Liberal groups are trying to make a big deal about this but we are happy to see Governor Romney's campaign stand by his promise to support a federal marriage amendment:
A top Romney adviser disavowed remarks and a position reported this past week that appeared to be a reversal of the campaign's support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would bar states from allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Although campaign officials did not respond to inquiries prior to publication, Bay Buchanan issued a clarification to BuzzFeed this afternoon following initial publication of this story, writing, "Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage." -- Buzz Feed
Stephen J. Heaney is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of St. Thomas, and while he does not speak for it, he is happy to share his personal views as a Catholic and as a resident of Minnesota:
Thanks, Archbishop!
John Nienstedt, who leads the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, has been subjected to much disrespectful criticism -- from members of his flock, and even from a Lutheran bishop -- regarding his lead role supporting the marriage amendment. He stands accused of forcing his religion on everyone, and of forcing the consciences of his fellow Catholics. Though not unexpected, the charges are unfair.
What is the dispute about? One side holds that marriage is a vow of a man and a woman before the community to engage in a project that is greater than the couple, and that the community should hold them to it. This has been the universal view of marriage since time immemorial. The other side thinks that marriage (or civil union) is an expression of the desires of two people (their gender doesn't matter), and that the community must support them whatever they choose -- to have sex (and perhaps children) within marriage or not. To accept one definition, one must reject the other.
Due to the encroachments of the revisionist view of marriage into law, typically by judicial fiat, the institution is in some danger. Thus, those who wish to protect that time-honored institution seek to define it in the state Constitution.
This essentially is their argument. There is only one reason the community is interested in the friendships and sexual arrangements of human beings: When a man and a woman are united sexually, the natural (and frequent) result is children. Children on the whole do best, by any measure, when they are united with their biological parents, who are themselves united before the community to each other. If sex did not lead to children, no one would ever have thought up the institution of marriage. It would be a strange, intrusive insinuation of the community into the lives of its citizens. On the other hand, this union of man and woman, and the resulting children, are the cornerstone of every society that has ever existed. -- StarTribune
Rev. Paul Erickson writes to the editor of the Pioneer Press that, when it comes to raising kids, "stability is not enough":
"...Stable relationships are, of course, vitally important for the well-being of children and the good of society, but simple stability is not enough. Equally important is the loving presence of both mom and dad, even as it must be acknowledged, with great pain, that in certain circumstances such an ideal is impossible. But tragic exceptions should not provoke us to ignore the basic fact that children crave and long for the presence of both a mother and a father. The marriage amendment implicitly acknowledges this fact, a claim of reason and common sense."
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese of the Heritage Foundation ties events surrounding Chick-fil-A, the Regnerus study and the FRC shooting together and describes it as a "summer of liberal intolerance":
"As summer faded to fall, a Chicago alderman’s fury toward Chick-fil-A finally seemed to be cooling. But fall is fickle in the windy city, and Proco Joe Moreno once again is threatening to stall the chicken chain from opening in his ward.Moreno, Mayor Rahm (“Chicago Values”) Emanuel and other big-city officials piled on Chick-fil-A after Dan Cathy, the company’s president and COO, publicly supported the biblical definition of marriage. As they were soon reminded, though, for a public official to deny a business license because of the businessman’s marriage views would amount to unlawful discrimination against his viewpoints.
Sadly, controversies such as the one that Moreno’s overblown comments helped create grow more frequent, and Chick-fil-A is only the most visible target. Advocates for “tolerance” increasingly push traditional ideas on marriage, family, life and faith out of public life.
In June, sociologist Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas-Austin, became the target of a blogosphere blaze of character assassination.
... Groups across the political spectrum condemned the [FRC shooting]. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank suggested more, though. He argued that the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center, among others, had been “reckless” in labeling the conservative council a “hate group”—and so implying the research and education organization is outside the pale of legitimate debate.
This summer, long lines of Chick-fil-A patrons similarly rebuked the intolerance of Chicago’s Moreno and Emanuel. The freedom to uphold “Chick-fil-A values” continues to draw wide support. The City of Broad Shoulders – indeed, every town in America – ought to have room for those values. They represent the very principles on which this nation was built. Surely even those who don’t celebrate them can tolerate them. --- LifeSiteNews
In an outrageous decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Constitution's equal protection clause! This is yet another example of judicial activism and elite judges imposing their views on the American people, and further demonstrates why it is imperative for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in the currently pending DOMA cases, as well as to the Proposition 8 case. The American people are entitled to a definitive ruling in support of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as 32 states have determined through popular vote.
While marriage is under attack in the courts, however, around the nation heroes are rallying in defense of marriage. The American people aren't prepared to allow their voice to be taken away from them on this critical and fundamental issue. They are demanding that their voices be heard and that they be allowed to exercise their basic rights to organize, act, speak, and donate in support of marriage!
Maryland: Dr. McCaskill Fights Back!
Dr. McCaskill, the first African-American PhD Gallaudet University has ever produced, was suspended from her job when the university discovered that she had exercised her core civil right to sign a petition in Maryland for putting gay marriage before the people for a vote.
She didn't take the insult or the attacks lying down—she's fighting back!
Dr. McCaskill held a press conference in Maryland last week, and NOM was there to bring you the story.
Dr. McCaskill's words should be heard by everyone, especially the people of Maryland:
I was approached by a faculty member of Gallaudet University... [and] asked if I had signed a petition to put the question of same-sex marriage on the ballot as a referendum. I responded that I had; that I did sign such a petition. In this very moment, she determined that the signature meant that I was anti-gay. [...]
I offered to have a campus-wide dialogue on this very sensitive issue. I believe in civil discourse. I thought it was important that, as a citizen of the State of Maryland, I could exercise my right to participate in the poitical process. I am pro-democracy. I thought that this would have been an incredible opportunity to teach our campus. Unfortunately, that opportunity was lost. [...] They have allowed misinformation to be circulated throughout the campus community. They have attempted to intimidate me. They have tarnished my reputation and my 24 years of service. My record at Gallaudet University speaks for itself: and I ask to be judged by what I have done. [...]
The University took this action against me because I was among 200,000 people that signed this petition. I exercised my rights. I felt it was important that we, as the citizens of Maryland, have an opportunity to vote. [...] I am dismayed that Gallaudet University is still a university of intolerance; a university that manages by intimidation; a university that allows bullying among faculty, staff, and students [emphases added].
Let me make it clear that Dr. McCaskill says she signed the petition to give the people of Maryland the right to decide the future of marriage. On this ballot issue, Dr. McCaskill will be exercising, along with other Marylanders, her basic right to decide the future of marriage in the privacy of the voting booth.
This new ad launched by Maryland Marriage Alliance this week does not imply Dr. McCaskill's endorsement. It does feature Dr. McCaskill's story, though, along with that of Damian Goddard, spokesman for NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance. Damian, once a Toronto sportscaster, was fired the day after he tweeted—on his own personal Twitter account—that he supported the "true and authentic meaning of marriage."
The message? Same-sex marriage advocates promised us that Maryland's Question 6 would not threaten the liberty of those of us who believe in the Biblical understanding of marriage; but the threats to Dr. McCaskill, like in the case of Damian before her, show that this just isn't true. This is the point of a new editorial in the Washington Examiner:
Gay marriage proponents have tried very hard to reassure Marylanders that the new law will not force clerics to perform gay weddings or otherwise participate in ceremonies forbidden by their faith. But McCaskill's removal for merely signing a petition make these vague reassurances even less credible than before. [...]
McCaskill's pastor says her dismissal is "a warning of what is to come if same-sex marriage becomes law in Maryland." And MDPetitions.com founder Del. Neil Parrott, R-District 28, plans to reintroduce a bill to protect people like her—and the 200,000 other Marylanders who signed the petition as individual voters. If Marylanders didn't face the very real threat of political retaliation, they wouldn't need such protection [emphasis added].
The president of Gallaudet sent a letter saying he would "work with" Dr. McCaskill to reinstate her.
Work with her? What does that mean? She did nothing wrong! He can and should re-instate her today and compensate her for the attack on her reputation!
Now Gallaudet University is trying to pull back—probably because they know how unfair this seems to most Americans and what a big impact this can have when voters go to the polls to vote against gay marriage. They know it so well, in fact, that—as the Baltimore Sun reports—the University is demanding that the new ad be pulled!
Washington: Two Brave Women Face Gay Marriage Bully
Meanwhile the fight for marriage is producing many new heroes.
In Washington, a feisty Chinese-American grandmother named Arlene Mark was physically attacked for distributing literature urging a no vote on gay marriage (R-74)—but she's not backing down!
On Sunday, one of our volunteers, Arlene Mark—a Chinese American woman—was verbally attacked while waiting to distribute literature to other volunteers. What is more, Nikki Davis who came to her aid—an African American woman—was assailed with racial slurs....
A gay marriage advocate ran at Arlene's car, hit her vehicle, ripped the yard sign off the side of her car, tore it up, threw it on the ground, stomped on it and said " "This is what I think of your f—ing sign! I'm gay and proud of it." He then screamed insults and profanities at the grandma.
A good Samaritan named Nikki Davis—a young black mother who is uninvolved in the campaign—came to Arlene's aid. The attacker then hurled vile racial abuse at this innocent bystander, calling her a "black b—" and the n-word, telling her to "go back to Africa." He then physically struck out at Nikki's vehicle, hitting the back of her van and kicking it.
Nikki was justly frightened for Arlene as well as for herself and her children who were in the van, so she called the police.
The attacker then hopped into a waiting Silver Audi driven by an accomplice and sped away. Witnesses wrote down his license plate, though, and he was promptly tracked down and arrested.
Thank you Arlene! And thank you Nikki (whatever your views on marriage)!
Minnesota: Doctor Takes His Care for Families Seriously
In Minnesota, a family physician has stepped up to counter the lie that science has "proved" children don't need a mom and a dad. Dr. Kion Hoffman, in his letter to the Duluth News Tribune, points to the Mark Regnerus's "New Family Structures Study," published this summer in Social Science Research:
The problem with much of the previous research is it suffered from three types of bias. The first is sample size. If you don't have a large enough sample, then differences don't reach statistical significance and you can say, from a statistical standpoint, the study finds no difference between two groups when there may still be true differences. The second bias is in survey methodology. If you are trying to determine how the children raised by lesbian or gay couples fare, asking their caregivers is not conducive to objectivity. And the third bias of many studies of homosexual parenting is called selection bias. If you recruit your study subjects rather than obtaining a random sample you can introduce significant error. Admittedly, random sampling of this group is difficult because it represents a very small fraction of the general population.
This recent study minimized these types of bias. It compared the responses of adult children of intact biological families with those of adult children raised in homosexual families.
The new research shows a host of potential problems with the typical child raised by a gay parent (or to use a more precise term an adult child who reports his mom or dad had a same-sex romantic attachment):
Those raised in lesbian households had lower educational attainment, felt less secure and reported worse health and lower incomes. Thirty-one percent reported having had sex forced on them vs. 8 percent of adults raised in intact biological families.
Those raised in gay households with their father were more likely to have received public assistance, to have suicidal thoughts, to have had a sexually transmitted disease, to have experienced forced sex (25 percent vs. 8 percent), to have smoked, to have been arrested and to have had more sexual partners.
Hoffman finishes his letter by stating: "The marriage amendment does not prevent homosexuals from having committed relationships. As a family-practice physician, I advocate for the health of families, and I would recommend we vote ‘yes' for the marriage amendment."
Kudos, doctor!
Religious Leaders Standing Up for Marriage
Above all, religious leaders from various faith traditions are stepping up to the plate for marriage.
Bishop Joseph Tyson of Yakima, whom Pope Benedict appointed to the Washington state diocese in 2011, warned of the threat same-sex marriage poses to religious liberty in a recent pastoral letter:
R-74 jeopardizes freedom rather than expands it. It endangers our religious liberty and the right of conscience. Once marriage is redefined as a genderless contract, it will become legally discriminatory for public and private institutions such as schools to promote the unique meaning of marriage, and to teach about the right of a child to be known, loved and raised by his or her own mother and father in a stable home. [...]
I opened this letter with a wedding picture of my parents. I close by asking you to consider what kind of picture of marriage you desire to give the next generation. If you and I don't uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman, who will? If we are intimidated by those supporting marriage redefinition who picket and threaten donation boycotts of our charity and our ministry, then who will proclaim the true meaning of marriage?
Bishop Willard E. Saunders Jr. quieted his Cherry Hill sanctuary Sunday morning, signaling for the music and the hallelujahs to stop so his words would come across clearly.
"If something is perfect, it does not need changing," Saunders said, his image beaming from two screens on either side of the pulpit. "You can't redefine what God has already called perfect.
"Marriage, the institution, is perfect," he continued. "It is the people who are imperfect."
The Sun reports that this coordinated effort to preach marriage from the pulpit will continue in Maryland throughout the remaining days until the election.
And from Salt Lake City, Utah, here is one of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church, Dallin H. Oaks, calling his flock to stand for marriage:
The ugly attacks against marriage supporters all have the same root: the false idea that support for marriage is discriminatory, rooted in bigotry or hatred of gay people.
This is the father of all the lies and all the hatred now directed by so many against good, decent, loving, law-abiding people who stand for this simple, common sense idea—that to make a marriage you need a husband and wife, because children need a mom and a dad.
I do want to caution all of us to remember in the middle of the fight that the majority of gay people and gay marriage advocates oppose violence and abusive attacks. We must never descend to using the same kind of broad-brush judgment against our fellow citizens that we now experience directed our way. I hope the majority of gay marriage advocates also oppose the idea that you should lose your job if you publicly oppose gay marriage—but, sadly, that is not clear in the controversy at Gallaudet to reinstate Dr. McCaskill. Despite some last minute calls for McCaskill to be reinstated made by some gay groups, the fact is that in the past, when there hasn't been vote pending, no major gay rights organization has objected to people losing their jobs for reasons such as voting, writing a letter to the editor, donating, or otherwise exercising a civil right to protect marriage.
And the list of people so threatened is long and growing.
We must stand strong against these attacks and the ones that are coming.
Marital unions are unions of the kind that can make new life and connect those precious babies (whether born or adopted) to both a mom and a dad.
This week NOM agreed to distribute a new video that makes this case in a remarkably simple and powerful way: Marriage is biology, not bigotry.
Government promotes natural marriage because it is so vital to all of society. It permits many other kinds of relationships (including gay relationships), and prohibits only a few relationships like incest.
Watch this video. Email it to your friends. Post it on your Facebook page. Help us spread this important message!
Courage, friend: the heroes are arising. The Truth is durable and will tower above lies and hate and even well-intentioned ignorance.
Bless you for all you've done for marriage. These heroes standing up around the country should give us both hope and courage. Now it's important that we do our part and pay it forward.
We need to support the marriage heroes holding the lines at the various fronts of the marriage battle. That's why I urge you today to show your support for these inspiring people by donating whatever you are able to Stand for Marriage America.
You know the mainstream media is not with us. We need money to get the message out and to help win these crucial states where marriage will be decided by the voters in November. With your help, and with God's grace, we will win this battle.
According to this Reuters news report, Starbucks is talking out of both sides of its mouth when comes to taxes, just like they want to have it both ways when it comes to being pro-gay marriage here in the United States and taking "no position" on the issue internationally:
Starbucks' coffee menu famously baffles some people. In Britain, it's their accounts that are confusing. Starbucks has been telling investors the business was profitable, even as it consistently reported losses.
This apparent contradiction arises from tax avoidance, and sheds light on perfectly legal tactics used by multinationals the world over. Starbucks stands out because it has told investors one thing and the taxman another.
The Seattle-based group, with a market capitalization of $40 billion, is the second-largest restaurant or cafe chain globally after McDonald's. Accounts filed by its UK subsidiary show that since it opened in the UK in 1998 the company has racked up over 3 billion pounds ($4.8 billion) in coffee sales, and opened 735 outlets but paid only 8.6 million pounds in income taxes, largely due because the taxman disallowed some deductions.
You can join over 48,000 people around the world who have chosen to Dump Starbucks over its support for same-sex marriage.
"Is it fair for the government to promote natural marriage but not same-sex marriage? Isn't this discrimination against homosexuals? What about equality? These questions are addressed in a new video ad by the National Organization for Marriage.
The conservative marriage group released the video, titled "Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry)," on Monday, weeks ahead of the November elections when voters in four states will vote on whether to redefine marriage.
...What about tolerance?
"Yes. Same-sex advocates need to be more tolerant," the video argues. "Homosexual relationships are already tolerated in the U.S. They can already commit themselves to each other until death do them part without government endorsement.
"But only the union of one man and one woman should be promoted because it alone is the foundation of a civilized society.
"That's not bigotry. That's biology."
Voters in Washington State, Minnesota, Maryland and Maine will vote in November on whether to protect traditional marriage or allow same-sex couples to get married."
In France, as in England, the media promised that gay marriage was a done deal.
Now in France, as in England, the movement to protect marriage is growing:
"...Despite widespread political and religious opposition, Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault insisted there would be no backtracking on a manifesto promise by President Francois Hollande in an interview with AFP.
More than 1,200 French mayors and deputy mayors have signed a petition opposing the government’s plans, with many of them warning they will not preside over same-sex ceremonies." -- Pink News
Meanwhile:
If France’s new Socialist government has its way, mothers and fathers will cease to exist — in legal papers, that is.
Legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage and give homosexual couples the right to adopt children also would replace the terms “mother” and “father” with “parent 1” and “parent 2” in all legal documents, including birth certificates.
The proposal has outraged France’s religious establishment and triggered a wave of criticism from many who say such changes to French law should be put to a public vote.
“A referendum must be held to allow a real debate,” Dominique Rey, Roman Catholic bishop of the southern region of Frejus-Toulon, said in an interview with online news outlet Nouvelles de France.
“A majority of the population agrees with the traditional view of marriage,” he said, warning against opening a “Pandora’s box” and “questioning the natural order of things.” -- The Washington Times
Finally, pro-family groups in France are already circulating a petition to allow the people of France to vote on marriage.
A former SNP leader has attacked plans to introduce gay marriage, branding them "a step towards fascism".
Gordon Wilson told BBC Scotland that the state should not be asserting a superior claim over what citizens do or think.
A bill to bring in same-sex marriage forms part of the Scottish government's new legislative programme.
Mr Wilson will criticise the plans in a speech to the party conference later this week.
... But Mr Wilson, who led the Nationalists in the 1980s, will tell MSPs they face losing their seats if they "scorn the electorate".
Speaking to BBC Scotland, he said a consultation on the issue had shown the public were not in favour of legislation.
Mr Wilson said political correctness was now occupying a position "to which it has no right" and when the state moves into legislating on same-sex marriage it becomes "a step towards fascism".
He added: "What you have to watch is when the state believes that it has a superior claim to tell its own citizens what to do and what to think.
Our president Brian Brown spoke with the Buffalo News about Mark Grisanti and NOM's plans to unseat him in November:
"...Alesi’s decision was claimed as a victory by opponents of same-sex marriage, including one national group that has promised to throw a whopping $50,000 – or more – behind the campaign of one of Grisanti’s rivals in November, Swanick.
The National Organization for Marriage, a Washington, D.C.-based group that is working to defend traditional definitions of marriage, said that Alesi’s departure without running again was just as effective for the group as its efforts in primary season to defeat other Republicans who voted yes on same-sex marriage in 2011.
“We’ve defeated Republican after Republican who voted for gay marriage, and we will defeat Mark Grisanti,” said Brian S. Brown, president of the group.
Brown said the Swanick candidacy is one of some 20 to 30 races around the United States that the national group is putting its money behind in the November elections.
“Mark Grisanti is a liar and a fraud. He turned his back on his pledge. He cannot be trusted,” said Brown. “We’ll do everything in our power to get the word out about Mark Grisanti.”"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 18, 2012
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)
Washington, D.C.—Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statement today in response to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Constitution's equal protection clause:
"This is yet another example of judicial activism and elite judges imposing their views on the American people, and further demonstrates why it is imperative for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in the currently pending DOMA cases as well as to the Proposition 8 case. The American people are entitled to a definitive ruling in support of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as 32 states have determined through popular vote."
###
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President, or John Eastman, Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], (x130) or Jen Campbell, [email protected] (x145) at 703-683-5004.
King County Sheriff’s detectives have arrested a 23-year-old Burien man suspected of tearing a “Reject R-74″ sign off a campaign volunteer’s car and calling her names, then shoving another woman who tried to help her.
Sgt. Cindi West, spokeswoman for the sheriff’s office, said the man was arrested at a house in the 900 block of 164 St. S.E. just after 10:00 this morning. He was booked in the King County Jail for investigation of malicious harassmentt.
The case will be forwarded to the prosecutor for review, West said.
Referendum 74 is the ballot measure that asks voters to approve or reject the state’s new same-sex marriage law.
A spokesman with the Preserve Marriage Washington campaign, which is seeking to repeal the law, said the 61-year-old campaign volunteer was going to distribute the signs in her car to other workers on Sunday when the incident happened. A second woman witnessed it and stepped in to help, at which point the man allegedly pushed that woman and called her by a racial slur.
Officials with the opposing campaign have said that while they condemn any acts of this kind, claims of harassment are tactics that opponents of same-sex marriage have used in the past, including during a same-sex marriage battle in California in 2008.
More reason for the Supreme Court to take the DOMA cases currently pending before it:
A federal appeals court in New York on Thursday became the nation's second to deem the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
The divisive Clinton-era law was passed in 1996 and bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and says states cannot be forced to recognize such marriages from other states.
The court determined that the federal law violates the Constitution's equal protection clause. A federal appeals court in Boston made a similar ruling in May, but the moves are considered largely symbolic as the issue is expected to be eventually decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In February, the Obama administration ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the law. -- CNN
A writer for the Albany Times Union relates what is happening to a couple who own a farm in upstate New York:
I was listening to FLY this morning and heard Brian and Chrissy talking about a listener who wanted to get married out at Liberty Ridge Farm in Rensselaer County. The venue has taken a pass on marrying the couple.
Why?
Because they’re gay. Or, at least, that is one of the reasons, according to the FMR.
I called Cynthia Gifford, who owns the farm with her husband, to ask her about the claim.
“I just felt uncomfortable. Maybe I made a mistake in my initial response to them,” she said when I reached her on her cell phone (I’ve done stories out there with them in the past). “I am willing to have a meeting. It is kind of against my religious views, but if they have an interest, they are more than welcome to come out and look at the property.”
She went on to say “When you are on a phone conversation, and you are taken back … I made a mistake.”
The couple has filed a human rights complaint and, once she addresses that, she said she’ll be happy to discuss this with me further.
I am guessing — and this is just an assumption — that the formal complaint may have had something to do with her backing off a bit. And, well, I can’t say I blame her. If the state was after me, I’d probably ease off, too."
Kalley Yanta of the Minnesota Marriage Minute takes a more in-depth look at what has happened in Canada since redefining marriage:
"To start, there have been hundreds of Canadian proceedings in courts, human rights commissions and employment boards, against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage. Religious groups and leaders have been punished. For instance, the Archbishop of Calgary was forced to answer to the Alberta human rights commission for preaching the Church's teaching on marriage."
A top Romney adviser disavowed remarks and a position reported this past week that appeared to be a reversal of the campaign's support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would bar states from allowing same-sex couples to marry.
A bill to bring in same-sex marriage forms part of the Scottish government's new legislative programme.
Why?
