Freedom's Defenders
  • Foundations
    • Articles of Confederation
    • Declaration of Independence
    • Constitution
    • Bill of Rights
    • Amendments 11-27
    • Washington's Farewell Address
    • Star Spangled Banner
    • Northwest Ordinance
  • Foundations
    • Articles of Confederation
    • Declaration of Independence
    • Constitution
    • Bill of Rights
    • Amendments 11-27
    • Washington's Farewell Address
    • Star Spangled Banner
    • Northwest Ordinance

Freedom's Defenders Blog

Supreme Court Shake-up: Justice Kelly to step down from Michigan's highest court

8/17/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
The Detroit News reports that Michigan Supreme Court Justice Mary Beth Kelly will be resigning from the state's highest court to return to private practice on October 1.  It is reported she will be working for the Bodman law firm in Detroit.  Governor Rick Snyder will be be appointing Justice Kelly's replacement.

While Justice Kelly did join the liberal dissent in a recent case involving Right-To-Work in Michigan, when looking at decisions made by the Court she is undoubtedly a part of the 5-member Rule of Law majority on the seven-member Court.

Justice Kelly was elected to the Michigan Supreme Court in 2010, following over a decade of service of the Wayne County Circuit Court.

0 Comments

High Court's Decision Allows Homosexual Marriage in Over 30 States

10/14/2014

0 Comments

 
The recent Supreme Court decision not to review cases from the Court of Appeals has made homosexual marriage legal in over 30 states. It is unbelievable that only 11 years ago many states banned the homosexual lifestyle Now many of those same states have been forced to accept homosexual marriage. 

Freedom's Defenders has opposed Homosexual marriage for the simple reason that God designed marriage to be one man for one woman for life. Even without this biblical reason, it is illogical to accept homosexual marriage so fast. Firstly, no one is being discriminated against by leaving the law as it is. Non-homosexuals can no more marry someone of the same sex than a homosexual can. 

One may argue that this is similar to the bans on inter-racial marriage. This is very different from the bans on inter-racial marriage. The definition of marriage was not altered by lifting those bans. The definition was still one man for one woman. We are discussing not just lifting a ban based upon something like skin color, we are discussing changing the definition of a marriage itself. The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed this in their 19721 decision Baker vs. Nelson; "Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."


Unfortunately only four circuit courts are left to rule on this matter: 5th, 6th, 8th, and 11th. Several States within these circuits have appeals pending. We will see what the future holds regarding the definition of marriage.

Related Articles:

Same-Sex Marriage is Not Like Interracial Marriage - Family Research Council
Judge Strikes Down Utah Traditional Marriage Laws, Calls Them 'Irrational' - Family Research Council
0 Comments

We Stand With Governor PErry

8/21/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
You've probably heard by now -- Rick Perry, the Republican governor of Texas, was indicted by a grand jury on allegations that his veto of funding for Texas' Public Integrity Unit was politically motivated.  Perry followed through on a veto threat after the head of the unit was arrested for drunk driving and refused to resign despite serving 45 days in jail.

The head of a state's Public Integrity Unit serving 45 days in jail for drunk driving?  That's just a little bit outrageous, don't you think?  If I were in Governor Perry's place, I would have done the same thing. 

As Senator Ted Cruz pointed out:


Unfortunately, there has been a sad history of the Travis County District Attorney's Office engaging in politically-motivated prosecutions, and this latest indictment of the governor is extremely questionable.
Here's part of Governor Perry's statement on the indictment:
I wholeheartedly and unequivocally stand behind my veto, and will continue to defend this lawful action of my executive authority as governor. We don't settle political differences with indictments in this country. It is outrageous that some would use partisan political theatrics to rip away at the very fabric of our state's constitution.
Sign the Stand with Rick Perry petition at rickperry.org/stand-with-rick-perry.
0 Comments

Supreme Court Upholds Prayer

5/6/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
In a five to four decision the Supreme Court upheld a city council's right to pray before a meeting. The first amendment challenge argued that the Town of Greece was establishing a religion by merely recognizing the divine hand of God prior to meetings. The fact that no religion was forced on anyone by the city council recognizing the hand of the Almighty did not seem to make a difference to those opposing the town of Greece. Thankfully the Court sided with Greece. This case along with the other cases in recent years have shown a trend towards a reversal in Court precedent, from the doctrine of separation toward a more traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. The traditional and correct interpretation holds that the First Amendment does allow members of the Government to engage in religious activity - it just does not allow the Government to force a religious belief on the entire nation.

This decision is a blow to those who wish to see religion compartmentalized and taken out of the public eye. Ben Sharipo in his excellent article explains why the break down of religion in public is so important to the left; "The greatest bulwark against an overreaching government, as tyrants know, is a religious population. That is because religious people form communities of interest adverse to government control of their lives; religious communities rely on their families and each other rather than an overarching government utilizing force. The greatest obstacle to the welfare state is not greed but private charity that makes the welfare state irrelevant; the greatest obstacle to re-education of children in the name of the collective is allegiance to a higher power. More than that, the greatest obstacle to the state as god is an actual God above the state."


0 Comments

#HobbyLobbyDay: Saturday, March 29!

3/28/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Remember Chick-Fil-A Day?

Well it's back -- but this time, it's for Hobby Lobby, the craft store chain that could face fines of up the $1.3 million per day if its Christian owners don't comply with the federal "HHS Mandate" to provide contraception to employees in their health coverage. (Keep in mind that Hobby Lobby still covers, and would continue to cover, 16 out of 20 contraceptives.)

Their case was argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 25.

Now, you can join Americans across the nation in supporting Hobby Lobby by shopping in-store or online tomorrow, March 29!

Please RSVP to this Facebook event hosted by Family Research Council Action as another way to show that you stand with Hobby Lobby!
Learn More about The Hobby Lobby Case

You can show your support for Hobby Lobby by using this photo for your Facebook cover!  Right-click, save the graphic, and then upload it as your Facebook cover photo.
Picture
0 Comments

First of 2014 - Marriage in Utah, Reince Priebus on March For Life, New Parental Rights Cosponsors

1/7/2014

0 Comments

 
MARRIAGE IN UTAH: The US Supreme Court issued a stay on a December ruling by federal District Court judge Robert J. Shelby that would have forced the state to accept homosexual "marriage".  The stay issued yesterday by the Supreme Court allows Utah's ban on homosexual "marriage" to remain in place while Judge Shelby's decision is appealed to the Tenth Circuit court.

Tony Perkins, President of the
Family Research Council, released the following statement:
"The Supreme Court has today signaled that it will not allow state laws defining marriage to be set aside by a lone judge without a careful consideration of the issues involved. The issuance of a stay is consistent with the Court's ruling last year in Windsor v. United States, in which they affirmed that states have the 'historic and essential authority to define the marital relation' and condemned federal efforts 'to influence or interfere with state sovereign choices about who may be married.'"
MARCH FOR LIFE: On Sunday, news broke that Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is delaying the start if the GOP's winter meetings so that RNC members can attend the March For Life on January 22.  The party will also charter a bus to transport committee members to the March For Life.  Read the story in the Washington Times here.

While we don't always agree with Chairman Priebus, we applaud this decision and hope that he will continue to show strong pro-life leadership as the chairman of the Republican Party.
PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT: Over the Christmas and New Years holidays, the Parental Rights Amendment gained five new cosponsors, bringing the total number up to 70!  Click here to see if your Congressman is on the list, and if they're not, give them a call and ask them to support parental rights!
0 Comments

Weekly Round-Up December 16-22

12/24/2013

0 Comments

 

Court Watch
Family

This week two more states were added to the growing list that allow same-sex "marriage". Both Utah and New Mexico were force to legalize it under a decision in the Court. Utah has appealed to a higher Court hoping that their ban - passed by 64% of the people- will stand. Under Case Law and Precident Utah has a solid case, - but in recent years the Court has been ignoring precident. 

Political Correctness
Phil Robertson 

This last week A&E suspended Phil Robertson for some controversal comments. Robertson had been asked what he believed was sin, and following the Bible he included homosexuality as a sin. He also included drunkard and adulterer, openly adminting that he had been both before he became a Christian. He ended noting the hope in Christ to overcome sin. Despite the obveous reliance on the Christian view of sin, A&E and many other groups have declared Robertson to be bigoted. The truth is Robertson merely stated his agreement with the Bible. 

A&E had the Constitutional right to suspend Phil Robertson, but that does not make the suspension right. The suspension shows on the part of the TV network, a dislike for the foundational principle of America - Free Speach and Debate. This suspension is about more than freedom of speech - or about more than freedom of association. It is about whether the American People are going to accept the rights of others to believe differentally. I have been attacked for stating that this suspension is a attack on freedom of speach, but it is, for although A&E has no requirement to affirm his right, they have shown a distaste for his right.

A&E suspension will also not change the verses that Robertson quoted.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6:9-10
0 Comments

Marriage Under Fire

12/21/2013

0 Comments

 
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."  -Supreme Court of the United States: Murphy vs. Ramsey: 114 US 45
In the last two weeks devastating developments have happened around the country for marriage. Before this week 17 states had legalized same-sex "marriage." Three by the will of the people and four by the legislatures, and the rest by judicial fiat. This week added 2 more states - Utah and New Mexico- to the horror of many residents of these states. In both states a court ruled bans unconstitutional. In Utah the same-sex marriage ban had been passed by the people.

Mayor Mia Love expressed her horror at the overruling of the ban on same-sex marriage:
"I am disappointed in today's ruling by Judge Robert J. Shelby. Judge Shelby used his position on the federal bench to override the will of Utah's voters, who have defined marriage in our state constitution as a union between one man and one woman. Amendment 3, which Judge Shelby's ruling strikes down, passed by an overwhelming vote in Utah: 65.9% to 34.1%. I am hopeful that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse this activist ruling by allowing states—not the federal government—to define marriage within their borders." 



Sadly there are only 31 states left that hold to the traditional, biblical view of marriage. 
"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." - Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6


Last week a new attack on marriage arose; Utah's polygamy ban was ruled unconstitutional in Brown v. Buhman. this is the first time in American history a ban on polygamy was ruled unconstitutional. Throughout case law, polygamy is seen as vile, for in the words of the Supreme Court, "[Polygamy] degrades women." In three different Court cases the Supreme Court affirmed that polygamy is invalid; Reynolds vs. United States, Davis vs. Beason, and Murphy vs. Ramsey. Thankfully in order for Polygamy to become legal in any state these cases would have to be overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States. Despite this Brown v. Buhman makes clear a new danger for the American family.


As the Supreme Court has declared;
Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community." - Supreme Court of the United States - Davis vs. Breason
0 Comments

Weekly Wrap Up: December 9-December 15

12/17/2013

0 Comments

 
As we approach the CHRISTmas season things begin to slow down, this last week has been no exception. 

Court Watch
Family

This week a District Court judge cited homosexual marriage to rule Utah's anti-polygamy law Unconstitutional. This law has been ruled Constitutional at the Supreme Court, so this ruling will not change Utah law, but it does indicate a major shift in the thinking of Amerca. In Reynolds vs. United States and others the Supreme Court ruled laws against Polygamy constitutional. In one instance the Court stated; 
"Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment." -Davis vs. Beason
The decision this week of a judge to defy the rulings of the Supreme Court signals a dangerous shift for the American Family and our Republic.
"Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."  - Murphey vs. Ramsey; US Supreme Court

State Watch
Michigan

The State of Michigan officially passed the Abortion Insurance opt out. This made Michigan the 24th state to enact this law, opting out of the abortion funding in Obamacare. After Governor Snyder vetoed the bill last year, Right to Life of Michigan used a process in the States Constitution to basically override the veto of the Governor. In order to do this Right to Life gathered over 300,000 signatures, and then set the bills to the state Congress, where they passed with an almost party line vote. Opponents of the bill are seeking a ballot referendum in November 2014.
0 Comments

Weekly Wrap up: December 2 - December 8

12/9/2013

0 Comments

 

Court Watch
Faith

This last week two major things happened in relation to the Court. A Catholic hospital was sued for refusing to discuss abortion and Liberty University was denied an appeal of their lawsuit to the 4th Circuit. 

The ACLU filed charges on behalf of a Michigan women against the Catholic church, because one of their hospitals complied with Catholic standards, by refusing to discuss abortion as an option for a pregnancy. Mercy Hospital was fully in their legal right to deny abortions, since Mercy being part of the Catholic church believes that abortion results in the death of an unborn child.

ObamaCare Watch

As ObamaCare continues to roll out Americans continue to be shocked. People, who relied on their insurance, have lost their coverage. The family of a 6 year old cancer patient was shocked to learn that their plan was among the ones that did not comply with the HHS standards. This family is not the only ones who have lost coverage, thousands of Americans have recieved such notices. Many of these Americans find that purchasing new care would increase costs, or that they cannot get plans that cover the care that they need. Many who we perfectly happy with their care are angry to see it lost.
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Categories

    All
    2016
    Action
    America
    Common Core
    Conservatism
    Constitution
    Court Watch
    C. R. P. D.
    Education
    Elections
    Homeschooling
    Immigration
    Israel
    Marriage
    Nomination
    Obamacare
    Parental Rights
    Planned Parenthood
    Religious Liberty
    Second Amendment
    Senate
    Shutdown
    Stand For Life
    Supreme Court
    Taxes
    United Nations
    Welfare

    Tweets by @DefendFreedomUS

    Archives

    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.