Children's & Parental Rights in Family Court

by Mark Godbey
March 5, 2009

Over the past decades, parent's rights and children's rights in family and juvenile courts have been affirmed by many courts. But still parent's and children's rights are trampled on by the state in the areas of education, divorce, custody and religion.

It is time to codify the courts' rulings. We need a Parental Rights Amendment.

One case in particular, Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982). comes to mind:

To quote, "Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. The Supreme Court noted its "historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."

Yet, for most parents, Constitutional procedural protections have not been extended to parents, in fact, the have been legislated out of existence for more transient political purposes, for example, domestic violence. Domestic violence restraining order are not issued in criminal court since domestic violence is a matter before a criminal judge. When was the last time that a married couple was dragged before a "family court" judge for an incident of domestic violence? They are not. They go before a criminal judge, where Constitutional due process rights are upheld. Not in family court, however.

But if you are getting divorced, suddenly domestic violence becomes not a "real crime" but a tactic to keep children away from one parent or the other. In criminal court, you have the 6th amendment right of confrontation and physical evidence must be produced for a crime to have been committed. The evidence must be "clear and convincing" in most cases, and in some "beyond a reasonable doubt". In family court, this evidence standard is ignored.

"Clear and convincing evidence" is evidence that is not self-contradictory or vague and tends to prove the fact for whose proof it is tendered. It would normally involve not only an unequivocal allegation as the central fact but be accompanied by accurate peripheral detail which would allow the court to see that the evidence is consistent with the external factual matrix, of which the nature is known independently of the witness, " so says my friend Barbara C. Johnson of False Allegation.com.

The Santosky decision held that a "clear and convincing" proof standard is constitutionally required in parental termination proceedings.

Santosky, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 455 U.S. 745, 769-770 (1982). "Few forms of state action are both so severe and irreversible." Id. "The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land, any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void of law." Id.

"`The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State.'" Youmans v. Ramos, 429 Mass. 774, 777 n. 7 (1999), quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).

To quote another case:

"The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by [the First] amendment and Amendments 5, 9, and 14." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (l965).

So where does that leave us here in the United States of America? In the 50 state, Puerto Rico and other Territories? According to the many state laws enacted, almost nowhere. The states have gobbled federal dollars to enforce court-ordered "supervised visitation and court ordered child support payment, and there is no incentive for them to stop.

Stop to think about it. If the federal judiciary is saying that what the states legislatures and state courts are doing is wrong and illegal, then why does the federal legislature keep creating piggy bank legislation to do just what the federal judiciary says is un-Constitutional?

The answer is simple, we need state laws that mirror Constitutional law regarding civil rights, and due process rights that the US Supreme Court states that "we the people" have.

It is time for state parental rights amendments.

California Parental Rights Amendment

Section 1. The right of biological parents to direct the upbringing of their children, and to the care, companionship and society of their children is a fundamental right.

Section 2. The right of children under age 18 to the care, companionship, and society of their biological parents is a fundamental right.

Section 3. The state of California, nor any administrative, judicial, executive or legislative act, directive, order or rule or ruling shall infringe upon these rights without demonstrating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in a jury trial that such a fundamental rights be abridged except in cases of criminal neglect, abandonment or abuse. No governmental act or acts now in existence can be created to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Family, not Socialism, is the Answer

By Mark Godbey
March 3, 2009

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." said Vladimir Lenin. This is the philosophy of socialism and it has become the family philosophy of the American Left. From the very beginning of the socialist takeover of Russia, the ability to destroy a family has been a part of the communist doctrine and was exercised ruthlessly by the state.

Here is United States; it has become almost the same as socialist Russia. The rise of no-fault divorce since 1969 first in California has created the Obama-generation of children that see hopelessness in family since almost half of all children since 1969 have grown up in single parent homes. The single-parent home has become the single largest breeding ground for crime, depression and suicide.

The creation of the heinous family court systems, and foster care child care system subsidized by Social Security Code Title IV, has lead to a disastrous rise in crime from children, murder, unwanted babies, and depression and suicide among children and parents, mostly fathers.

What will it take to stop this slide in to the destruction of this country and the moral backbone of this country, the American Family?

We all can agree, parents do not own their children. We are, however, responsible for their growth and well being. For us, the parents of our children assume the "natural" responsibility that existed before law was created to rear children.

Before countries were created, religions organized, and “rights” were written down, parents have reared their children. Marriage between a man and woman existed before laws. Children were reared by their parents. They were taught by their parents. The village acted in concert with the parents, and each supported the other.

It remains to the most fundamental right that human beings have. It has Never been necessary to make it into a law. Good parents have always taken care of their children to the best of their ability. And at time, a small minority of parents fails. This is when the doctrine of “patria parens,” (the state is “father to the children”) takes effect. But far too often both in education, divorce, and in juvenile justice, the state has over reached its authority, and has taken children from good parents.

We have all heard the atrocities of bad parents, but most parents are good parents. And when confronted by the state most good parents loose custody of their children, during divorce, interventions by school authorities and child protective services, without every going through a jury trial.

Even here in America, you can be accused of a crime, never tried by a jury, and lose your children. Most are granted “visitation”, which is just another name for “termination” of parental rights.

This right existed before the creation of any man-made law. Yet over the centuries of this government, we have seen the actual destruction of this right by the many states of the United States and enforced and mandated by the forces of socialism.

That is why a parent’s rights amendment is necessary. Under the US Constitution, family and parents rights have been left to the state, yet in order to destroy the family, the states accepted money from the federal government for visitation centers, child support and supervised visitation.

This is a direct violation of the 10th Amendment. Federal government interference in family matters. Federal government interference in rights reserved for the state. Parental rights, marriage, juvenile courts, and education of our children is a state matter, a matter for “we the people.”

The long history of family values and parents rights has been layed out for us by the US Supreme Court in many decisions. Here are a few of the decisions have defined our rights for us.

• Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).
• Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct
• 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).
• Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).
• Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).
• Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980).
• Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).
• Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98
• S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).
• In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).
• Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).
• Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).
• May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).
• In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
• Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).
• Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).
• Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255^Q56, (1978).
• Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).
• Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI,
• (1985).
• Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).
• Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595^Q599; US Ct App (1983).
• Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).
• Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.
• Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 440 US 268, (1979).
• Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).
• 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct
• App MN, (1972).
• Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).
• Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).
• In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982).
• Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956);
• Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982).
• Wise v. Bravo, 666 F. 2d 1328, (1981).

I would urge any reader to take a long look at supporting a parental rights amendment in your state. Family values, education, religion, and rearing of children, absent a criminal act against one parent or the other, or their children, deserves the protection of the state, and the protection of a trial by jury for any a parent is charged with for termination of parental rights.

It is time for the state of California to stop taking money from the federal government for the “destruction of the family,” as Lenin stated.

Parental Alienation: How Common Is It?

From time to time, I come across articles by professionals involved in family custody and juvenile court struggles over the issue of Parental Alienation.

Simply put, parental alienation is...."...is any behavior by a parent, a child's mother or father, whether conscious or unconscious, that could create alienation in the relationship between a child and the other parent. Parental alienation can be mild and temporary or extreme and ongoing. Most researchers believe that any alienation of a child against (the child's) other parent is harmful to the child and to the target parent. Extreme, obsessive, and ongoing parental alienation can cause terrible psychological damage to children extending well into adulthood. Parental Alienation focuses on the alienating parents behavior as opposed to the alienated parent's and alienated children's conditions." to quote my friend Chrissy.

This morning an article from the UK came across my TwitterFeed on TCOT in California that needed posting. It is important that we recognize that both men and women alienate children from the other parent. It is a gender-neutral illness, but women seem to be singled out since they statistically since are "awarded" custody 80% of the time, but both men and women alienate.

Here is the article:

http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/pas.htm

A GUIDE TO THE PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME
by
Stan Hayward FNF Research Officer

What is it?

The Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is the systematic denigration by one parent by the other with the intent of alienating the child against the other parent. The purpose of the alienation is usually to gain or retain custody without the involvement of the father. The alienation usually extends to the father's family and friends as well.

Dr. Richard Gardner in his book 'The Parental Alienation Syndrome' states (P.74) "Many of these children proudly state that their decision to reject their fathers is their own. They deny any contribution from their mothers. And the mothers often support this vehemently. In fact, the mothers will often state that they want the child to visit with the father and recognise the importance of such involvement, yet such a mother's every act indicates otherwise. Such children appreciate that, by stating the decision is their own, they assuage mothers guilt and protect her from criticism. Such professions of independent thinking are supported by the mother who will often praise these children for being the kind of people who have minds of their own and are forthright and brave enough to express overtly their opinions. Frequently, such mothers will exhort their children to tell them the truth regarding whether or not they really want to see their fathers. The child will usually appreciate that "the truth" is the profession that they hate the father and do not want to see him ever again. They thereby provide that answer - couched as "the truth" - which will protect them from their mother's anger if they were to state what they really wanted to do, which is to see their fathers. It is important for the reader to appreciate that after a period of programming the child may not know what is the truth any more and come to actually believe that the father deserves the vilification being directed against him. The end point of the brainwashing process has then been achieved.

Please use the link above to read the rest of the article.

Thanks,

Mark

California Parental Rights Amendment

To create a parental right to rear your children free of government interference and to enjoy that right unless removed by a jury upon a finding of abuse or neglect "beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://apps.facebook.com/causes/224467/16238298

Positions:

1. Parental rights existed before "positive law" and come from our Creator
2. Constitutional rights protected under the US Constitution have never included marriage, family and children. These rights are reserved to the people.
3. The 4th, 5th and 6th, 14th Amendments rights are routinely violated by the states. This amendment would codify these rights at the state level.
4. Family courts and other quasi-government agencies violate parent and children's right daily. It is time to stop it !!

It is almost next to impossible to have a federal Parental Rights Amendment passed to amend the US Constitution. For that to happen requires the US Congress to pass a proposed amendment to the states. The state governments would not pass it for one main reason:

It would cut into their budget windfall from the federal government. As long as the federal government subsidizes state interference in family matters, the state governments will continue their atrocities against the people of their state and the children of their state.

However, a state Parental Rights Constitutional Amendment would be extremely passable and almost unchallengeable from state governments and agencies if it were based on federal court decisions and the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution supporting children's and parents rights.

Proposed California Parental Rights Amendment

Section 1. The right of the parents to direct the upbringing of their children, and to the care, companionship and society of their children is a fundamental right.

Section 2. The right of children under age 18 to the care, companionship, and society of their parents is a fundamental right.

Section 3. The state of California, nor any administrative, judicial, executive or legislative act, directive, order or rule or ruling shall infringe upon these rights without demonstrating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that such a fundamental rights be abridged except in cases of criminal neglect or abuse. No governmental act or acts now in existence can be created to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Gay Marriage and Civil Unions Are Unconstitutional

By David R. Usher on (Sep 27, 07)

The legal assault on heterosexual marriage must be met with constitutional arguments…

Shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Court forced same-sex marriage on folks living Down East, I realized why defenders of marriage lost the case: they litigated morals and tradition in front of a secular court looking for an equal rights argument.

I quickly realized a principle that could have won the Goodridge case, and prevented subsequent losses in other states. The principle was first published in my February 2004 article “Why Gay Marriage Is Unconstitutional”.

“[Heterosexual] marriage is the first, and the greatest guarantor of human equality in history. It is the only civil rights institution that eliminates all natural and culturally-imposed social, economic, physical, and gender disparities of men and women. It is heterosexual marriage which forms the whole cloth of the human race.”

Forty-five states have enacted constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage, for good reasons beyond the most dangerous civil one: If any two women can marry each other, marriage will eventually become a feminist monopoly.

Feminists dearly want feminist marriage because it would feature at least six incomes: the earnings of two mothers, at least two sets of child support orders, and two sets of welfare entitlements. Feminists have invested tremendous resources litigating, whining, and screaming “discrimination” since the late 1980’s when they decided same-sex marriage was the best way to finally end all social attachments to men, ending poverty for single mothers, while making feminist marriage handsomely profitable.

Same-sex marriage has been official feminist doctrine since January 1988, when the N.O.W. Times highlighted a cryptic mandate issued by Sheila Cronin instructing normal women to pretend they are lesbian and to actively help realize the final goal:

“… The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be {identified} as a lesbian to be fully feminist. …” [emphasis added]

In the same-sex marriage battle, gays and lesbians are merely straw mannequins propped up in courtrooms for introduction of a scurrilous equal-rights argument. This sham is revealed in the Goodridge decision, which orders the state to marry any two humans who walk through the door regardless of their sexual proclivities.

Same-sex marriage and civil union equivalents would hyper-magnify disparities between the sexes and effectively segregate them into two classes of “haves” and “have nots” based on “marital preference”. Powerful economic motivators combined with racy sexual-liberation ideologies of radical feminism would propel women to take the final, pre-emptive step to fully control family, economic and health resources, politics, and law. It would also spell a secular end to religion as we know it.

Heterosexual marriage is weathering unrelenting legal assaults by multi-purpose feminist organizations who are misusing Violence Against Women (VAWA) and other federal program entitlement dollars to force same-sex marriage on America.

Seattle activists hope to weaken the legal tenet that marriage is synonymous with procreation by passing an inititiative requiring dissolution of any heterosexual marriage if a child has not been born within three years of marriage.

New York Mayor Bloomberg hopes to slyly make same-sex marriage legal by permitting anyone to arbitrarily change the sex listed on their birth certificate.

Despite not finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court overstepped its authority ordering the legislature to create a civil simulation thereof The National Organization for Women promptly declared a qualified victory—insisting it will not settle for anything less than full same-sex marriage rights.

Phyllis Schlafly warns that President Bush must “un-sign” the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women [CEDAW]. Like the language of the ERA, equal-rights mandates in CEDAW could be applied to force same-sex marriage by international fiat.

Until same-sex marriage and civil unions are found unconstitutional, heterosexual marriage will slowly be whittled away by cities, legislatures and the courts. I am confident that my explication on heterosexual marriage, if fully developed by legal scholars, could be applied to stop same-sex marriage and civil unions, because it immediately proves that same-sex marriage and civil-union equivalents would commit grotesquely unequal wrongs in the name of equal rights.

One conservative legal scholar suggested that I am wrong in believing that same-sex marriage could be found unconstitutional. I disagree vigorously. Where establishment of same-sex marriage will unquestionably turn marriage into an institution that disenfranchises men in the family and society, pre-empting parental and economic rights simply because they cannot bear children from their own bodies, is to establish a separate and unequal form of government based on sex.

Men and women are unquestionably and tremendously different. The human species requires a strong civil and moral instrument guaranteed to automatically mitigate all differences that exist between the sexes, harnessing them collaboratively for pro-social purposes under God.

Feminism is the most dangerous indigenous cult in America. Its dual agenda of entitled liberation and predatory victimization continue to propel the growing divorce and illegitimacy crisises. Predatory feminism operates on the principles of repressive tolerance, espoused by Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse.

Evidence now proves that organized feminism has left more women and children in helplessness and poverty, living in dangerous streets, than any war in American history. America’s report card is found in UNICEF’s report “An Overview of Child Well-Being In Rich Countries”. Despite massive federal expenditures on the welfare-state nearing a half-trillion annually, the United States ranks number 20 out of 21 nations.

We must vigorously oppose any and all political candidates who support either civil unions or same-sex marriage, regardless of their positions on other issues. America cannot survive if we permit it to be run by entitled feminism.

We must not permit feminists to conveniently monopolize the institution of marriage after having gone to extraordinary lengths to destroy it. The answer to the majority of our socio-economic problems begins with protecting the civil institution of traditional marriage. Once this is accomplished we must reform federal and state policies that seriously weaken marriage via an acid combination of no-fault divorce laws and automated entitlements for illegitimacy and divorce.

David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network

http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=A4102_0_1_0_M

Marriage Protection Amendments

It has become increasingly important to recognize the threat to Family Values and the roles that mothers and fathers play in raising their children both as an intact family and broken family following divorce, which is implied by same-sex unions and marriage.

A study done by the The Traditional Values Coalition:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450

gives a breakdown of marriage values in all fifty states:

SPECIAL REPORT: 50-State Survey Of Marriage Protection Amendments
UPDATED REPORT, November 2008

At this writing, 30 states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Forty-one states have laws banning same-sex marriage either by statute or by amendment.

TVC supports constitutional amendments that ban both homosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions—which provide the same legal benefits to homosexuals as married couples under the law. It is clear that much work needs to be done to defend marriage not only at the state level but at the national level through a constitutional amendment. A federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state homosexual marriages.


Alabama: A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was approved in June, 2006.

Alaska: Defense of Marriage Act is law and part of the state constitution. ACLU is suing to force the state to grant marriage benefits to unmarried couples.

Arizona: Voters passed a marriage amendment on November 4, 2008

Arkansas: On Nov. 2, 2004, voters passed a constitutional amendment that bans homosexual marriage and forbids any civil unions or other unmarried arrangements synonymous to homosexual marriage. Vote was 75% to 25%.

California: Voters passed Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008 that defines marriage as a one-man, one-woman union in the California state constitution.

Colorado: Voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2006.

Connecticut: The Connecticut Supreme Court mandated homosexual marriage in October 2008.

Delaware: DOMA as state law; no constitutional amendment.

Florida: Voters passed a marriage amendment to the Florida constitution on November 4, 2008.

Georgia: On Nov. 2, 2004, voters passed a marriage amendment by a 76% margin and bans civil unions. It is being challenged by homosexuals.

Hawaii: Constitutional amendment bans same-sex marriage but state grants limited benefits to same-sex partners.

Idaho: Voters approved a marriage amendment in 2006.

Illinois: DOMA enacted but constitutional amendment failed.

Indiana: State law prohibits same-sex marriage.

Iowa: DOMA as state law. Senate voted down constitutional amendment protecting marriage. A new marriage amendment has been submitted.

Kansas: Voters on April 5, 2005 passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a one man, one woman union. It passed by a 70% margin.

Kentucky: Voters on Nov. 2, 2004 passed a marriage amendment by a 75% margin. It bans homosexual marriage and civil unions.

Louisiana: DOMA as state law. Voters approved constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions by 4-to-1 margin. Vote overturned by liberal judge on Oct. 5, 2004. The case is in now in court awaiting a decision.

Maine: DOMA as state law. Constitutional amendment failed in House and Senate.

Maryland: State law prohibits same-sex marriage.

Massachusetts: In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the legislature to enact a law granting marriage to homosexuals. In July, 2008, the Massachusetts legislature voted to remove residency requirement for out-of-state homosexual marriages.

Michigan: On Nov. 2, 2004, voters passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions by a 59% margin.

Minnesota: DOMA as state law but constitutional amendment failed when legislature ad- journed in May without voting on it. A marriage amendment is under consideration in 2005.

Mississippi: On Nov. 2, 2004, voters passed an amendment by an 86% margin. It bans same-sex marriage and does not recognize homosexual marriages from other states. Does not ban civil unions.

Missouri: DOMA as state law and written into the state constitution.

Montana: On Nov. 2, 2004, voters passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage by a 67% margin. ACLU is suing for spousal benefits for homosexuals. Does not ban civil unions.

Nebraska: DOMA is in the state constitution. ACLU sued to overturn amendment. In May, 2005, a federal judge declared DOMA unconstitutional. He was overruled in 2006 and the amendment was reinstituted.

Nevada: DOMA written into the state constitution.

New Hampshire: State law bans same-sex marriage.

New Jersey: In 2006, Gov. Jon Corzine signed a bill permitting homosexuals to enter into civil unions.

New Mexico: Legislature killed marriage amendment in 2005.

New York: No DOMA. Bills recognizing or banning same-sex marriage have been intro- duced but none have passed yet. ACLU and Lambda Legal are suing for “right” to marry homosexuals.

North Carolina: An amendment was submitted in 2005.

North Dakota: 73% of the voters on Nov. 2, 2004 chose to amend the constitution to ban homosexual marriage and any other counterfeit of marriage, including civil unions.

Ohio: 62% of the voters on Nov. 2, 2004, voted to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.

Oklahoma: 76% of the voters on Nov. 2, 2004, voted to protect marriage. The amend- ment bans any homosexual marriage/civil unions. Homosexuals are suing to overturn federal DOMA.

Oregon: 57% of the voters on Nov. 2, 2004, passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Does not ban civil unions.

Pennsylvania: DOMA as state law; constitutional amendment to be introduced.

Rhode Island: No DOMA. State Attorney General says state constitution mandates ho- mosexual marriage.

South Carolina: Voters passed marriage amendment in 2006.

South Dakota: Voters passed a marriage amendment in 2006.

Tennessee: Voters passed a marriage amendment in 2006.

Texas: Voters passed an amendment protecting traditional marriage in November 2005.

Utah: 66% of the voters on Nov. 2, 2004, voted to protect marriage by banning homosexual marriage and civil unions.

Vermont: Homosexual civil unions are legal in this state. No DOMA has passed.

Virginia: Marriage amendment was passed in 2006.

Washington: DOMA as state law.

West Virginia: DOMA as state law. Law challenged by ACLU but it is upheld by state Supreme Court.

Wisconsin: Voters passed a marriage amendment in 2006.

Wyoming: Wyoming has a statute protecting marriage. The legislature killed an amendment effort in 2005.

Planned Parenthood’s Child Molester Cover Up EXPOSED!

Life Dynamics, Inc. (LDI), in partnership with Traditional Values Coalition, is providing irrefutable proof that Planned Parenthood (PP) is deliberately covering up the sexual molestation of girls!

Sexual activity with underage girls is illegal in all 50 states—yet Life Dynamics discovered that Planned Parenthood counselors are willing to cover up sexual crimes against underage girls by adult males!

LDI encouraged a team of girls to call PP clinics and pretend to have been sexually abused by adult males. In case after case, PP counselors willingly ignored state law to cover up these molestations and violations of statutory rape laws! These conversations were taped by LDI.

Each PP clinic that has covered up child molestation must be prosecuted! For additional information on the LDI’s Child Predator project, go to: http://www.childpredators.com

Listen to these tapes and make up your own mind about the motives of Planned Parenthood officials to cover up the sexual molestation of girls!

Click here for index of tapes and transcripts

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions

By Michael Savage

Dr. Michael Savage, sage prophet of the airwaves, has been diagnosing liberal mental illness for more than a decade. Now, in his third and most insightful book, he strikes at the root of today's most desperate issues, providing a hefty dose of his unique conservative medicine, including:

• Homeland security: "We need more Patton and less patent leather. . .Real homeland security begins when we arrest, interrogate, jail, or deport known operatives within our own borders. . .One dirty bomb can ruin your whole day."

• The ACLU, National Lawyers Guild, and MoveOn.org: "I believe it's time for the heads of . . . left-wing agitation groups who are using the courts to impose their will on the sheeple to be prosecuted under the federal RICO statutes."

• Illegal immigration: "I envision an Oil for Illegals program. . .The president should demand one barrel of oil from Mexico for every illegal alien that sneaks into our country."
  
• 
  

The Doctor is in and the diagnosis is clear. Read “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder” and find out what you can do to treat it.

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=20&ITEM_ID=1972

http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550062