Podcast: Download (Duration: 1:00 — 1.4MB)
Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid Missouri facing 107 criminal charges that could prevent it from conducting abortions
In well-intentioned efforts to curb the erosion of the sanctity of marriage by proposing or passing “marriage amendments” to individual state constitutions, many people believe that merely defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman will do the job of protecting the institution of the family.
Sadly, this is not the case. A state (or federal) marriage amendment that does nothing to protect against homosexual civil unions misses the point of protecting the institution of the family. Such attempts fall victim to the idea that the only thing that needs protecting is the word “marriage.”
This policy paper explains Family Policy Network’s (FPN) position on state marriage amendments and explains why the differences in language are so important.
Residents across the state of Pennsylvania are voicing their opposition to a congressional proposal that would use taxpayer money to pay for abortions under the guise of so-called health care “reform”. Pro-family Pennsylvanians are signing Family Policy Network’s petition urging both houses of Congress and President Obama to reject health care “reform” that provides universal abortion funding on the backs of American taxpayers.
Many Pennsylvanians who signed the petition opposing taxpayer-funded abortion added their own comments to the statement above. Here is a sampling of those comments:
A Pennsylvania pro-family group has joined a nationwide boycott of a major greeting card company as a result of its promotion of the homosexual lifestyle. The American Family Association of Pennsylvania has joined forces with several other pro-family groups around the country to boycott Hallmark over the company’s new line of “same-sex couple” cards. AFA-Pennsylvania’s [...]
Pro-family attorneys applaud the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for its ruling in Marcavage v. Rendell affirming that the state legislature violated the Pennsylvania Constitution when it added “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to Pennsylvania’s “ethnic intimidation” law in 2002.
