Tuesday’s Election Results For some conservatives, Tuesday’s elections across the country were a disappointment. I caution you to not read too much into these election results. No doubt, though, our work is cut out for us in the 2012 elections to register voters, educate voters, and turn out values voters.

I’ve been asked about the defeat of the “Personhood Amendment” in Mississippi. The intent of this amendment was to define life as beginning at conception and stop legalized abortion. Previously, Colorado had defeated a similar amendment twice. Nevada proponents are working to put the amendment on their next ballot.

While I support the goal behind “Personhood,” I join with many other national pro-life leaders and strategists in favoring a different approach in our efforts to protect preborn life and mothers. I do not consider the Mississippi results to be a setback for the pro-life movement. Rather, the pro-life movement continues to move forward with 86 new pro-life laws passing this year alone in states. Those laws are resulting in fewer abortions. Our U.S. House has a pro-life majority. Further, in recent years, more and more people continue to identify themselves as “pro-life” instead of “pro-choice.” The dream of living in a country that respects the sanctity of human life from its very beginning to its natural end is not far-fetched. To get there though, it will take wise leadership, patience, and most importantly prayer.

Regarding the recall of Senate President Russell Pearce in Legislative District 18, I thank Sen. Pearce for his unwavering stands through the years in defense of preborn life, school choice, religious liberty, and marriage. Sen. Pearce never hesitated to support CAP’s legislative agenda. He always was available to help us move bills through the process and speak out in support of life, marriage and family, and religious liberty.
The Arizona legislature is still overwhelmingly pro-life and pro-family, with a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate. I am looking forward to working with the legislature in the upcoming session to promote and defend foundational values.

Number of husband and wife households in Arizona?    The 2010 U.S. Census counted nearly 1.15 million husband and wife households in Arizona.   Number of same-sex households in Arizona?   The 2010 U.S. Census counted nearly 21,000 same-sex couples in Arizona.

So how does that work out?  About 1.83% of couples identified in Arizona by the U.S. Census Bureau are same-sex.  Think about that.  What does that figure suggest for the overall GLBT population of Arizona?  Even being generous and posting that figure at 3% still only yields less than a single legislative district (there are 30 of those).

So what prompted this article?  The fact that in spite of numbers so statistically small, the Associated Press, FoxNews Phoenix, ABC15, and the Arizona Daily Star actually expended time and space reporting this minor factoid.  And, I’ll bet this isn’t over.  By the end of the news-day today several more of Arizona’s MSM will have carried the same story.  And by the end of the week, they’ll be editorials, commentary (like this one) to fill a book!

Why?  How is a small stadium (about the size of Chase Field) of people among so many more millions a “news story”?  How about how many children have a father living in the same household or how many female veterans are homeless in our state?  Priorities.  What’s important.  That’s what the media reports.  If they are simply keeping score then the numbers aren’t encouraging and perhaps don’t warrant the amount of attention given to GLBT issues in the media.

Are they a viable component of Arizona’s population?  Absolutely.  Do they receive more than their share of attention and political clout disproportionate to their numbers?  Absolutely.  In our state today aren’t there more important issues to address such as the growing influence of Chinese investment in U.S. resources?

And of course, maybe we should be paying attention to that whole Debt-Ceiling issue now raging in Washington.  After all, $0.40 of each dollar spent by the federal government daily is borrowed.  How sustainable is that?

(picture courtesy of the website Global Cocktails)

 The point?

There are more important issues today than tracking same-sex couples, so why does the media expend the energy on this issue?  How much energy and capital is expended on the GLBT community in Arizona and why given what a small segment of the overall population they truly are.

Stand for Marriage? You’re Not Alone

Most of the popular culture would have you think that if you believe in the true definition of marriage, you are part of a small minority. A new comprehensive study by the Alliance Defense Fund suggests otherwise. In what is likely the most extensive national research survey of its kind, ADF and Public Opinion Strategists found that 62 percent of Americans believe that “marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.”

This actually shouldn’t come as a shock. When this issue has been before the voters, 31 states have voted to protect marriage in their state constitution – like Arizona did in 2008. Reality is that we have much to be hopeful about in our battle to preserve the definition of marriage.

Who is the Father?

Father’s Day sparked a slew of stories about dads and their role in the family. Jennifer Lahl wrote this piece about a recent decision by British Columbia’s high court in favor of donor-conceived children having access to their biological information. Rulings like this are critical to advancing the public conversation about In Vitro Fertilization and understanding the rights of all involved – especially the children.

The New York Times told the story of a young boy, conceived through sperm donation, being raised by two women and the sperm donor (who the boy only knows as uncle right now) and the sperm donor’s same-sex partner. The problems with this arrangement are evident, and the long term effects on the child in this story will probably never be told. When the needs of children are second to the wants of adults, there are always consequences, and sadly, it’s typically the children who pay the price.

On the Radio

On Monday, I was on for the full hour of the Andrew Tallman Show on 1360 KPXQ AM to discuss the Abortion Consent Act litigation. I had a great time with Andrew talking about the pro-life movement in Arizona. Click here to listen to the podcast.

City Elections Impact Everyone

On the Foundations blog this week, CAP’s Blackstone legal intern Angelina wrote about the impact one city’s election can have on the entire state. Read more here.

Time is Running Out to Register to Vote

Many city elections are just two months away. If you’re not registered to vote, you’ll want to soon! If you are, please forward this email to your friends and family, and remind them to register and be sure to turn out to vote on August 30. We are in the process of compiling the results for our city election Voter Guide and will be publishing them in the next few weeks to AZVoterGuide.com.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Bethany Haley or Ben Carnes at (202) 225-4576

Calls On President Obama to Refrain from Social Engineering with our Armed Forces During a Time of War

December 2, 2010 — Following a briefing by Jeh Johnson, General Counsel for the Department of Defense, and General Carter Ham, the U.S. Army’s Commanding Officer in Europe, on the Pentagon’s new report on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and in light of recent attempts by Congressional Democrats to overturn current military policy, Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02) today released the following statement urging Democrats to stop using our military as a test bed for their own radical social agenda:

“It is disturbing to me that despite the fact that an overwhelming number of our commanding generals oppose repealing the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy, particularly during a time of war, the Obama Administration is insisting on imposing its ideological commitment to ‘fundamentally transform America’ on the men and women of our armed forces who even today are fighting to keep us all free.

“The DOD report cited as evidence justifying the repeal of this policy was obviously engineered to bring about a predetermined result. It also remains to be seen whether a climate of intimidation helped generate some of the survey findings. The fact is, in repeated Armed Services Committee hearings, our warfighters have raised concerns that the implications of repealing DADT have not been given full consideration as they should, in public hearings as well as in the public forum.

“Just today, a coalition of 40 million Americans sent a letter to Senators urging them not to repeal DADT. Among the concerns they raise is also the potential effect that repealing DADT would have on religious freedom. Those who oppose a repeal of DADT have already been labeled “bigots” by one general, and it is possible that chaplains would be forbidden to teach about their denomination’s position on homosexuality were the repeal to pass. Furthermore, they point out that the time between the release of the DOD report and adjournment is simply inadequate to thoroughly investigate all these related issues.

“Either Democrats’ have not fully realized the negative impact a repeal of this policy would have, or they don’t care. Either way, their blind commitment to social engineering and ramming a DADT repeal through the Congress will have a tangible and potentially dangerous effect upon our service men and women on the ground.”

Attached is a copy of the coalition letter referenced above. It can also be accessed here.

Congressman Franks is serving his fourth term in the U.S. House of Representatives, and is a member of the Committee on Armed Services, Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee, Military Readiness Subcommittee, Committee on the Judiciary, Constitution Subcommittee, and is Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Sunday, October 10, 2010

RINO Bob Littlefield Shows True Colors – proves he is not the conservative he claims

What do transgender activist Michele de La Freniere and Scottsdale City Councilman Bob Littlefield, currently running for re-election, have in common? More than you might think.

In 2007, de La Freniere, as a member of the City’s Human Relations Commission, was concerned about supposedly rampant prejudice and violence against the gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual (GLTB) community in Scottsdale. None existed but de La Freniere was still concerned. The Commission forwarded recommendations to amend the Scottsdale Revised Code to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in City of Scottsdale employment activities;  and enact an ordinance to extend non-discrimination provisions to contractors, suppliers or lessees doing business with the City of Scottsdale, and to businesses and organizations within Scottsdale. The recommendations were on the agenda for the City Council meeting on 12/4/07.*

At the meeting, the Police Chief reported that in the prior two years, out of all violent crimes committed in the City, there had been only three (3) specifically related to the sexual orientation of the victims.  None involved transgenders. One councilman pointed out that affirmative action ordinances were already in place ensuring equal employment opportunities to all persons based solely on ability. Another councilman voiced his trepidation over additional legal and training issues. Another expressed concern that creating one more protected class, not recognized by any other official government entity, could create further problems, expense, and controversy. Not even Obama tried this.

And Councilman Littlefield? He not only supported the ordinance; he moved to adopt it.  “…Sending a message is important and passing the ordinance is the right thing to do.” Thanks to Bob Littlefield, the Scottsdale Revised Code was amended to provide the same protection to GLTB as for race, gender or religion in City employment. And Littlefield wanted to pass the other recommendations to impose these same “protected classes” on private businesses. He was one of only 2 councilmen who supported these intrusive mandates. The effect is increased cost to taxpayers and special rights for a new protected class. Does this sound like a conservative? On what else is he misleading us?

Littlefield doesn’t represent conservative values. Remember that when you mark your ballot for Scottsdale City Council.

* The complete transcript of the meeting minutes are archived and cannot be accessed with a direct link. To download the transcript, go to http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/council/meeting_index/City_Council_Agendas_and_Minutes.asp

Click on City Clerk’s Archived Documents and follow the instructions.

Kirkpatrick Vote Funds Pornography

America is in crisis.  As our nation’s economy continues to suffer, thousands of Arizonans families out of work and a national debt that is staggering out-of-control, how does Ann Kirkpatrick respond?

She votes to spend YOUR tax dollars on pornography!

•    $50,000 for a homosexual porn theatre in San Francisco. (House Resolution 1 – Stimulus Bill, 2009)

Ann Kirkpatrick, another big spending Washington liberal that has completely lost touch with Arizona and its values.

Vote NO on Ann Kirkpatrick.

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

McCain has a long history of flip-flopping on gay marriage Yet veers to left in Senate reelection campaign by hiring homosexual lobbyist to run campaign

Looks like John McCain is veering back to the left already on gay marriage, having hired an openly gay lobbyist to manage his campaign, Mark Buse. This is more in line with his wife and daughter’s views, who openly opposed California’s Prop. 8 ballot initiative which stated that marriage is between a man and woman. Cindy McCain has a photo of her opposing that initiative as her Twitter profile picture, and both women have campaigned against it. It is clear McCain doesn’t want the Christian conservative vote.

President Obama’s “safe schools czar” Kevin Jennings, is a gay man who openly counsels students and other educators regarding gay and lesbian issues, bullying. He has had a long history of up front and detailed work helping people. He’s written a book detailing  his counsel he offered to a sad, gay boy in a desperate sexual relationship, with a much older man.

“In a statement, Jennings said: “Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities.”‘ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/30/obamas-safe-schools-czar-admits-bad-handling-teen-sex-case/)

Here’s the real problem with the situation. This boy was obviously reaching out and in a desperate situation as he was emotionally distraught.  I grasp the sexual activity problem, but I see other issues here.  Anyone who worked with Jennings back then can probably identify the kid, remembering the boy. Why is Jennings disclosing this? Oh and by the way, in 1988, I was working with youth-at-risk, kids doing drugs, having sex, and talking about it.  We were all trained, worked as a team to help the kids.  There were thorough guidelines in every state in the country back then, explaining the reporting of underage sexual activity. This educator broke the law- period.

My big issue screaming out is this: why was he letting this boy come in and tell such lurid stories? Was he a classroom teacher, talking 1:1 about sex with this kid?  Um HUGE RED FLAG!  Any teacher in 1988, and I was one then, would know this was wrong.  It was beat into teachers heads, even back then- do not talk alone with kids about deeply personal issues without a) telling a colleague and b) involving  a referral for therapy.  It is also very wrong to USE THE CHILD as some personal stimulus!

One of the gravest errors, truly heinous, is the adult buying in and allowing the child’s lurid story to titillate the adult. I do not buy the story that the boy kept coming in to chat about his life and pain. Not one counselor I know would let the story telling ramble on- not one.  It is the first mistake any therapist makes, and you cannot get out of grad school without nipping the tendency to let the client ramble.  Yet, it is the core problem with all therapy.  It is not the therapeutic disclosure for sake of healing, and solution-focused development.  I could go on and on as I am highly suspicious of this dude, Mr. Safe School.

The boy was also, clearly at-risk and sending up the red flags for potential suicide–I am sorry but ALL HOMOSEXUAL children in desperate relationships are high on the suicide risk scale.  That is not an opinion (http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/1/57).

Homosexuals live with the pain of being; it is not good, nor fair.  It hurts my heart as I am not a conservative who feels homosexuality in and of itself is evil.  I think promiscuity is the issue, not loving relationships.  But nonetheless, a gay teen, struggling, in a sexual relationship with a significantly older man is a high-risk.  This boy needed help and the guy knew it. He knew it then or he wouldn’t have let him talk so much.  He was projecting his own angst onto the kid.

What if the same story, same boy, now disclosed that the older lover was  a priest and he is going to sue Mr. Jennings for not helping him back then? Hmmm.  If I met Jennings, I would say one sentence to him, and I am dead serious in this: “When you heard the boy, thinking of his issues and problems, did you ever fantasize about having sex with the boy?”

I wouldn’t put this guy, Kevin Jennings, in charge of any child safety program, safe schools, safe nothing.  He is not qualified.

Sacramento, CA – Schools across California may soon be devoting an entire school day to honor homosexual icon Harvey Milk, if Governor Schwarzenegger signs a bill passed this week by the California legislature.

The bill, SB 572, requires that the Governor proclaim every May 22 as Harvey Milk Day, “and would designate that day as having special significance in public schools and educational institutions and would encourage those entities to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on that date.”  The bill offers no opt-out provisions for parents who might not want their children to focus on sexual issues.

Some believe that Governor Schwarzenegger might sign the measure this time because of recent honors bestowed on Harvey Milk by Hollywood and President Obama.

[On August 12, 2009 Barry Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk.]

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, urged Californians to contact Governor Schwarzenegger and express opposition to the bill, stating, “This is one of the most blatant attempts yet to bypass parents and push homosexual indoctrination on young students.  In an increasingly competitive global marketplace, our youth cannot afford to have classroom instruction time wasted on politically correct propaganda.”

To express opposition to SB 572, citizens can call Governor Schwarzenegger’s office at (916) 445-2841.  Please note that the phone lines are often busy, so persistence may be necessary in order to communicate your opinion. Gay rights groups are also urging their constituents to call the Governor in support of the bill.

Pacific Justice Institute is working alongside other leading California pro-family groups, including Capitol Resource Institute, California Family Council and Concerned Women of America of California, to defeat SB 572.

Footnote: San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, (with the mustache)  served 11 months in office and on November 27, 1978, Milk and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by former SF Supervisor Dan White.  Harvey and Dan began their relationship as friends and political colleagues, their relationship soured when Harvey withdrew his support for a measure very important to Dan.

Unable to support his family, Dan resigned from the Board of Supervisors, but later changed his mind.  When Mayor Muscone wouldn’t allow him to return, Dan crawled through a basement window at City Hall to avoid the metal detector, and shot Mayore Moscone.  He then went to Harvey’s office and shot and killed him too.

It is well established, the assignation of Harvey Milk had nothing to do with his pioneering of Gay Rights in California.