Federal Appeals Court Hands Victory to Religious Colleges, Commands HHS to Act Quickly to Fix Mandate

For Immediate Release: December 18, 2012

Washington, D.C. — Today, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. handed Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College a major victory in their challenges to the HHS mandate.  Last summer, two lower courts had dismissed the Colleges’ cases as premature.

Today, the appellate court reinstated those cases, and ordered the Obama Administration to report back every 60 days—starting in mid-February—until the Administration makes good on its promise to issue a new rule that protects the Colleges’ religious freedom.  The new rule must be issued by March 31, 2013.

“The D.C. Circuit has now made it clear that government promises and press conferences are not enough to protect religious freedom,” said Kyle Duncan, General Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who argued the case.  “The court is not going to let the government slide by on non-binding promises to fix the problem down the road.”

The court based its decision on two concessions that government lawyers made in open court. First, the government promised “it would never enforce [the mandate] in its current form” against Wheaton, Belmont Abbey or other similarly situated religious groups.  Second, the government promised it would publish a proposed new rule “in the first quarter of 2013” and would finalize it by next August. The administration made both concessions under intense questioning by the appellate judges.  The court deemed the concessions a “binding commitment” and has retained jurisdiction over the case to ensure the government follows through.

“This is a win not just for Belmont Abbey and Wheaton, but for all religious non-profits challenging the mandate,” said Duncan. “The government has now been forced to promise that it will never enforce the current mandate against religious employers like Wheaton and Belmont Abbey and a federal appellate court will hold the government to its word.”

While the government had previously announced plans to create a new rule, it has not yet taken the steps necessary to make that promise legally binding. Lower courts dismissed the colleges’ cases while the government contemplated a new rule, but the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the cases should stay alive while it scrutinizes whether the government will meet its promised deadlines. The court acted quickly, issuing Tuesday’s order just days after hearing lengthy arguments.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty  is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 18 years its attorneys have been recognized as experts in the field of church-state law. The Becket Fund recently won a 9-0 victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

###

Additional Information

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Order (December 18, 2012)

Becket Fund’s Appeal Brief (October 5, 2012)

Wheaton College Case Page (Legal Documents, Images, Resources, FAQ’s)

Belmont Abbey College Case Page (Legal Documents, Images, Resources, FAQ’s)

HHS Information Central (all 42 HHS cases, interactive map, resources, legal documents, FAQ’s, and more)

Germany to Ban Sex with Animals

Zoophiles are threatening action against the government if it proceeds with a bestiality ban. Photo: Heath Missen

Germany plans to ban the practice of people having sex with animals, sparking a threat of legal action from a group of "zoophiles," a newspaper reported on Monday.

The government plans to toughen animal protection laws - which currently only prohibit the practice if the animal is injured - with fines of 25,000 euros ($A31,250), reported the daily Taz.

The Bundestag's agriculture committee will discuss the amendment on Wednesday. It plans to send the measure to parliament by mid-December, said the report, citing committee chairman Hans-Michael Goldmann.

The group Veterinarians against Zoophilia says thousands of Germans exchange information online about sex with animals and that some farms rent out animals for sexual exploitation.

Advertisement

The new law would also ban such animal brothels and the training of animals for sex with humans.

The group Zoophiles for Ethical Treatment of Animals plans to take legal action against the amendment, its chairman, Michael Kiok, was quoted as telling the newspaper.

"Perceptions of morality have no place in law, especially if they are so hypocritical," said Kiok, who told the paper he lives with Cessie, an eight-year-old female dog.

Read More at SMH.com.au

The Case for Man/Woman Marriage

Brian Brown talks DOMA, Prop 8 & Gay Marriage on the Mike Huckabee Show

The myth of Inevitability

Public opinion, the methods and messaging of LGBT activists, and social reality all converge on a simple fact: marriage is worth fighting for and we can win.

Election Day was a drubbing for marriage in the United States. The ballot initiatives to protect marriage lost by over 4% in Maine, Minnesota, Washington State, and Maryland. Those who support same-sex “marriage” reportedly spent over $33 million, while those who defend marriage spent just over $10 million.

Many friends have said that same-sex marriage is inevitable. It is not. I have confidence that fence-sitters will enter the fray in support of traditional marriage. As we continue to debate this issue, three important forces can shift the outcome in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Consider first, public opinion; second, the methods and the message of LGBT activists; and third, reality.

Public Opinion Gives Marriage a Fighting Chance

The American public offers differing levels of assent to same-sex marriage, depending on how the survey questions are worded. Psychologically, it matters how questions are asked. Consider these facts:

1. Data from the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) shows 24% of the young-adult population on the fence, saying they’re “not sure” when asked whether “it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry in America.” There’s more support than antagonism, but not a majority on either side, given the nearly one-quarter who remain on the sidelines.

2. A national post-election survey conducted on Election Day by The Polling Company, Inc., showed that 60% of American voters agree that “marriage is between one man and one woman,” while only 34% disagree. Another poll two months earlier showed that 57% were in agreement.

3. After their Election Day victories, same-sex marriage advocates stated that they will continue to prioritize expanding the legal recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages through legislatures and the courts, not through public vote. This is a continuation of their past policy that avoided putting the issue up for a direct citizen vote (the ballot initiatives in Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota were initiated by supporters of traditional marriage; only Maine was their choice to repeal our side’s ballot measure of 2009). This indicates their lack of confidence in their ability to get enough votes.

4. Six New York state senators were ousted from office after they abandoned their constituents to vote in favor of same-sex marriage. Five of those senators lost their re-election bids this year, in large part due to their change of position on marriage; the sixth retired rather than face re-election.

5. “Third Day,” a Democratic organization’s own survey revealed that on a scale of 0 – 10, with 10 being the most in favor, 26% labeled themselves 9 – 10 in favor of same-sex marriage, compared to 30% who said they were 0 -1; 44% were somewhere in the middle. Only 32% said they would be glad if same-sex couples could marry; 37% said that would not be acceptable.

Despite large sums spent—as happened this November when gay activists spent a whopping $33 million—the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman continues to hold sway; and, no matter how hard activists try, it seems impossible to strip it away from the human heart of a very substantial portion of people. It is the reality of common sense deeply embedded in the human heart. 

Methods and Message

Efforts by the LGBT movement to make school curricula more sympathetic to the gay agenda continue to raise concerns among parents. So much so that leaders of the LGBT movement have had to adjust. In the November 7 article in Slate, titled “How Marriage Finally Won at the Polls,” Nathaniel Frank explains how the coalition of LGBT activists working to pass gay marriage in Maine and Maryland revised their message strategy to counter the “Princess” ad prepared by Frank Schubert. Here is what Nathaniel Frank writes:

'Thalia Zepatos of Freedom To Marry, who oversees the coalition’s messaging research, describes another revelation from the data. Schubert’s misleading “princess” ads implied that schools could usurp the role of parents in teaching pro-gay values, but that was wrong. As Zepatos and her team pored over the research, they watched conversations in which voters spoke among themselves and kept circling back to the same insight: Parents are the parents, and they teach their kids values at home. The challenge, Zepatos and her colleagues determined, was to reassure voters about this conclusion. Parents knew they had the control, but the Schubert ads—which in the past have killed a pro-gay lead in the polls at the last minute—made them anxious about losing it.'

LGBT activists have had to go out of their way to reassure parents they are in charge of teaching values to their children, given the powerful evidence provided by Schubert, and experienced by many parents.

A 2011 Research Report issued by the Democratic think tank Third Way, and used to develop the 2012 campaign to win the state ballot initiatives, stated among its six key findings that: “It is crucial to include reaffirmation of religious liberty protections as a significant part of supporters’ message framework.” And as the public is aware, it is increasingly being proclaimed by politicians working to pass gay marriage that religious liberty protections are being provided.

But this is misleading. As Jane Robbins and Emmett McGroarty show in their Public Discourse article “Mandating Our Religious Freedom,” the current Progressive movement, of which LGBT activists are a core constituency, is clearly moving in the opposite direction. And in a more recent Public Discoursearticle “A War on Religion?” Bruce Hausknecht provides examples contrary to the message LGBT leaders are now using to win.

Continue Reading at Mercator.Net

The Absurdity of Institutionally-Supported Campus Conversation on Sex has Just Reached a New Level

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

University of Saskatchewan issues campus safety alert over ‘truth about homosexuality’ pamphlets

BY THADDEUS BAKLINSKI

• Mon Dec 10, 2012 16:18 EST

SASKATOON, Saskatchewan, December 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The administration of the University of Saskatchewan issued a campus-wide safety advisory last week in reaction to a pro-life activist distributing pamphlets exposing the harms of homosexuality to students and staff.

U of S officials sent out the advisory on Thursday morning, according to a local newspaper report, after pro-life and anti-homosexuality activist Bill Whatcott spent Wednesday, December 5, at the school handing out flyers titled “Say No to the Homosexual Agenda!”

Bill Whatcott

The flyer lists some of the health consequences related to sodomy and defends the Christian perspective of sex and marriage.

This flyer, along with another titled “Say No to Abortion!” are part of Whatcott’s “Operation Education on Abortion and Sodomy” campaign.

“I became aware of the University of Saskatchewan’s decision to issue a campus wide safety alert over my flyers after I received a call from the CBC,” Whatcott told LifeSiteNews.

“My understanding of campus safety alerts, is they are usually for serious issues such as potential sexual predators or school shooters, not someone handing out flyers.”

U of S associate vice-president of student affairs David Hannah told the local paper that school officials were aware that Whatcott was within his rights of free speech to hand out the flyers, but were worried that some students or faculty might need counselling after reading Whatcott’s flyers.

“Based on our understanding of the law, this individual has the legal right to distribute his views and so we didn’t do anything to stop him,” Hannah said.

Earlier this year the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench upheld a lower court decision that acquitted Whatcott of trespassing charges for distributing “Truth about homosexuality” pamphlets at the University of Calgary in 2008.

In 2010 Whatcott won an appeal in Saskatchewan when Justice Darla Hunter of Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal overturned a 2006 Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ruling that found him guilty of violating the province’s human rights code by publicly criticizing homosexuality through a series of flyers he distributed in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002.

“The precedents set in Alberta and Saskatchewan will make it almost impossible for any university in Canada to secure a conviction against a pro-lifer who speaks up on campus,” said Whatcott.

Whatcott said that the University of Saskatchewan “hasn’t changed its desire to censor free speech on pro-life issues,” but pointed out that as a result of the court decisions, “They know that if they arrest me, they’ll be on the receiving end of a lawsuit. That is why they did nothing to stop the distribution of the flyers but instead put out a campus safety alert.”

Repeated requests to David Hannah for comment on what safety concerns Whatcott’s flyers presented were not returned by press time.

Contact information:

University of Saskatchewan
David Hannah, Associate Vice President, Student Affairs
Phone: 306-966-8710
Email: sesd-avp@usask.ca

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/university-of-saskatchewan-issues-campus-safety-alert-over-truth-about-homo