absolutely critical that you make your voice heard about the confirmation of Judge Alito. Please call your senators and encourage them to allow the confirmation hearings to proceed so that Judge Alito can receive the up-or-down vote that he deserves. You might also consider contacting Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), who is the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let him know that you expect him to take the lead in ensuring that Senate liberals do not allow the confirmation process to descend into chaos! For information on contacting your elected leaders, log on to our Web site at www.citizenlink.org.

Before closing, I'd also like to offer a reminder that January is Sanctity of Human Life Month. I hope you'll consider taking part in an observance in your church or community as we reflect on the tragic legacy of abortion in the United States. It is not possible to undo the damage that has been done since the Supreme Court's fateful decision in 1973, or to regain the 43 million lives — and counting — that have been lost during that time. However, by working to influence the makeup of the Supreme Court and reform the judiciary, perhaps there will come a day when abortion, like slavery, will be seen as a sinister, dark stain on our nation's history, rather than a present reality. I pray that day will come soon.

Sincerely,

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

P.S. Although January can often be a "lean" time of the year for many families, I hope you'll prayerfully consider supporting Focus on the Family Action, if it is at all possible for you to do so. Those who are opposed to our cause are earnestly raising support for their own efforts to impose a godless agenda on America. For example, The Denver Post recently reported that homosexual activist Tim Gill, a multimillionaire and "philanthropist," has formed a political nonprofit group "to get more involved in candidate races and fight constitutional amendments barring gay marriage." 9 Mr. Gill has said that one of his goals is to develop strategies for "punishing the wicked," which, in his case, means anyone who is opposed to gay marriage.

Clearly, we need all the help we can get if we are to counter this relentless assault from the far Left. The coming year promises to be incredibly hectic, with many more state marriage amendments on the ballot, another vote in the Senate on the federal marriage amendment, voter registration and education projects nationwide and, of course, the Alito confirmation. If you feel led to come alongside us as we confront these issues head-on, we'd love to hear from you.

ENDNOTES

1. See: http://www.cybernation.com/quotationcenter/quoteshow.php?type=author&id=7449
2. Karl Ritter, "Sweden's Highest Court Acquits Pentecostal Pastor Accused of Hate Speech Against Gays," Associated Press, 29 Nov. 2005.
3. James Burnham, "A Result of Judicial Activism," University of Texas Daily Texan, 10 Nov. 2005.
4. "Dirty Work?", Tony Perkins' Washington Update, 6 Dec. 2005.
5. Michael Kranish, "Battle Likely Over New Court Pick," Boston Globe, 1 Nov. 2005; "Quotable: Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito," Deseret Morning News, 1 Nov. 2005.
6. Rocky Mountain News, 18 Nov. 2005.
7. Ibid.
8. Jon Sarche and Colleen Slevin, "Salazar Backs off ‘Anti-Christ Comment,'" Associated Press, 28 April 2005.
9. Eric Gorski, "Benefactor's Group to Fight Effort to Ban Gay Marriage," The Denver Post, 6 Dec. 2005, pp. 1, 3.