ADF Senior VP; Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb writes:

February 2, 1943:  the bitter chill of the North Atlantic suffused the dusk as an Allied convoy laden with troops and gear wallowed its way to Europe.  Those who could sleep did so uneasily; German submarines crept about nearby.

The first hour of February 3, 1943 would be the last hour for the transport ship Dorchester.  Minutes after midnight, the ship was gut-shot by a German torpedo.  Dark terror ensued—without power or lights, heaving in the winter seas, the 902 men aboard sought their salvation from the deep.

Only 230 would succeed. 

But from that horror emerged the remarkable story of four Army chaplains who acted with uncommon valor—steadying the panicked troops, guiding them to safety, urging calm amidst the chaos.  As the ship pitched in its death throes, the four handed their own life jackets to troopers who had none, and with that final act of grace they surrendered their lives for the sake of others. 

While the valor was uncommon, the will to serve was not – and the military properly honored the right of all chaplains to serve both as religious leaders and secular counselors.   But sadly, that high regard is now undercut by President Obama imposing open homosexual behavior on the military by repealing the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Now, while the repeal is scarcely a done deal, military officials who prefer political correctness over moral courage began implementing some bizarre changes.  The breaking point came when the Navy ordered its chapels to be open to same-sex “marriages,” in defiance of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 

Legislators swiftly responded and the Navy backed off—for now.  But the conflict between the impending military sexual “morality” and that taught by the vast majority of chaplains could no longer be hidden.

Indeed, the conflict prompted rare written protests from the Catholic  and Protestant chaplain endorsing agencies that supply the vast majority of chaplain candidates to the armed forces.

Their protest resonates with the spirit of the four sacrificial chaplains who were willing to serve whatever the cost, reserving only one thing:  “Chaplains have a tremendous moral responsibility to insure that when they preach, teach or counsel, they do so in accordance with their conscience and in harmony with the faith group by which they are endorsed.”

Bluntly put, chaplains cannot and will not sacrifice Christian truths at the altar of President Obama’s sexual politics—a reality that the President had fair warning of.  Now that the warning is becoming reality, Congress must act to protect the faithful service of the Chaplains, lest the military find itself on the wrong side of history in a war of morals.  Do your part and let your Senators and Representatives know of the endorsing agencies’ concerns while there is still time to act!

Visit “Faith Under Fire” to learn more about how the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” threatens religious liberty.

Buried at the bottom of an otherwise predictable “angry conservatives” piece (that actually opens with the words “Angry conservatives…”) written following the announcement from Attorney General Eric Holder that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, was a curious nugget from one of the leading agitators for the destruction of marriage.

AP: Gay marriage looms big in 2012

Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay-rights group Lambda Legal, questioned whether that would have much impact on the 2012 presidential race.

“People who feel strongly that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry were not going to vote for President Obama anyway,” he said.

A bit of wishful thinking, or willful blindness, we’d have to say.

Mr. Davidson is well aware of these numbers from 2008, but allow us to remind him:

President Obama took 61% of the California vote to Sen. McCain’s 37%.

Proposition 8, California’s state constitutional marriage protection amendment, cruised to a comfortable 52.24%-47.76% win.

The math isn’t all that hard. The fact is, plenty of folks who voted for then-candidate Obama also voted to restore the definition of marriage in deep-Blue California.

A more accurate rendering of reality comes from ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks.

ADF: ADF statement in response to DOJ letter on Defense of Marriage Act

“Marriage is a unifying issue in America. The federal Defense of Marriage Act reflects the reality that 90 percent of states protect marriage and that the citizens in those states believe in marriage as a union only between one man and one woman. Tragically, the Department of Justice has chosen to appease a small–but vocal and wealthy–constituency and abandon its duty to the people.”

The truth is, no matter how many times we are lectured on the “inevitability” of counterfeit same-sex “marriage,” every time the American people have the opportunity to stand up for marriage, we do. More often than not, the results, at the only polls that really matter, are overwhelming…whether the anti-marriage forces “like it or not.”

More likely than the ho-hum response some dream of to the DOJ action, is what ADF attorney Jim Campbell says in the lead quote in the AP piece:

“The ripple effect nationwide will be to galvanize supporters of marriage,” said staff counsel Jim Campbell of the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group.

AP: Church group blasts Obama for abandoning Defense of Marriage Act

A coalition of 34,000 black churches is blasting President Barack Obama’s decision to stop defending the federal law that bans recognition of gay marriage.

The Rev. Anthony Evans, who heads the National Black Church Initiative, says Obama “has violated the Christian faith” by failing to uphold Jesus’ teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Catholic voters tilted 54%-45% for President Obama in 2008, but the US Bishops issued the following statement: USCCB Decries Refusal to Support Defense of Marriage Act

Hard to imagine that Mr. Davidson is right and Mr. Campbell is wrong about this one.

In response to a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice informing the speaker of the House that the DOJ and President Obama will no longer defend a key component of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Alliance Defense Fund is issuing the following statement from ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks:

“The American people have a right to expect their laws to be defended by the very people whose job it is to do so: their government officials. But the administration is making clear that they are simply not going to defend marriage.”

“Marriage is a unifying issue in America. The federal Defense of Marriage Act reflects the reality that 90 percent of states protect marriage and that the citizens in those states believe in marriage as a union only between one man and one woman. Tragically, the Department of Justice has chosen to appease a small–but vocal and wealthy–constituency and abandon its duty to the people.”

“This only confirms what has appeared to be the case in several recent lawsuits. In those defense-of-marriage cases, the DOJ has undermined rather than defended DOMA. It’s unfortunate that the administration won’t defend such an important law passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Either the House of Representatives or the Senate have the legal authority to intervene in pending lawsuits to defend the federal DOMA statute. In addition, ADF will not waver in its ongoing defense of marriage nationwide.”

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

On April 15, 2010, United States District Court Judge Barbara Crabb, for the Western District of Wisconsin, struck down the National Day of Prayer statute, 36 U.S.C. § 119. This opinion usurped hundreds of years of American history and tradition and must be overturned. It was on November 26, 1789, that George Washington issued the first Thanksgiving Day prayer proclamation, calling this nation to a day of prayer and giving thanks. But if this decision is not overturned, future prayer proclamations like our first president’s will be jeopardized. Be assured, though, that the Alliance Defense Fund is prepared to devote its resources and manpower to protecting our American heritage and religious freedom.

In striking down the statute, the court ruled it serves no secular purpose, but rather calls the nation to engage in a religious exercise – prayer. The court also ruled that the NDP statute violated the endorsement test because a reasonable observer, upon reviewing the statute, would conclude that the government endorses religion. And according to this court, even the endorsement of religion generally is a violation of the establishment clause. The court concluded, “[b]ecause the National Day of Prayer does not have a secular purpose or effect, it cannot survive scrutiny under Lemon and the endorsement test.”
We at the Alliance Defense Fund believe this court’s decision will be overturned as the Supreme Court has already upheld the very similar practice of legislative prayer. In Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the Supreme Court upheld the practice of opening a legislative session with prayer because it dates back to the founding fathers.

But the Wisconsin federal judge ruled that Marsh is a limited opinion that should not be applied in this case. The court stated that while the NDP statute encourages national prayer, the legislative prayers in Marsh were just examples of ceremonial deism. In addition, the court said that just because prayer proclamations have been going on since our nation’s inception, that does not make the practice right.

The good news is that the court’s ruling specifically does not apply to the 2010 National Day of Prayer, or to any other future National Days of Prayer until this case has been fully appealed, which could include an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. We will continue to fight in this case through all appeals to protect our religious heritage. It is vitally important that decisions like this attempt to minimize America’s religious historical roots are not allowed to stand.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Justice John Paul Stevens recently announced his retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court after serving on the Court for 34 years. Stevens, who turned 90 in April, is a World War II veteran—the only veteran currently on the Court—and by all accounts is a truly warm and gracious man. Appointed by President Ford in 1975, Justice Stevens is known for his collegial nature and his respectful demeanor from the bench, along with his preference for bow ties (it’s hard to picture him without one) and his love for the game of tennis (even at 90, he still reportedly plays on a routine basis).

But, above all else, he will be remembered as the intellectual leader of the Court’s left wing. And in that role, he was consistently a staunch advocate for erecting a “high and impregnable wall between church and state” and has issued numerous opinions that have diminished our religious freedoms.

He repeatedly voted against any public recognition of religion. He wrote dissenting opinions in Van Orden v. Perry and County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, which upheld the constitutionality of certain religious displays on public property. Van Orden considered a Ten Commandments display, while County of Allegheny considered a display that included a nativity scene and a menorah. In Justice Stevens’ view, the First Amendment creates “a strong presumption against the display of religious symbols on public property.” He also dissented in Marsh v. Chambers, which upheld the 200 year old practice of opening sessions of Congress in prayer.

His views were particularly strong in the area of religion and schools. Justice Stevens was the lone dissenter in Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, which upheld the constitutionality of a federal statute that protected the right of public secondary students to form religious student groups on campus.  He wrote the decision in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, striking down the practice of student-led, student-initiated prayer before football games at a Texas high school. And he wrote the decision in Wallace v. Jaffee, striking down an Alabama law that authorized a daily period of silence in public schools for meditation or voluntary prayer. And in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, he voted to strike down an Ohio school voucher program that parents could use to send their children to private schools, including religious ones.

Perhaps most significantly, however, was Justice Stevens’ deciding vote in Employment Division v. Smith, which concluded that the Free Exercise Clause does not protect against government regulations that are neutral toward religion and are generally applicable—even if the regulations substantially burden religious exercise. Commentators have described this case as a “constitutional bombshell that blew apart the Free Exercise Clause and gutted it of any meaningful protections.”

The last religious freedom case that Justice Stevens will help decide is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In that case, ADF attorneys represent a Christian student group that is challenging a public law school’s refusal to recognize simply because it requires its leaders and voting members to share its Christian beliefs. As I discussed in a previous post, this case could have significant ramifications for Christian student groups and churches around the country.

These cases reveal how crucially important Supreme Court nominees are. Please be praying that President Obama will select a replacement for Justice Stevens who will be a strong advocate for our first liberty—religious freedom.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch