28th July, 2001 (# 3) News Clippings Digest.

1. MARANATHA CHRISTIAN JOURNAL 700 Club Becomes Part Of Disney
Despite Boycott
2. BANGOR NEWS (Maine) Ballot petition spurred by the state's giving
health benefits to gay and lesbian partners could also prevent about
38,000 heterosexual couples from getting those same benefits
3. DALLAS MORNING NEWS Letter: Keep them separate (church and
state)
4. THE OKLAHOMAN Opinion piece sees anti-union "right to work" laws
as a homo feminist liberal commie plot
5. DESERET NEWS (Utah) Utah PTA thinks national organization is WAY
too homo-friendly

Maranatha Christian Journal, July 28, 2001
http://www.mcjonline.com/news/01b/20010725c.shtml
700 Club Becomes Part Of Disney
(CHARISMA) -- The Christian Broadcasting Network's (CBN) "700
Club"
program has a new home with Walt Disney -- whose welcoming of "Gay
Days"
celebrants at its Orlando, Fla., theme park has in the past been
criticized
by CBN founder Pat Robertson.
The unlikely arrangement follows Disney's $5.3 billion
purchase of
the Fox Family Channel, which it is turning into ABC Family, "The
Washington
Post" reported yesterday. Disney inherited the agreement to continue
to
broadcast the "700 Club" and other CBN shows from Fox, which made the
deal
when it bought the Family Channel from CBN in 1997.
Disney chairman Michael Eisner said that CBN founder Pat
Robertson
had "never been in the group that's criticized us for our policies
about
insurance to all employees," referring to Disney's same-sex partners'
coverage. Nor had he ever talked with Robertson about "problems" at
Disney
film production divisions or at ABC, he said.
But, the "Post" reported, Eisner "forgot" that Robertson had
been a
signatory to a full-page trade paper ad attacking the Disney-produced
sitcom
"Ellen" for its homosexual character, and once warned that Orlando
would be
visited by earthquakes and terrorist bombs because Disney World
hosted a
"Gay Days" event. According to the Associated Press, Eisner said
that he
spoke last weekend with Robertson, who said that he supported the
transaction. "He believes that Disney and what we stand for is not
inconsistent with what he stands for."


Bangor News, July 28, 2001
491 Main St., Box 1329, Bangor, ME, 04402-1329
(Fax: 207-941-9476 ) (E-Mail: bdnmail@... )
( http://www.bangornews.com/ )
http://www.bangornews.com/cgi-bin/article.cfm?storynumber=38532
Partners' coverage under fire
By Mal Leary, Special to the NEWS
AUGUSTA -- A ballot petition spurred by the state's giving
health
benefits to gay and lesbian partners also could prevent about 38,000
heterosexual couples from getting those same benefits. That's how
many
unmarried male-female couples were counted in Maine in the 2000
Census.
Some political observers believe the potential effect of the measure
on
heterosexual couples will significantly influence voters, should the
referendum petition drive be successful.
"This will not be Gay Rights 3," said Bowdoin College
professor Chris
Potholm, referring to two previous statewide referendums on an
anti-discrimination law. "At least it should not be, when those
unmarried
couples and their friends and relatives realize what this would do."
Potholm, who has been involved in several campaigns in the
state,
said this issue has the potential to affect far more Mainers than gay
and
lesbian couples.
"The question is whether people will realize the potential by
the
time they vote," he said.
What the petition-initiated legislation would do, if approved
by
voters, would negate "all state and local laws, statues, rules,
regulations,
ordinances, policies and executive and administrative orders" that
give any
of the legal rights and privileges a married couple has, to an
unmarried
couple. The measure would also make it illegal for state revenues to
be
used to provide such benefits.
All state and University of Maine employees as well as workers
in
some municipalities currently have domestic partner benefits and
would lose
those benefits if voters adopt the referendum proposal.
Backers of the referendum campaign claim the reason for the
ballot
proposal is that they view the laws and policies on benefits for
domestic
partners as a back door way to legitimize gay marriages. Even though
the
census data indicates more than 10 times the number of male-female
unmarried
couples stand to lose benefits than the 3,394 same sex couples
identified in
the 2000 Census.
"We don't believe the benefits that married couples have
should be
given to unmarried couples, domestic partners, or whatever you call
them,"
said Michael Heath, executive director of the Maine Christian Civic
League,
the group spearheading the drive. "We just don't think it is right,
and
some believe it is immoral for straight couples to live together
[unmarried], as it is for gay couples to live together."
But, many political observers believe voters will look at the
issue
of unmarried heterosexual couples quite differently from the way they
view
gay and lesbian couples. Douglas Hodgkin, Bates College political
science
professor and longtime GOP activist, said voters are far more
tolerant of
unmarried couples than they once were.
"This is a considerable group of people [unmarried couples]
and this
will be different, I think, than the way the gay rights referendum was
viewed," he said.
But both Hodgkin and Potholm said married couples vote at a
higher
rate than unmarried individuals, and a key to the campaign will be
how both
sides make their arguments to the larger bloc of voters.
"In 1986 the League tried to pass the statewide obscenity law,
and it
was soundly defeated," Potholm said. "And one of the reasons was
people did
not like government involved in personal choice."
Heath acknowledges this referendum will be different. But, he
said
he believes most Mainers do not want tax money used to provide the
same
benefits to unmarried couples as are provided to married couples.
Heath
also believes voters do not want a future state law to require that
if a
private company provides health benefits to a worker's wife or
husband, they
should also be required to offer that coverage to a workers unmarried
partner.
"We think most people in the state agree with us, and if we are
successful in getting enough signatures, our proposal will pass," he
said.
Ed Gorham, president of the Maine AFL-CIO said Heath is
wrong. He
believes most Mainers will reject the idea that employers can have two
standards of health care benefits for workers based on whether they
are
married or not.
"I don't think the voters are going to go along with having
what
Michael Heath thinks is moral be the deciding factor in who gets
health care
coverage," he said.
Gorham said he expects the union group will oppose the
referendum.
Maine's largest employer group, the Maine State Chamber of
Commerce,
has not taken a position on the referendum effort. But Peter Gore,
the
group's statehouse lobbyist, said there seems to be confusion about
the
legislation lawmakers passed this year concerning domestic partner
health
insurance coverage, a measure that the Chamber took no position on.
"That was because it does not mandate coverage," Gore said.
"What it
does is provide the same option to small employers to cover domestic
partners that large employers already have. It is a mandated option,
not a
mandate."
Gore said the Chamber consistently has opposed insurance
mandates on
employers, and would most likely oppose an attempt to mandate domestic
partner benefits. But, he said, that issue has not been before the
Chamber's board of directors for consideration.
Patricia Peard, Portland attorney and longtime gay rights
activist,
said discussions have already begun to develop a broad-based
coalition to
oppose the referendum. She assumes the League will be able to gather
the
42,000 signatures to place the issue before the Legislature. If
lawmakers
do not approve the measure as written, the voters will decide the
issue in
November 2002.
"I can assure you, there will be a major campaign and it will
be far
broader than just gay groups," she said. "If this were to be
approved by
the voters, it would have a major impact on a lot of people that I do
not
think believe they would be affected."
Peard said some of the language in the proposal could be
broadly
interpreted to affect more than just state workers. But Steve
Whiting, a
Portland attorney who wrote the initiative measure, said that is just
a
scare tactic. He said the measure is actually narrowly written.
"The real issue here is actually gay marriage," he said.
"That's
what this is really all about. The whole reason they pushed this
stuff in
the first place was to legitimize gay marriage, and we are firmly
opposed to
that."
But political observers believe this referendum may not be as
clearly
drawn as that. Hodgkin said rarely are ballot issues a simple black
and
white choice for voters.
"There will be a lot of complicated interactions among the
voters on
this issue," he said. "I think both sides will make the argument
that this
would have a broader impact, but for very different reasons."


Dallas Morning News, July 28, 2001
Box 655237, Dallas, TX, 75265
(Fax: 972-263-0456 ) (E-Mail: letterstoeditor@... )
( http://www.dallasnews.com )
Letter: Keep them separate

Re: "Faith groups can't be asked to violate beliefs," Viewpoints,
July 23.
Terry Eastland's column left out an important fact. The population
of the
United States is estimated to be between 5 percent and 10 percent
homosexual. These people are taxpaying citizens and have equal
rights under
the law. Why should their tax dollars be used to further the agenda
of
agencies that discriminate against homosexuals? Is this fair?
As long as these so-called religious organizations are funded
by
private contributions, not tax money, they have a fundamental right
to their
own belief, but even Mr. Eastland must admit that once they accept
money
from the federal government they must abide by federal guidelines.
That is
one reason I am against federal funding for these organizations. I
do not
want the government to have any influence over religious groups, and
I do
not want any religious groups to have any influence over government.
Let's follow the Constitution and keep a strict separation of
church
and state.
- JIM LOVELL, Richland Hills


The Oklahoman, July 28, 2001
P. O. Box 25125, Oklahoma City, OK, 73125
(Fax: 405-475-3971 ) (E-Mail: yourviews@... )
( http://www.oklahoman.com/ )
http://www.oklahoman.com/cgi-
bin/show_article?ID=725789&pic=none&TP=getartic
le
Right to work: a social issue
By Brandon Dutcher
Much ink has been spilled on these pages discussing the
economic
arguments for and against Right to work. It's an important economic
issue.
But it's also an issue that should concern Southern Baptist
grandmothers and Boy Scout parents as much as it does Chamber of
Commerce
executives. The reason is simple: Big Labor, with its war chest of
forced
union dues, funds the very things that pro-life, pro-family Oklahomans
oppose.
Ivan Osorio, editor of Labor Watch, a publication of the
Capital
Research Center, tells me that one way organized labor supports the
cultural
left is "through its 'constituency groups,' the two most notable of
which
are Pride at Work, a gay rights lobby, and the Coalition of Labor
Union
Women, which engages in feminist activism." Visit their Web sites
(prideatwork.org and cluw.org) to see for yourself.
Pride At Work, whose motto is "Out and Organizing: Lesbian,
Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender Labor," is housed at the AFL-CIO
headquarters in
Washington. I asked program director KipuKai Kuali'i for the group's
stance
on the upcoming right-to-work vote in Oklahoma.
Right to work is wrong, Kuali'i tells me. "LGBT [lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender] workers and all LGBT people should realize
that
this type of anti-worker, anti-poor, anti-people-of-color legislation
comes
from the same folks who bring us anti-gay legislation." Right to
work is
"bad for LGBT workers and all workers" and would have "dreadful and
draconian effects."
One of which could be the altered political dynamic in
Oklahoma.
Dimitri Kesari, director of state and local affairs at the
conservative
Family Research Council, says that without forced dues, Big Labor
won't have
as much money to lavish on its causes and candidates.
"AFL-CIO has a radical agenda," he says, "and the only way
they can
advance that radical agenda is through compulsion."
Kesari, who has run numerous congressional campaigns, says to
social
conservatives: "Unions are funding our enemies. Look at any
legislator and
look at where his funding comes from -- not just direct funding, but
indirect funding like independent expenditures. Union organizations
support
pro-abortion candidates, they support pro-homosexual candidates. They
support pro-abortion and pro-homosexual legislation. For a social
conservative, supporting a union is self-defeating."
Right to work is an important economic issue, but it's also a
social
issue.
. Dutcher is a member of The Oklahoman's Opinion Board of
Contributors.


Deseret News, July 28, 2001
Box 1257, Salt Lake City, UT, 84110
(Fax: 801-237-2121 ) (E-Mail: letters@... )
( http://www.desnews.com )
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,295013964,00.html?
Utah PTA is caught in the cross-fire
By Jennifer Toomer-Cook, Deseret News staff writer, jtcook@...
The PTA is up there with potluck dinners in evoking images of
wholesome Utah. But below the surface is a perception by
conservatives that
the national organization is sympathizing with homosexuals and other
liberal
causes.
Some people are so upset they are leaving Utah's largest
parent-teacher partnership. Some want to form their own school
booster
groups.
Meanwhile, the Utah PTA is trying to placate local
constituents while
remaining loyal to the national association's agenda: a task akin to
tightrope walking in a windstorm.
"With some things, you don't know what you can do to please
(people)," Utah PTA President Susan Dayton says. "It's frustrating
because
we can be such a power for good."
In September 1999, National PTA commended the Washington state
PTA
for creating specialty groups focusing on senior citizens, children
with
disabilities, homosexuals and others who may feel disenfranchised by
traditional PTAs.
"The Washington state PTA is sending a message that all
members of
the community who commit to the betterment of their children's
education and
welfare are welcome in the PTA family," National PTA President Ginny
Markell
said in a press release.
The statement might appear to uphold PTA mantras on respecting
differences.
But to Utah parents, including Utah County mother Debbie
Robertson,
specialty PTAs divide parents and open the door to outside agendas.
"The endorsement of these groups, especially when such groups
include
issues of sexuality, in a forum that involves teenagers, is a
decision to
which many PTA members object," Robertson, then-president of the Lone
Peak
High School Parent-Teacher-Student-Association (PTSA) Executive
Board, wrote
to Markell.
Markell's handwritten response reiterated her desires to be
inclusive
of all.
Robertson felt she and board members signing the letter had
been
snubbed.
"I've decided not to join PTA this year," Robertson said. "If
the
national president is not willing to listen to the membership she
represents, she's not representing me."
Other National PTA actions elicit similar responses.
Last December, Markell attended a White House screening of the
film
"That's A Family." The video features children describing their
nontraditional families, which included divorced, adoptive or
homosexual
parents.
National PTA plans to include "That's A Family" with hundreds
of
other listed resources aimed at promoting respect for people's
differences.
But including the video in PTA's resource guide ruffled
feathers in
Utah and nationally. As LouAnn Corbett, PTA president at Red Mountain
Elementary in Ivins, Washington County, sees it: "If they say they're
not
promoting this, why is it in their (guide)?"
The Utah Legislature caught wind of the controversy last
session.
State PTA leaders issued statements to legislators to clarify their
position.
"We're not about lifestyles. We're about children and we're
about
parents being involved in the lives of their children," Dayton said.
Markell sent similar statements to PTA state offices.
Utah PTA doesn't include "That's A Family" in its list of
parental
resources, Dayton said. Leaders also would tell folks seeking
specialty
PTAs to join, and help diversify, traditional PTAs.
"There is no national stand saying, 'Go out and form gay and
lesbian
PTA groups,'" Dayton said. "When (Markell) said 'kudos,' that was
interpreted by people in our state as 'good for you, everyone should
be
doing that, too. . . .' It's become an issue when it's a non-issue."
But some parents within the 6.5 million-member national group
still
have concerns and are doing something about it.
Vista Elementary in Taylorsville and Wasatch Elementary in
Provo
recently split ranks with the PTA and formed PTOs, or autonomous
parent-teacher organizations. Others, including Mueller Park Junior
High in
Bountiful, did so years ago.
They view PTOs as a return to the grass roots, where parent
money
directly helps the school (state and national PTAs take $1 and $1.25,
respectively, of each parent's dues).
PTA leaders say PTOs more closely resemble booster clubs than
an
organized voice for children, particularly on Capitol Hill.
That's fine with PTO members who don't like the PTA's hard
line on
wanting to keep concealed weapons out of Utah public schools or its
opposition to tax credits that can be used for private school tuition.
"We did not want to belong to a national organization that . .
.
(uses) our money to support agendas we might not agree with," said
Sheila
Zolman, past president of Vista PTA. "We never saw anything in black
and
white that PTA was supporting the gay and lesbian movement, but there
may be
parents who read things and were troubled enough that they didn't
want to
join PTA."
Corbett recently announced in an Ivins publication that Red
Mountain
parents were looking outside of PTA for similar reasons. Several
called to
pat her on the back.
But Corbett also said the PTA backed the gay and lesbian
lobby. And
state officials let her know that wasn't true. She plans to write a
letter
retracting the statement after learning state PTA leaders talked to a
lawyer.
Dayton said the group sought legal advice as protocol,
considering
legal ramifications of disbanding a non-profit group.
Corbett also has agreed to keep PTA but form an alternative
"Parents
of Red Mountain Elementary," which she plans to lead.
Utah PTA notes its membership is strong. Fourteen schools
formed new
chapters in the past year. Eighty-five percent of Utah schools -- the
nation's highest -- are members.
The state PTA also plans to keep speaking up on children's
issues,
even the sensitive ones.
"The winds of special interest groups are blowing against every
organization to be politically correct," Dayton said. "As long as we
stand
for children, we can always be politically correct. It's something we
should all be able to see eye-to-eye on."
=====================================================
• Would you like to help promote the Newsclippings service?
HTML Code for Newsclippings - Just copy and paste this link into your
web page.
HTML code:
<center>
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newsclippings/join">
<img src="http://groups.yahoo.com/img/ui/join.gif" border=0><br>
Click to subscribe to newsclippings</a>
</center>
====================================================
• TO SUBSCRIBE NEWS CLIPPINGS LIST, E-mail to:
newsclippings-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
__________________________________________________________
* Questions / Feedback / Archive / Links
• Message Archive
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newsclippings
• Links
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newsclippings/links
List owner: newsclippings-owner@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: newsclippings-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
__________________________________________________________
Australian Business Number (ABN): 51 226 695 391
• Any donations to help cover the costs involved in providing you with
this service would be appreciated. Either a bank draft in Australian
dollars, or an Australian bank cheque. Please mail to:
Graham Underhill
P O Box 2214T
GPO Melbourne
Victoria, 3001
Australia.