The Obama Administration’s executive order reversing what’s become known as the Mexico City Policy opened up millions of dollars in federal aid to Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates to counsel women in developing nations. Pro-life Members of Congress have responded to that unfortunate choice with H.R. 708, a bill to legislatively restore the morally correct policy the administration abandoned.
Click here to tell your Member of Congress that you support the bill, and click here to ask your U.S. Senators to support a similar effort.
Sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., with 76 co-sponsors at this writing, the bill would codify the sensible policy first implemented by the Reagan administration in 1984 following a population conference in Mexico City. Bill Clinton reversed the policy almost immediately after taking office in 1993, and George W. Bush restored it in 2001. President Obama, by reversing the policy again Jan. 23, put the federal government back in the business of advising women in developing nations to have abortions.
If you believe the federal government has no business telling women that it’s acceptable to end the lives of their unborn babies, you have plenty of company. H.R. 708 would prevent Planned Parenthood and similar organizations from using federal dollars to spread their ideologies overseas – though nothing prevents them from doing so on their own dime. In a nation deeply divided on the issue of abortion, this is the only policy that makes sense, and it has the added benefit of demonstrating respect for nations that abhor abortion even more than America does. Even if you believe that the federal government should be providing family planning services abroad, it’s difficult to argue that taxpayers should be party to a policy that abortion is a legitimate moral choice for women who are faced with an unexpected pregnancy.
CMC supports H.R. 708, which faces an uncertain future in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Click here to tell your Member of Congress that you support the bill, and click here to ask your U.S. Senators to support a similar effort.
http://cmc.rodparsley.com/News.aspx?nid=3515
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Click here to tell your Member of Congress that you support the bill, and click here to ask your U.S. Senators to support a similar effort.
Sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., with 76 co-sponsors at this writing, the bill would codify the sensible policy first implemented by the Reagan administration in 1984 following a population conference in Mexico City. Bill Clinton reversed the policy almost immediately after taking office in 1993, and George W. Bush restored it in 2001. President Obama, by reversing the policy again Jan. 23, put the federal government back in the business of advising women in developing nations to have abortions.
If you believe the federal government has no business telling women that it’s acceptable to end the lives of their unborn babies, you have plenty of company. H.R. 708 would prevent Planned Parenthood and similar organizations from using federal dollars to spread their ideologies overseas – though nothing prevents them from doing so on their own dime. In a nation deeply divided on the issue of abortion, this is the only policy that makes sense, and it has the added benefit of demonstrating respect for nations that abhor abortion even more than America does. Even if you believe that the federal government should be providing family planning services abroad, it’s difficult to argue that taxpayers should be party to a policy that abortion is a legitimate moral choice for women who are faced with an unexpected pregnancy.
CMC supports H.R. 708, which faces an uncertain future in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Click here to tell your Member of Congress that you support the bill, and click here to ask your U.S. Senators to support a similar effort.
http://cmc.rodparsley.com/News.aspx?nid=3515
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Suddenly, it seems, it’s open season on biblical marriage. Will Bible-believing Christians passively accept it, or work to restore the meaning of God’s sacred institution?
On April 3, for the third time in less than a year, a state has substituted its wisdom for that of the people they serve. Iowa became the fourth state to get judicially imposed same-sex marriage, and voters there won’t get a chance to fix their error until at least 2012, if they get the opportunity to fix it at all. Then, on April 7, came a double whammy – Vermont’s state legislature overrode a governor’s veto to pass a law permitting same-sex marriage, and the District of Columbia voted to accept those unions as legitimate marriages.
Each time man chooses his own ways instead of God’s, it makes the point for us – the definition of marriage needs to be settled, once and for all, through a federal constitutional amendment. Click here to tell your Member of Congress and U.S. Senators that you want traditional marriage to become the law of all the land again.
In Iowa, the seven justices of the state Supreme Court unanimously voted to uphold the 2007 decision of a county judge that invalidated the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which became law in 1998. The lower court had ruled that a state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman violated the state constitution’s equal protection clause. As a result of the high court decision, marriage licenses could be issued to same-sex couples in Iowa as soon as April 24.
The process could be put on hold if officials in Polk County (which includes the state capital of Des Moines) request a re-hearing, but they have said they will not do so. And, because the process for amending the state constitution in Iowa is both more time-consuming than in most states and dependent on the state legislature, corrective action by the public won’t happen until at least 2012 and only then if legislative leaders can be persuaded to permit a public vote – something they don’t seem to be inclined to do at the moment. Same-sex marriage will be the law of the land in Iowa for at least three years.
Vermont became the first state to authorize same-sex marriage without a court order when the state House of Representatives voted 100-49 – the minimum two-thirds majority necessary – to override an April 6 veto by Gov. Jim Douglas. Earlier, the state Senate had easily overridden Douglas’s veto by a 23-5 vote.
The House passed the bill last week by a 95-52 vote, and same-sex marriage advocates had furiously lobbied fence-sitting legislators to vote to override Douglas’s veto, which had been promised. Vermont became the first state in the Union to establish legally recognized civil unions nine years ago.
Almost lost amidst the headlines of Vermont’s legislative vote, the District of Columbia Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, as New York has. The decision, which was unanimous, is subject to a final vote next month and then must be approved by Congress. The district already sanctions domestic partnerships between same-sex couples.
What is the Church – the Bible-believing church, the God-honoring church, the stand-up-for-the-sanctity-of-marriage church – going to do in response to these three outrageous actions? The answer will determine, to a great extent, whether the institution of marriage continues to mean anything at all in this nation. For our part, CMC is determined to continue to speak the truth about what marriage is and the damage that enemies of faith and freedom are doing to this institution.
Some thoughts:
- Marriage advocates must admit that we have, at least for the moment, allowed the other side to name the terms of the debate. We have people to define themselves by their sexual choices rather than by any God-given characteristic they possess. It is shameful that we have permitted homosexuals to invoke the language of civil rights to their cause, and it’s unlikely that we will change hearts and minds back to righteousness until it becomes understood once again that homosexuality is behavior, not biology.
- We need a better argument against homosexuality than “it’s icky” – and right now, that’s all the culture seems to be hearing us say. We must convince hearts and minds of the adverse affects of allowing homosexual marriage – and that won’t be difficult given the state of marriage in European nations that have permitted same-sex unions for many years. Our opponents believe we are motivated by hatred for people who practice homosexuality. Judging by our behavior, they have a point. Our attitudes must change and must be typified by a love for a holy God who won’t tolerate sin, including our own.
- The best possible solution to the problem of same-sex marriage remains a federal Marriage Protection Amendment. With each rogue decision coming from state courts and liberal legislative bodies, the MPA is emerging as the only sure way to fix this societal problem.
The battle to restore the traditional definition of marriage suddenly seems more formidable than ever. But don’t be fooled by smug pronouncements like that of The New York Times’ April 5 editorial (written before the Vermont and D.C. actions), which suggested that seven judges in Iowa have now defined morality for the rest of us, and that anyone who disagrees with their action should be ashamed of themselves. Pro-family activists should remember that the vast majority of the American public agrees with us on this issue. In every state where people have had the chance to define marriage God’s way at the ballot box, they ultimately have done so. Congress is lagging behind those they serve, however, and they will need to be convinced that a proposed Marriage Protection Amendment should be released to the state legislatures for their consideration. Help us be part of that effort!
Click here to tell your Member of Congress and U.S. Senators that you want them to let the process of having the people decide this issue begin by supporting a Marriage Protection Amendment.
http://cmc.rodparsley.com/News.aspx?nid=3514
On April 3, for the third time in less than a year, a state has substituted its wisdom for that of the people they serve. Iowa became the fourth state to get judicially imposed same-sex marriage, and voters there won’t get a chance to fix their error until at least 2012, if they get the opportunity to fix it at all. Then, on April 7, came a double whammy – Vermont’s state legislature overrode a governor’s veto to pass a law permitting same-sex marriage, and the District of Columbia voted to accept those unions as legitimate marriages.
Each time man chooses his own ways instead of God’s, it makes the point for us – the definition of marriage needs to be settled, once and for all, through a federal constitutional amendment. Click here to tell your Member of Congress and U.S. Senators that you want traditional marriage to become the law of all the land again.
In Iowa, the seven justices of the state Supreme Court unanimously voted to uphold the 2007 decision of a county judge that invalidated the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which became law in 1998. The lower court had ruled that a state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman violated the state constitution’s equal protection clause. As a result of the high court decision, marriage licenses could be issued to same-sex couples in Iowa as soon as April 24.
The process could be put on hold if officials in Polk County (which includes the state capital of Des Moines) request a re-hearing, but they have said they will not do so. And, because the process for amending the state constitution in Iowa is both more time-consuming than in most states and dependent on the state legislature, corrective action by the public won’t happen until at least 2012 and only then if legislative leaders can be persuaded to permit a public vote – something they don’t seem to be inclined to do at the moment. Same-sex marriage will be the law of the land in Iowa for at least three years.
Vermont became the first state to authorize same-sex marriage without a court order when the state House of Representatives voted 100-49 – the minimum two-thirds majority necessary – to override an April 6 veto by Gov. Jim Douglas. Earlier, the state Senate had easily overridden Douglas’s veto by a 23-5 vote.
The House passed the bill last week by a 95-52 vote, and same-sex marriage advocates had furiously lobbied fence-sitting legislators to vote to override Douglas’s veto, which had been promised. Vermont became the first state in the Union to establish legally recognized civil unions nine years ago.
Almost lost amidst the headlines of Vermont’s legislative vote, the District of Columbia Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, as New York has. The decision, which was unanimous, is subject to a final vote next month and then must be approved by Congress. The district already sanctions domestic partnerships between same-sex couples.
What is the Church – the Bible-believing church, the God-honoring church, the stand-up-for-the-sanctity-of-marriage church – going to do in response to these three outrageous actions? The answer will determine, to a great extent, whether the institution of marriage continues to mean anything at all in this nation. For our part, CMC is determined to continue to speak the truth about what marriage is and the damage that enemies of faith and freedom are doing to this institution.
Some thoughts:
- Marriage advocates must admit that we have, at least for the moment, allowed the other side to name the terms of the debate. We have people to define themselves by their sexual choices rather than by any God-given characteristic they possess. It is shameful that we have permitted homosexuals to invoke the language of civil rights to their cause, and it’s unlikely that we will change hearts and minds back to righteousness until it becomes understood once again that homosexuality is behavior, not biology.
- We need a better argument against homosexuality than “it’s icky” – and right now, that’s all the culture seems to be hearing us say. We must convince hearts and minds of the adverse affects of allowing homosexual marriage – and that won’t be difficult given the state of marriage in European nations that have permitted same-sex unions for many years. Our opponents believe we are motivated by hatred for people who practice homosexuality. Judging by our behavior, they have a point. Our attitudes must change and must be typified by a love for a holy God who won’t tolerate sin, including our own.
- The best possible solution to the problem of same-sex marriage remains a federal Marriage Protection Amendment. With each rogue decision coming from state courts and liberal legislative bodies, the MPA is emerging as the only sure way to fix this societal problem.
The battle to restore the traditional definition of marriage suddenly seems more formidable than ever. But don’t be fooled by smug pronouncements like that of The New York Times’ April 5 editorial (written before the Vermont and D.C. actions), which suggested that seven judges in Iowa have now defined morality for the rest of us, and that anyone who disagrees with their action should be ashamed of themselves. Pro-family activists should remember that the vast majority of the American public agrees with us on this issue. In every state where people have had the chance to define marriage God’s way at the ballot box, they ultimately have done so. Congress is lagging behind those they serve, however, and they will need to be convinced that a proposed Marriage Protection Amendment should be released to the state legislatures for their consideration. Help us be part of that effort!
Click here to tell your Member of Congress and U.S. Senators that you want them to let the process of having the people decide this issue begin by supporting a Marriage Protection Amendment.
http://cmc.rodparsley.com/News.aspx?nid=3514
