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.
Family Policy Network (FPN) opposes and and all efforts to add the phrase: “sexual orientation” to governmental lists of so-called ‘hate crimes’ categories at the local, state or federal level. State legislatures often consider such proposals and some have been passed and signed into law. This policy paper explains the reasons why FPN is opposed to all such proposals.
The Morning-after Abortion Pill (MAP), which is often referred to by pro-abortion activists as “emergency contraception,†consists of a quadruple-dose of hormones ordinarily found in physician-prescribed “birth control†pills. According to documentation from manufacturers of the MAP, the substance must be administered within 72 hours after sexual intercourse to prevent ovulation and subsequent fertilization from occurring. However, if ovulation has already occurred, the MAP is designed prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg AFTER conception, thereby destroying tiny young human lives. This policy paper presents the reasons for Family Policy Network’s (FPN) opposition to the Morning-after Abortion Pill.
RELATED STORIES:
- Federal Government Makes “Morning-After†Pill Available Over-the-Counter
- Pro-Lifers Upset with Bush Over Support for Morning-after Abortion Pill
Student-led, non-academic clubs have long been an important part of the public school experience. From the Kiwanis-sponsored “Key Clubs,†to MADD-sponsored “Students Against Drunk Driving,†and the Christian-based “Fellowship of Christian Athletes,†scores of public school children have learned important values and engaged in meaningful community service as a result of their participation in school-based clubs.
The number and scope of school clubs has increased dramatically in recent years. Currently, clubs promoting astrology, atheism, feminism, homosexuality and even witchcraft are common in public schools, and have often alarmed parents, teachers and administrators in school districts throughout the nation.
Senator Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., recently proposed a bill in the U.S. Senate calling for the federal government to impose a 25% excise tax on pornographic websites. The bill, introduced as the ‘Child Internet Safety and Protection Act of 2005’, has been touted as a countermeasure to growing online porn use by minors. The revenue generated from the porn tax would be deposited in a ‘trust fund’ to provide funding for efforts to stem and combat internet pornography-related crimes against children. This policy paper explains Family Policy Network’s (FPN) opposition to such legislation.
