A Florida judge has approved the adoption of a 22-month-old baby girl that will list three people as parents on her birth certificate -- a married lesbian couple and a gay man.
The decision ends a two-year paternity fight between the couple and a friend of the women who donated his sperm to father the child but later sought a larger role in the girl's life.
The ruling means the child's birth certificate will include a biological father and both women as parents in an unusual arrangement approved recently by a Miami-Dade Circuit Court judge.
The women, Maria Italiano, 43, and Cher Filippazzo, 38, had made several unsuccessful attempts to become parents using fertility clinics.
They then turned to Italiano's hair dresser, Massimiliano Gerina, and asked if he would provide his sperm for artificial insemination.
More details of the arrangement:
Under the judge's decision, the two women will have sole parental rights, although Gerina will be allowed to visit the child. He will not be expected to provide child support.
"We're trying to do the right thing for Emma," Filippazzo said. "We want Emma to have it all, and we believe by doing it this way, including him in a birthday or Thanksgiving, it'll be a nice addition for her."
"We believe the best interest for Emma is for him to have a role in her life, but not as a parent," she said. "The role is this is mommy's good friend who helped your moms have you because they wanted you so badly."
The Family Research Council shooter told the FBI he used the Southern Poverty Law Center's "hate group" designation on their website to ID and target his victims for a would-be mass murder rampage.
According to the Associated Press, the shooter "also planned to target other organizations that oppose gay marriage if he wasn't stopped. [...] In his pants pocket, police found a handwritten list of groups that also oppose gay marriage."
The brave security guard, Leo Johnson, a real hero, jumped the gunman after being shot, and saved the lives of countless decent, loving law-abiding Americans... but to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Leo's a hater in a hate group.
The SPLC, once a respected civil rights organization that targeted racist skinhead hate groups bent on dehumanizing their fellow Americans, has decided that it can use the same tactics against mainstream Christian conservative organizations.
So far, according to the Associated Press, the SPLC has refused to comment on what it now knows about the damage its hate list caused.
An innocent man was shot because a killer openly and admittedly used the SPLC's list to pick out and target his victims — and SPLC has no comment?
No comment on the chilling revelation that this disturbed man, inspired by the SPLC's hate group list, walked into FRC with 50 rounds of ammo and Chick-fil-A sandwiches that he intended to smear on the mouth of each of his victims!
SPLC and the Media Must be Held Accountable
Now, you know that NOM has not (yet) been designated a "hate group" by the SPLC, despite vast reporting to the contrary. But let me tell you that today that doesn't matter: today, we are standing with Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council demanding justice from the media and accountability from the Southern Poverty Law Center for their reckless disregard of truth and decency.
I know the SPLC will say it does not support using its hate group list for political assassination. But that's not good enough. The reason this disturbed shooter could use this list in this way is that the groups SPLC is targeting are not quasi-violent extremists wandering around in the woods with guns — but mainstream Americans with known offices in convenient locations, working democratically to support their views.
Let me make something clear here: I do not blame gay people for this shooting. Most homosexual people are law-abiding fellow citizens, equally appalled by violence.
I do blame the Southern Poverty Law Center for taking organizations of other decent, law-abiding fellow-citizens, and lumping them in with neo-Nazis, labeling them "hate groups," as part of a deliberate strategy to marginalize, stigmatize, and repress the speech and democratic rights of conservative Christians.
And I blame the media — for refusing to admit that SPLC's reckless rhetoric damages the moral credibility of the SPLC, and for continuing to take the organization's "hate group" designation seriously. Where there should be editorials denouncing this illegitimate tactic, instead we get articles that blindly repeat the "hate group" mantra.
For far too long, media outlets and reporters have allowed activist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to label opponents of same-sex ‘marriage' as ‘hate groups' and regularly describe organizations that hold traditional Judeo-Christian views of sexual morality as ‘anti-gay.' But words have consequences, and we know that allowing such inflammatory terms to be used in media reports describing those who object to redefining marriage can lead to harassment and even violence against members of those organizations.
We know of people who have had their jobs threatened or their families reviled by anonymous bloggers simply for posting words in opposition to gay marriage. The attempt to turn good people who support marriage as the union of husband and wife into pariahs, the target of hatred and harassment must end today!
We will not stop standing up for marriage, or working tirelessly to protect your rights to participate freely in our democratic process. An America where people have to be afraid to say what Genesis teaches — that marriage is the union of a man and woman ordained by God and oriented towards the next generation¬ — is not recognizably the America we cherish and love.
We will not give up until we see justice done: not just in the court of law, but in the court of public opinion.
Tony Perkins deserves great credit for standing bravely against this onslaught. I will stand with him, for God's truth, against all the lies and the hatred and the intimidation that they can send our way.
You Spoke, and the Boy Scouts of America Heard You!
Another piece of breaking news: The Board of the Boy Scouts of America has decided to delay its decision on whether to admit openly homosexual scoutmasters and scouts until May. Thanks to each of you who responded to our call to let the Board know that you do not want them to let money interests trump values.
The Human Rights Campaign's corporate network is now being deployed not to help gay people in the workplace, but to insist that this Judeo-Christian-based youth organization embrace homosexuality or else face financial punishment.
That's the world we live in: the world we must not take into our hearts, or respond to with hatred, but in which we must bravely, nobly, fiercely, and intelligently fight for what is right and true and good.
We may not win every battle, but we know Who wins in the end, don't we?
NOM's Peters on Crosstalk: Marriage is a "Life Saving Message" for the Next Generation
Let me end by giving you a glimpse of a next generation leader you ought to know and love: NOM's own Thomas Peters.
Here he is, the voice a new next generation of leaders who will not be silenced or intimidated, whose voice must and will be heard:
I'm so grateful to you for making NOM's work possible.
Stay strong, pray for Tony and all the staff at FRC — and pray that the hard hearts at SPLC and in the media will be melted.
A new KSTP poll shows that a majority of Minnesotans support retaining laws protecting marriage!
Should the Minnesota state law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry? Or should it be left as it is?
42% Should Be Changed
54% Should Be Left As It Is
4% Not Sure
Gay marriage activists in Illinois are at it again...but we have a response ready!
Illinois Senate President John Cullerton wants the Illinois Senate to vote on redefining marriage on Valentine's Day. Even if the bill were to pass the Senate (which is not at all a done deal) it still must pass the Illinois House where we are even stronger.
Our opponents think they can find the votes to pass it...but not on our watch!
Join the Preserve Marriage Lobby Day in Springfield on Wednesday, February 20th (details below).
This time around our opponents have included phony religious liberty protections in an effort to trick legislators into supporting the bill (SB10). Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Joe LaRue set the record straight in Springfield when he testified:
"This law does not protect religious freedom as it claims. Rather, it promotes religious intolerance, bigotry and discrimination."
Remember, the last time gay marriage activists promised that people of faith would be protected, Catholic and Lutheran foster care agencies were forced to shut down across the state.
We've seen politicians make false promises before and we won't be fooled again.
With your help, we can preserve marriage and protect people of faith in Illinois, if you take these three steps right away:
Contact your state senator and representative today! Use this link to send an email to your elected officials, or better still, click here to look up their phone numbers and make a personal phone call to let your senator and representative know: don't threaten religious liberty and don't redefine marriage, our only civil institution that connects children with parents. Marriage and faith matter!
Show up for the Preserve Marriage Lobby Day on February 20th at 10:30AM at the State Capital rotunda. Go to the table sponsored by the Illinois Family Institute off the rotunda where you can pick up more information and take part.
Finally, forward this email to friends and family throughout the state, or use the buttons below to share on Facebook and Twitter. It's going to take thousands of Illinoisans like you working together to preserve marriage in Illinois. Help spread the word today!
I know I can count on you to help. Thank you for keeping up the momentum!
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)
Southern Poverty Law Center list of organizations served as target list for would-be killer
Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today called on media outlets, reporters and activist groups to pledge to cease labeling organizations that oppose gay 'marriage' as "hate groups." The call came in response to an admission by would-be killer Floyd Corkins that he used a list of so-called "hate groups" prepared by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to target his victims for murder.
"For far too long, media outlets and reporters have allowed activist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to label opponents of same-sex 'marriage' as 'hate groups' and regularly describe organizations that hold traditional Judeo-Christian views of sexual morality as 'anti gay,'" said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "But words have consequences, and we know that allowing such inflammatory terms to be used in media reports describing those who object to redefining marriage can lead to harassment and even violence against members of those organizations."
Would-be killer Floyd Corkins today pled guilty to a variety of charges relating to his shooting of a security officer at the offices of the Family Research Council (FRC). Corkins, a gay activist, reportedly admitted that he used a list of so-called "hate groups" prepared by the SPLC to create a target list for his campaign of terror.
"Standing up for traditional marriage does not make anyone 'anti gay' and it is deplorable that some reporters covering this issue allow mere opposition to redefining marriage to be labeled as such," Brown said. "It is even more reckless for news reports to allow the charge of 'hate group' to be applied to any organization because their beliefs affirm a traditional Judeo-Christian view of marriage and sexual morality. We hope that media organizations will seriously reflect on these issues knowing that irresponsible 'hate group' charges nearly led to a massacre at the Family Research Council."
###
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.
Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).
Thank you to everyone who took action to encourage the Boy Scouts of America to stand by their founding principles! This was seemingly a done deal until a few days ago when you mobilized:
The organization, whose leaders had been expected to vote on the proposal Wednesday, said it needs more time to get input from its members. The vote will now be held in May.
"After careful consideration and extensive dialogue within the Scouting family, along with comments from those outside the organization, the volunteer officers of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Executive Board concluded that due to the complexity of this issue, the organization needs time for a more deliberate review of its membership policy," the group said Wednesday morning.
"To that end, the executive board directed its committees to further engage representatives of Scouting’s membership and listen to their perspectives and concerns. This will assist the officers’ work on a resolution on membership standards. The approximately 1,400 voting members of the national council will take action on the resolution at the national meeting in May 2013." (CNN)
David Cameron suffered a “disaster” tonight, as most of his Tory MPs failed to back his Bill to redefine marriage.
Early indications suggest that more Tory MPs voted against Mr Cameron than supported him.
Colin Hart of the Coalition for Marriage said: “This result is a disaster for David Cameron.
“Despite a personal plea from the PM his MPs have overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage. Mr Cameron must think again.
“The scale of the opposition against the Government’s profoundly undemocratic plans is astonishing, and sends a clear message to the Prime Minister that he faces a lengthy and damaging battle to redefine marriage.”
Colin Hart, Director of the Christian Institute, and Andrea Minichiello Williams, founder of Christian Concern, are to be commended for their amazing leadership in Britain! The UK Christian Institute points out that British papers are focusing on the strength of the "no" vote.
Even the New York Times was forced to acknowledge the unprecedented opposition to Cameron's plan:
"...Although 127 of the 303 Conservative lawmakers voted for the bill, 136 voted against, with 5 abstentions and 35 who registered no vote at all. Those voting against included two cabinet ministers, eight junior ministers and eight whips. The opening to the revolt came when party leaders decided to make the issue a so-called free vote, allowing lawmakers to break with their party without fear of disciplinary action.
... In modern times, however, few prime ministers have faced such an extensive rebellion in their own ranks, and the outcome seemed likely to add to the growing ferment among backbench Conservatives about Mr. Cameron’s leadership on a wide range of issues, including Britain’s shrinking defense budget and its increasingly uneasy ties with the European Union.
The bill will now be debated by the House of Lords where opposition is expected to be even stronger.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed a pair of briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to uphold California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The briefs were drafted by lawyers for the LDS Church here in Utah and filed Jan. 29 before the nation’s top court on behalf of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-MIssouri Synod, the Romanian-American Evangelical Alliance of North America, Truth in Action Ministries, and the Mormon Church.
“Our theological perspectives, though often differing, converge to support the proposition that the traditional, opposite-sex definition of marriage in the civil law is not only constitutional but essential to the welfare of families, children, and society,” Von Keetch of the Utah-based firm Kirton McConkie, wrote in the DOMA brief.
... “The people of California violated no one’s civil rights when they adopted Proposition 8. Their twice-expressed preference for the traditional definition of marriage over an untested rival conception was thoroughly rational. It is therefore thoroughly constitutional,” Keetch wrote in the Prop. 8 brief.
It's already February. January just flew by, and marriage battles all across the country are heating up!
Already in Illinois, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Minnesota and Hawaii, activists and lobbyists are trying to force through legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. And at the federal level, we have two enormous Supreme Court cases looming.
With limited resources to start the year, NOM has already been extremely active. Consider:
We defeated a lame-duck session bill in Illinois that would have legalized same-sex marriage and are gearing up for a fight over a bill being put forth again in the coming weeks during the new legislative session;
Similarly, we defeated a proposed new law in Wyoming that would have legalized same-sex marriage and another that would have pushed through domestic partnerships in a way that has been used in other states as an excuse for the courts to impose same-sex marriage from the bench;
And all of this while organizing and gearing up for our March for Marriage on the day the Supreme Court hears oral arguments and deliberates the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and voter-initiated laws to protect marriage!
All of our efforts right now are all taking place at a critical time leading up to the Supreme Court's consideration of two landmark cases that could shape the future of marriage in dramatic ways . . . for better or for worse!
Marriage Supporter, you can make a difference! You and I can work together to save marriage and prevent a second Roe v. Wade moment for our great nation.
You are already a champion for marriage — someone who has stood side-by-side with NOM in the past. I know I can count on you to do so again in this critical time.
The owner cites his biblical understanding of marriage in the interview, while the Department of Justice is examining the allegations made against him by the woman who was refused a cake:
From the segment voiceover:
What Aaron and his wife want to make clear is that he don't hate homosexuals, in fact, quite the opposite: "I have no problem with them I have customers who come in almost on a weekly basis who are homosexual. I have no problem, they can buy my stuff I sell stuff I talk with them I mean it's fine." What's not fine, according to Aaron, is a marriage between people of the same sex. He says he'll always stand by that conviction. "I'd rather have my kids see their dad stand up for what he believed in then to see him bow down because one person complained."
When dads hit the dance floor trying to be hip and trendy, everyone else cringes with embarrassment. It's the same with David Cameron's modernising push for gay marriage. A new poll of LGBT people reveals that almost two thirds flinch at his motives. They think he is pushing the policy for the politics, rather than the principle. He's trying to look hip and trendy, but he just looks fake and phoney. He's a disco dad.
... Embarrassed by seeing their leader trying to bop like a teenager, party activists are leaving in their droves. Membership has plummeted by more than half since he became leader, and over 70 per cent of remaining members believe the issue of gay marriage is tearing the party apart. But it's not just the foot soldiers who are quitting. Experienced local association chairmen have quit too. We're talking about people with years of experience who have been faithful to the Party for decades. No leader of any organisation can afford to lose people like that.
... Ultimately, [Cameron] is hoping that his disco-dad moves are a vote-winner. It's not working, according to polling which shows gay marriage could cost him 1.1million votes and up to 30 parliamentary seats. Much of that support is now going to Ukip, which has recently overtaken the Lib Dems as third most popular party. Gay marriage is a prime factor. -- Mike Judge, Head of Communications at The Christian Institute
A ComRes poll released this weekend has shown that Prime Minister David Cameron’s insistence on pushing through same-sex “marriage” will almost certainly cost him the government at the 2015 election. The poll, commissioned by the group Campaign for Marriage, has indicated just how damaging the issue has been for the Conservative party. It found that 20 per cent of Conservative Party voters agreed with the statement, “I would have considered voting Conservative at the next election but will definitely not if the Coalition Government legalises same-sex marriage”.
The numbers, while suggesting that a small majority of party voters support same-sex “marriage,” also show that the party has lost enough support that it will be impossible to win the next general election.
The marriage bill, described by the government as a “small change” and by [gay] activists as “sweeping,” was introduced Friday the 25th with a first vote in the House of Commons set for tomorrow.
23 current or past chairmen of local Conservative Party Associations have delivered a letter to David Cameron by hand where they plead for him not to go ahead with Tuesday’s vote on same-sex marriage.
UPDATE -- here is video of this event from the BBC along with an interview:
Join us in praying for marriage over the next nine weeks. Download a different prayer sheet each week leading up to arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26th and 27th.
NOM's Communications Director Thomas Peters joined in a spirited debate with Peter Tatchell, a veteran LGBT activist from the UK, over the meaning and future of marriage -- we think you will enjoy it!
On love and its relation to marriage, Peters says in response to Peter Tatchell:
"The proponent of gay marriage keeps saying "love is love is love" but the fact is there's a difference between the love of two men, and the love of a man and a woman the difference being that the love of a man and a woman, in most cases, ends with a child, and the child needs a mother and a father, a child for its entire biological [upbringing] will need to be raised by will be raised best by its mother and father and so that's why it's absurd to claim there's something ethically wrong with with seeing the love between a man and a woman as being unique -- that's what the core of marriage is, it's not an evaluation of one love versus another, it's saying different loves result in different things, and that's why the vast majority of who will experience love heterosexually and will have a child and that child will need a mother and father and all the social sciences show that children to best when they're raised by their biological mother and father. And so marriage just isn't about the emotional needs of adults, it's about the practical, emotional, psychological, social needs of children and that's why, while you can experiment with marriage for a few years, generationally only a healthy society that understands this core meaning of what love actually means, is a successful society."
On the harm gay marriage causes, Peters provides an illustration:
"There's an awful lot of civil society -- churches, communities, government -- that is all built to support marriage because marriage isn't easy. It's not easy to get men and women to commit to raising the children they make with their bodies. But that's what civil society has been doing and a healthy society does that. It is difficult and gay marriage makes it difficult for all of civil society to enshrine that value that children deserve a mom and a dad, and that men and women should stick around and love and raise the children they make with their bodies, and the detraction of gay marriage has made it impossible for things like the Catholic Church, for things like political/civil government to give that message and so when you say "gay marriage won't hurt anyone" it already has because now when I try to say "a child deserves both mom and a dad" you jump in and say "that's against equality!" and so you can actually see already that the more gay marriage becomes accepted and enshrined in law the more difficult it will become for the rest of us to communicate this life saving propagating message for the next generation."
In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.
Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.
The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.
The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.
“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare--after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016.
In the new final rules published Wednesday, IRS set in law the rules for implementing the penalty Americans must pay if they fail to obey Obamacare's mandate to buy insurance. (CNSNews)
Important action needed! See below for ways to make your voice heard!
Dear Marriage Supporter,
For over a century, the Boy Scouts of America have stood for honor and traditional Judeo-Christian values, and taught millions of young people leadership and life skills by faithfully applying those values in their own lives. It's not surprising that advocates of alternative "values," such as gay and lesbian activists, would challenge these traditional family values. Indeed, homosexual activists argue that the Boy Scouts should change their values and allow openly homosexual men to serve as scoutmasters with the responsibility of mentoring impressionable youth.
But thirteen years ago, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court of the United states upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to make their own decisions about membership, despite a New Jersey law that would have required them to accept an openly homosexual Scoutmaster.
The Scouts won that fight, but only because they were able to demonstrate to the Supreme Court that they had a consistent national policy against having homosexual scoutmasters.
Today, in the face of relentless demands by homosexual activists, facing potential loss of corporate donations from companies themselves pressured by the powerful gay lobby, and even facing internal pressure from corporate CEOs on their Board, the Scouts are considering a proposal to abandon their longstanding national policy, and instead leaving the decision of allowing homosexual scout leaders to each individual council.
As we know from the marriage battle, capitulation is not a strategy for preserving our cherished values. When homosexual activists demanded "rights" and "benefits" many well-meaning policymakers responded with "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships," believing that this "compromise" would preserve marriage while providing tangible benefits for same-sex couples. Though many in the gay community lobbied for these changes, once enacted they quickly adopted a strategy of condemning them as "second class" and used them to successfully file lawsuits redefining marriage.
Even though their supporters have relentlessly pressured the Boy Scouts to admit openly homosexual men as scoutmasters with the responsibility of mentoring America's youth, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) now says the "compromise" the Boy Scouts are considering does not go nearly far enough.
They will settle for nothing short of capitulation – homosexuality-affirming troops in every locale across America, tolerating no exceptions, period. Any parent or young man who holds a traditional Judeo-Christian view of sexual morality will be attacked as bigoted and accused of discriminatory conduct. You can imagine the lawsuits that will follow.
The BSA Board of Directors will be voting very soon on this new policy proposal — perhaps as early as Monday — and they are seeking public input into their decision. We need to make it clear that compromising honorable values is no path to organizational victory.
Gay marriage advocates are pulling out all the stops on this one, and it is imperative that the Scouts hear from you today!
There are many ways to make your voice heard, but right now phone calls are the most important.
Please call the Scouts National Headquarters at 972-580-2000 or 972-580-2330.
The phone lines are flooded right now, so please keep trying if you have trouble getting through. When they answer the phone, simply tell them that you are AGAINST the proposed policy change.
In addition, we are reaching out directly to the members of the BSA Board of Directors who will be making this decision next week. Below is a partial list of board members — please call as many as you can and politely urge them to maintain their current policy with respect to homosexual scoutmasters, and not to sacrifice their longstanding moral beliefs in favor of political correctness or activist pressure.
This is a long list of phone numbers, but even a few phone calls could make a big difference! Please take a few minutes to make as many calls as you are able.
Togo D. West, Jr.
(202) 775-1775
David M. Weekley
(713) 659-8111
Rex W. Tillerson
(972) 444-1000
Marshall M. Sloane
(781) 395-3000
Roger M. Schrimp
(209) 526-3500
Nathan O. Rosenberg
(949) 494-4553
Matthew K. Rose
(909) 386-4140
Robert H. Reynolds
(317) 231-7227
Tico A. Perez
(407) 849-1235
Arthur F. Oppenheimer
(208) 343-4883
Scott D. Oki
(425) 454-2800
Francis R. McAllister
(406) 373-8700
Joseph P. Landy
(212) 878-0600
Robert J. LaFortune
(918) 582-2981
Larry W. Kellner
(713) 468-4050
Stephen Hemsley
(800) 328-5979
Aubrey B. Harwell Jr.
(615) 244-1713
Earl G. Graves
(212) 242-8000
T. Michael Goodrich
(205) 328-9445 ext. 200
Jack D. Furst
(972) 982-8250
R. Michael Daniel
(412) 297-4989
John C. Cushman III
(904) 393-9020
William F. "Rick" Cronk
(925) 283-7229
Keith A. Clark
(717) 763-1121
R. Thomas Buffenbarger
(310) 967-4500
David L. Beck
(801) 240-1000
Finally, once you've made as many phone calls as you can, please help spread the word by email and social media.
Tweet your support for the existing policy (@boyscouts)
Forward this email to family and friends!
If the Boy Scouts repudiate their national policy and leave the issue up to each individual council, it is quite likely that any individual council which adheres to the old policy will find themselves facing a new lawsuit claiming they are violating their state's nondiscrimination laws. It will only be a matter of time before homosexuality will be embraced in scouting — voluntarily or by court decree — as the "new normal."
Don't let it happen.
Contact the national office today, and as many individual members of the national board as you can.
A Florida judge has approved the adoption of a 22-month-old baby girl that will list three people as parents on her birth certificate -- a married lesbian couple and a gay man.
The Boy Scouts of America has decided to delay its vote on a proposal to let local troops decide 
When dads hit the dance floor trying to be hip and trendy, everyone else cringes with embarrassment. It's the same with David Cameron's modernising push for gay marriage. A new poll of LGBT people reveals that almost two thirds flinch at his motives. They think he is pushing the policy for the politics, rather than the principle. He's trying to look hip and trendy, but he just looks fake and phoney. He's a disco dad.
Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.
