Looking Back, Looking Ahead

Dear Friends,

What a privilege it is to address you as we begin this exciting New Year. The month of January always brings with it a certain air of expectancy and hope — but not in many years has there been such optimism among those of us in the conservative Christian movement. President George W. Bush has been returned to office, after promising during the long campaign to support the institution of marriage, to defend the sanctity of human life, to reduce the tax burden on families, to promote abstinence over condom distribution and to appoint judges who will interpret the law and not arrogantly create it. President Bush, as much as any Chief Executive in recent memory, appears to be guided not primarily by public opinion polls, but according to a set of deeply held moral beliefs and values. He explained the origin of that system of values during his first presidential campaign when he said Jesus Christ had influenced him more than any other person.1

We also have reason to be excited about what is happening in the legislative branch of government. Both Houses of Congress are now led by conservative Christians who share many of the same convictions as the President, and seem prepared to fight for the preservation of the family. This is truly a remarkable time in American history, even though the federal budget is out of control, the war in Iraq still rages and the battle for the culture is far from over.

I know from my conversations and correspondence with many of you that there was widespread anxiety about our country prior to the election. Shirley and I shared that concern. It was not because we favored a Republican as opposed to a Democrat in the White House. Rather, it was because the two major candidates and their parties were at opposite ends of the universe on the social issues that matter most. Sen. Kerry voted six times against the ban on the horrible procedure known as partial-birth abortion,2 and opposed laws requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortions.3 He also opposed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which declared the humanity of babies injured or killed in assaults on their mothers, now known as "the Laci Peterson law."4 Sen. Kerry opposed a constitutional amendment to protect marriage from imperious federal judges who would redefine this foundational institution. 5 And he voted repeatedly to continue the "marriage penalty tax," one of the most unfair and anti- family laws to come out of Congress.

There was more. The linchpin of the election was the future make-up of the United States Supreme Court. Every other social concern is linked directly to it. Given the likelihood that the new President would nominate from two to four new Justices in the next four years, the prospect of an ultra-liberal judiciary resulting from a Kerry presidency was deeply disturbing to many of us. There was even speculation, whether rational or not, that Sen. Hillary Clinton could have become the next Chief Justice. And given the fact that current members of the Supreme Court have served an average of 18 years (the last four retiring justices served an average of 28!) the Constitution itself could have been virtually reinterpreted in that period by leftist Justices who do not see it as the foundation for all our laws. 6 During Justice Anthony Kennedy’s confirmation hearings in 1988, Senator Edward Kennedy [D-MA] assured the country that this now 16-year veteran of the court did not consider the Constitution to be "a fossil frozen in the past." 7 In other words, Justices can just make it up as they go along!

These and other concerns apparently motivated vast numbers of people of faith to vote on November 2, and the vast majority of them supported George W. Bush. Twenty-six million Evangelicals cast their ballots, and more than 80 percent of them voted for the President. 8 Millions more conservative Catholics and mainline Protestants followed suit. More than any other issue, they said during exit interviews that values motivated their decisions to re-elect George W. Bush. 9 But what did they mean by that term? "Values" is a neutral word that tells us very little about those who refer to it. Indeed, the news media and commentators have been collectively scratching their heads since the election in an attempt to understand what actually happened.

Let me try to interpret the meaning of the "values" response from people of faith. I am convinced that a driving force in this national election was apprehension about the moral freefall occurring in the popular culture. Our society has become increasingly crude, rude, profane, adolescent-silly and hyper-sexualized. And surprisingly, the Kerry campaign embraced this darker side of Americana with relish. A low point occurred at New York City’s Radio City Music Hall in July, when many Hollywood superstars came together for an anti- Bush bash. It was a wild scene. Singer John Mellencamp called our President a "thug," actress Jessica Lange called the current administration a "regime of deceit, hypocrisy and belligerence" — and actor Chevy Chase said Harvard MBA-schooled George W. Bush was as "bright as an egg timer." 10 Finally, Whoopi Goldberg stood at the microphone, swinging a bottle of wine and uttered a litany of sexually laden obscenities while referencing the President of the United States. 11 Sen. Kerry was there that night and said that the presenters "conveyed the heart and soul of our country." 12 That tone seemed to characterize the campaign.

Perhaps Barbra Streisand, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, Bruce Springsteen, Rob Reiner and Sean Penn are Sen. Kerry’s kind of people, but they do not represent the beliefs and aspirations of the majority of Americans. Nor do George Soros and his friends speak for mainstream citizens. Mr. Soros personally contributed 27 million dollars and his likeminded friends gave tens of millions more to unseat the President, but failed. 13 Their vision for this country is an anathema to people living in rural America. It’s encouraging to know that the heart and soul of our nation is just not for sale, no matter how many millions of dollars organizations might spend to promote ill-conceived ideas. Isn’t it interesting that the much touted McCain- Feingold legislation that was supposed to clamp down on "soft money" donations resulted in more than $350 million in contributions? As is often the case, Congress created a bigger mess while promising to solve a perceived problem. Nevertheless, the exorbitant spending by the left did not bring down President George W. Bush.

I can still see Michael Moore sitting in a press box at the Republican convention, with his scruffy beard and dirty baseball cap, vigorously smacking his gum and laughing derisively at the speeches being made. He did Senator Kerry no good among voters who said "values" made the difference. Yet there he was a few weeks earlier, joined at the hip with former President Jimmy Carter during the Democrat convention. Voters in the "red" states were obviously watching.

There is another issue that was even more influential in determining the outcome of the election. It was the campaign by homosexual activists and their friends in the media to legalize same-sex marriage. People of faith were alarmed, especially when the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decided to impose same-sex marriage on the legislature and the citizens of Senator Kerry’s home state. Because of the "full faith and credit" provision of the U.S. Constitution, that ruling had implications for the family in every state that hadn’t taken legal measures to protect itself. Without legal authority, goofy mayors and commissioners from San Francisco to New Jersey began sanctioning marriages for same-sex couples. The majority of Americans were shocked and outraged by the rapid succession of events. That set off a frantic effort to define marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman. And as is now apparent, those who appealed to the unelected and unaccountable courts to legalize same-sex "marriages" had miscalculated and overreached. Ultimately, Democrats paid a price for it. I am among those who believe the President would not have won re-election if it had not been for the power of this issue to drive conservative voters to the polls.

As the nation now knows, 11 states quickly placed constitutional amendments on the ballots in support of the traditional family. Every one of these measures won by huge margins. None was even close. In Mississippi, the result was a stunning 86 to 14 percent. 14 In liberal Oregon, where homosexual activists outspent defenders of marriage by three to one, the final vote was 57 to 43 percent. 15 When added to the six states that had already passed constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, beginning with Hawaii in 1998, 17 out of 17 victories for the traditional family have occurred. When the results from California are included, where a statewide proposition passed in 2000, the number is 18 out of 18. And don’t forget that the Congress passed its own Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which, predictably, Senator John Kerry voted against. 16 Even as I write, six or eight additional states are moving aggressively to pass their own constitutional amendments. Can there be any doubt that the majority of Americans DO NOT want imperious judges tampering with the traditional family — PERIOD!

Does this mean that the threat to marriage is over? Unfortunately, it does not. The power to override the desires of the people still resides with the courts. In one of the worst rulings ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, six current Justices in 2003 managed to "find" a right to sodomy in our Constitution. 17 That right wasn’t intended by our Founding Fathers, of course. It was created out of whole cloth. The aforementioned Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom I consider the most dangerous man in America, wrote for the majority that the Court had actually drawn inspiration from Canadian and European law in reaching its decision. 18 Furthermore, he signaled that the Court would look favorably on same-sex marriage when the proper case is presented to it. That should have been grounds for impeachment. The Court, as now constituted, seems determined to force its will on us when the moment is right. It must be stopped.

Abraham Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address that ours is a government "of the people, by the people and for the people." What a wonderful concept that is. But the power today has shifted away from that principle of democracy. Instead, power has been usurped and is held in the hands of a few arrogant judges who have taken it upon themselves to make all the great moral decisions of our time. That is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy — "government by the few."

Consider what happened in the state of Louisiana last fall when a constitutional amendment was placed before the electorate. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman prevailed by an astounding margin of 78 to 22 percent. 19 It was an overwhelming mandate from Louisianans. Nevertheless, a relatively insignificant district judge named William A. Morvant took it upon himself less than three weeks later to declare the election invalid. 20 Just like that, he overrode the will of the people! Nearly 80 percent of the electorate was not able to amend its own constitution. That is the way it is.

This pattern of judicial predominance over the people is hardly new. In the tragic case known as Roe v. Wade in 1973, five Justices on the U. S. Supreme Court overrode the laws of many states and made abortion legal for any reason or no reason. It has resulted in the deaths of more than 40 million babies to date. 21 The killing continues to this moment. Should not Americans in the various states have made a decision of such enormous significance? Should not their elected representatives have been involved? You know the answers. The Justices assumed the authority to force this culture of death on us, and they will do it again. They will redesign the family if given an opportunity to do so. They must not be allowed to destroy this great democracy, where the true power belongs to the governed and their elected representatives.

On November 29, 2004, the ruling establishing same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which chose to not accept the case. 22 This is a disturbing indication of the bias of this Court. It leans toward same-sex "marriage," and only a constitutional amendment will prevent it from legalizing it!

This is why the election was so vital to the future of this great nation. President Bush has an impressive record of appointing "strict constructionists" to the courts, and he has pledged to continue that policy. We will hold him to his word, but I am convinced he will keep it. If not, or if Democrats in the Senate try again to usurp the President’s constitutional authority by filibustering and preventing up or down votes on his nominees, there will be a battle of enormous proportions from sea to shining sea. Sen. Tom Daschle, [D-SD], who led those filibusters, was defeated in November. Getting out in front of his headlights may have cost him his seat in the Senate. Let his colleagues beware, especially those representing "red" and "purple" states. Many of them will be in the "bulls eye" the next time they seek re-election, including Ben Nelson [D-NE], Mark Dayton [D-MN], Robert Byrd [D-WV], Kent Conrad [D-ND], Jeff Bingaman [D-NM] and Bill Nelson [D-FL].

The importance of judicial reform explains why comments made by Sen. Arlen Specter, [R-PA], the day after the election were so inflammatory. He actually stood before the microphones at a victory celebration and made clear that he would try to block pro-life nominees to the Court. 23 As the likely Chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Specter would be in a position to frustrate the campaign promises made by the President himself, who had come to Pennsylvania more than 30 times to help him get re-elected. Some gratitude! During a debate with his Democrat challenger Rep. Joseph M. Hoeffe, Sen. Specter said he would not allow any "extremist" judges to be confirmed — directly challenging the President. 24 During his victory speech on Election night, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania was downright defiant and disrespectful. In full voice he declared that "The number one item on my agenda is to try to move the party to the center … I want to focus on the politics of inclusion." 25 "Center" is a code word for "pro-abortion." He further went on to declare abortion rights to be "inviolate" and even hurled a not-so-subtle insult at the cancer-stricken Chief Justice William Rehnquist and his conservative colleagues by saying there were no longer legal "giants" on the current Supreme Court. 26

Senator Specter’s statements ignited a tremendous response from our constituents who had just voted for the President. Thousands of calls to Senate offices were made at our request and the request of our friends in other organizations. One Senator said he has not received that volume of calls since the impeachment of Bill Clinton. As always, this genuine outpouring of citizen response had its effect. Suddenly, Senator Specter was in the center of a firestorm, and his selection as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee was in serious doubt. He began appearing on television talk shows claiming that he didn’t mean what he said when he said what he meant. I appeared on the "Hannity and Colmes" TV program, on George Stephanopoulos’ "This Week" show and on Fox News with Geraldo Rivera. It was what might be called a donnybrook.

The Senate leadership, especially our friend, Majority Leader Bill Frist, responded emphatically, and for a few days it appeared that Sen. Specter would not be selected. However, he eventually apologized and made numerous public promises in writing that he would in fact work for the President’s nominees and other assurances. Wise heads in the political process assure us that the best thing was to obtain these statements from Senator Specter and to have him head up the committee. We’ll see. I hope they are right, but you and I and many others will be watching to see that he lives up to his commitment. If he does, every single person who took action deserves thanks for helping put him in his place.

Of course, this unexpected confrontation reminded all of us that Christian and conservative Americans had won a battle, not the war. The enemies of morality will not stop and will not back off. The Left cannot and will not change. Right now they are working to impose "hate speech" restrictions on Americans which would make it unlawful to quote the Bible regarding homosexual acts, as has already happened in Canada and the Netherlands. An English professor at the University of North Carolina recently accused a student of "hate speech" because the young man said that as a Christian, he was "disgusted" by homosexual behavior. 27 At the same time, there has been a growing trend to shut down Christian student groups on various college campuses because of their "discriminatory" beliefs. Battles over religious freedom continue to rage at Gonzaga University in Washington, Penn State University, the University of Minnesota, University of Oklahoma and Southwest Missouri State University, to name just a few. Recently, several pro-family leaders and I met with key Congressional leaders about "hate speech" and other related anti-Christian legislation. I came away assured that our leaders understand what is at stake and will defend the principles on which they stand.

Still, they will not be successful if Christians fail to keep the pressure on their colleagues. These are the battles that lie ahead:

• The Federal Marriage Amendment must be brought up again and voted upon. Amending the Constitution is a difficult process, as it should be. The first time FMA was introduced in the Senate, a Democrat-led filibuster prevented a vote on the bill, yet it still obtained a respectable 48 votes on a procedural motion, 19 votes short of the two-thirds needed to pass the amendment. 28 For those who say that we should not put "marriage" in the Constitution, let me point out that if the Founding Fathers had ever thought there would someday be even a discussion about the definition of marriage, they would have put it in the original draft. To them, today’s battle to preserve marriage would have been literally unimaginable.



• Judicial appointments will figure large in 2005. Ten nominees have been blocked by liberal filibusters in the Senate. They need to be cleared and placed on the bench to handle the backlog of cases which are denying justice to litigants all across the country. We must be ready for that effort. Telephones, faxes, e-mails, letters, advertising, talk shows, editorials and face-to-face meetings, etc. will all be part of our arsenal as we attempt to influence the right outcome.



• There will be numerous judges who are standing for election this year and next. Too many bad judges are regularly re-elected because voters pay too little attention to the ideological beliefs of these candidates. We’re not willing to throw in the towel with regard to judges who simply do not understand that this is a nation that wants public morality protected, not rejected. Keep praying that we can find a way to make a difference in the judicial arena where so much of the misdirection of our nation is taking place.



• Many state legislatures will be dealing with family- related issues. Currently, the following states are planning to put marriage amendments on the ballot the next few years: North Carolina, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Florida, Wisconsin, Arizona and California.

Well, as we look back on the election of 2004 and look forward to the challenges ahead, I want to express my appreciation to so many of you who helped to shore up the institution of the family and defend the principles of righteousness this year. Some members of the media are crediting me with playing a key role in the last election. Michael Crowley of The New Republic called me "a Republican kingmaker." 29 Those comments are largely overstated and misplaced. Let me set the record straight. While I wish I could recognize everyone, here are some of the real heroes in motivating the participation of Christian voters in this past election:

• Countless Christian people prayed diligently for their country and its future this past year. Multiple millions of them came out to vote on November 2.



• Tens of thousands of pastors urged their people to register and then to vote on Election Day.



• Dr. Richard Land and Dr. Bobby Welch of the Southern Baptist Convention registered and educated perhaps a million people in anticipation of November 2.



• Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, traveled tirelessly during the run-up to the election, and organized three simulcasts that reached several million people with the truth.



• Gary Bauer, president of the Campaign for Working Families, joined with us in holding rallies in key states. Then Gary placed ads in newspapers and conducted many interviews that proved to be strategic.



• Dr. Ken Hutcherson, pastor of the Antioch Bible Church in Seattle, who had a vision for a Mayday for Marriage March on the Mall in Washington, D.C. More than 140,000 people came out and stood in the rain to show their support for the institution of marriage. Dr. Hutcherson still has a debt of $800,000 from the expenses associated with the event and I know he would appreciate your help. [See www.maydayformarriage.com] He played an important role at a key moment in the battle.



• The wonderful people who worked hard in 11 states to pass constitutional amendments in protecting traditional marriage deserve our gratitude. Many of those struggles were in battleground states. Phil Burress fought courageously in Ohio and prevailed despite a concerted legal challenge mounted against him and his co-laborers. In Oregon, Dr. Frank Damazio of City Bible Church in Portland, Tim Nashif, of the Defense of Marriage Coalition, and Michael Howden of the Oregon Family Policy Council fought back against what looked like overwhelming odds. Our appreciation is extended to these men and the many others who are just as deserving of acclaim.



• Bishop Wellington Boone traveled with our organization and helped to debunk the myth that homosexuality is linked to the civil rights movement. Wellington became a great friend during this time and revealed his great heart for the family and for morality in the culture.



• I also want to credit every member of the Arlington Group, who has been working together for more than a year on the issues that concern us most. These nearly 100 friends and colleagues hail from well over 50 separate organizations.

Finally, let me express my deepest appreciation to all of you for making it possible for Focus on the Family and Focus Action to be effective in the cultural battle. We introduced the new Focus Action ministry last May, not being sure how you would respond, since as a C4 organization, it is not possible to give tax-deductible receipts for contributions. But we needed this new organization to allow us the freedom to speak out on these vital issues. You were there for us, and we had the resources to go the distance. We were also concerned that gifts to Focus Action would limit ongoing contributions to the wider ministry of Focus on the Family. Once again, you stood by our side.

You should be heartened to know the impact you have had. If we can work together again this year, with your prayers and financial support, we can continue the good work that was so significantly begun last year. There is an opportunity for a new beginning in 2005. It is an opportunity that should not be wasted nor frittered away. I believe we can do things together that none of us could do alone. Your prayer and financial support for these organizations allows us to "be there," to take actions and speak out for important issues for families, and to open the door for people to hear about the life- saving message of Christ.

Let me say again two things that I have said over and over during this past election: First, without prayer and fasting by many, all of our other efforts would have been in vain. Second, as I continue to say, no matter how many ballot measures we pass, no matter how many constitutional amendments we support, no matter how many God-fearing and God-honoring women and men are elected and appointed to public office, until the hearts of the people change, we will not turn around this culture and restore our Biblical foundations. May we continue to collectively pray for this spirit of revival throughout America.

While we can never see all that is going on in and around our lives, I believe that we are called to try to make a difference and to do justice and show mercy to the best of our ability. Let us be faithful to that call on our lives and go forth with a glad heart in this great cause.

May God bless you and your family.

Sincerely,

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Founder and Chairman P.S. The IRS requires us to be very careful to track separately donations to Focus on the Family and Focus on the Family Action. If you are able to support the efforts of Focus Action in the public square, without limitations placed on our C3 organization, please indicate your desire to designate your gift specifically for Focus on the Family Action when you contact us. Whichever organization you may feel led to support — possibly even both — you have my deepest appreciation. ENDNOTES

1. Associated Press, 13 December 1999.
2. Kathryn Jean Lopez, "Life, Stats and Election Year Snow Jobs," National Review, 21 October 2004.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. David D. Kirkpatrick, "Gay Marriage Becomes a Swing Issue with Pull," The New York Times, 14 August 2004, p. A7.
6. Bruce Fein, "Electing the Supreme Court," The Washington Times, 14 September 2004, p. A16.
7. Larry Margasak, Associated Press, 3 February 1988.
8. Demian Bulwa, "A Church’s Role in GOP’s Win; Evangelicals Take Moral Message to Heart," San Francisco Chronicle, 8 November 2004, p. A9.
9. Ibid.
10. Glen Johnson, "Kerry Camp on the Defensive after Celebrities Bash Bush," The Boston Globe, 10 July 2004, p. A1.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. See: http://www.fecinfo.com.
14. David Crary, "Conservatives Cheer Gay Marriage Bans," Associated Press, 3 November 2004.
15. See: http:// election.citizenlink.org/templates/cuscitizenlink/ details.asp?id=28298&PID=195174&mast=
16. Bob Hohler, "Senate OK’s Ban on Gay Marriages," The Boston Globe, 11 September 1996, p. A1.
17. "The Supreme Court; Excerpts from Supreme Court’s Decision Striking Down Sodomy Law," The New York Times, 27 June 2003, p. A18.
18. Ibid.
19. Kevin McGill, "Louisiana Voters Approve Same-Sex Marriage Amendment; Opponents Promise Court Challenge," Associated Press, 19 September 2004.
20. "State Judge Rejects Gay Marriage Cab," Associated Press, 6 October 2004.
21. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Abortion Incidence," Table 1: Number of Reported Abortions, Abortion Rate and Abortion Ratio, U.S., 1973 — 1996, www.agi- usa.org/pubs/journals/3026398.html (Accessed 10 December 2002) Note: The most recent Guttmacher data for actual abortion statistics is from 1996. Thus, the 42 million abortion statistic is based upon available data and an extrapolation of trends for 1997-2002, approximated to be one million abortions per year. 2. Percentage based on above abortion data and birth statistics from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Births: Final Data for 2000, National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 5, 21 February 2002, Table 1, p. 27, www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/ nv sr50_05.pdf (10 December 2002). Births: Preliminary Data for 2001, National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No.10, 6 June 2002, Table 4, p. 11, www.media.cwfa .org , 18 January 2002. (Additional information at Operation Outcry: www.physici ansforlife.org.)
22. David D. Kirkpatrick and Katie Zezima, "Supreme Court Turns Down A Same-Sex Marriage Case," The New York Times, 30 November 2004, p. A20.
23. Lara Jakes Jordon, "Bush is Warned About Anti- Abortion Judges," Associated Press, 4 November 2004.
24. Carrie Budoff and Steve Goldstein, "Critics Say Specters Timing, Tone Set Off Political Firestorm," Philadelphia Inquirer, 9 November 2004, p. A1.
25. Amy Worden, Carrie Budoff, Steve Goldstein; Inquirer Staff Writers, "Caution: Specter Says President Has No Mandate," Philadelphia Inquirer, 4 November 2004, p. A1.
26. Ibid.
27. George Archibald, "Discrimination Against White Male Found," The Washington Times, 24 September 2004, p. A1.
28. Carl Hulse, "Senators Block Initiative to Ban Same- Sex Unions," The New York Times, 15 July 2004, p. A1
29. Michael Crowley, "James Dobson," Slate Magazine, 12 November 2004.