<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Editorials Archives - FFV</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.flfamily.org/category/editorials/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.flfamily.org/category/editorials/</link>
	<description>Florida Family Voice</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 May 2022 17:47:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Thinking Clearly After Roe: A Five Part Strategy Moving Forward</title>
		<link>https://www.flfamily.org/dobbs-case/thinking-clearly-after-roe-a-five-part-strategy-moving-forward/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2022 18:55:18 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Dobbs.Case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editorials]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.flfamily.org/?p=57627</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/dobbs-case/thinking-clearly-after-roe-a-five-part-strategy-moving-forward/">Thinking Clearly After Roe: A Five Part Strategy Moving Forward</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="et_pb_section et_pb_section_0 et_section_regular" >
				
				
				
				
				
				
				<div class="et_pb_row et_pb_row_0">
				<div class="et_pb_column et_pb_column_4_4 et_pb_column_0  et_pb_css_mix_blend_mode_passthrough et-last-child">
				
				
				
				
				<div class="et_pb_module et_pb_image et_pb_image_0">
				
				
				
				
				<a href="https://www.flfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/AfterRoe_5-Part-Strategy_Sheets_Print-Ready.pdf" target="_blank"><span class="et_pb_image_wrap "><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" width="626" height="308" src="https://www.flfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/After-Roe-626x308-.png" alt="" title="After Roe" srcset="https://www.flfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/After-Roe-626x308-.png 626w, https://www.flfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/After-Roe-626x308--480x236.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) 626px, 100vw" class="wp-image-57608" /></span></a>
			</div><div class="et_pb_module et_pb_text et_pb_text_0  et_pb_text_align_left et_pb_bg_layout_light">
				
				
				
				
				<div class="et_pb_text_inner"><p>Yesterday, the Heritage Foundation’s online news organization, <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/05/16/5-pro-life-strategies-for-post-roe-america/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Daily Signal</a>, published an article I wrote and have been working on for several months. It is entitled <em><a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/05/16/5-pro-life-strategies-for-post-roe-america/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>“Thinking Clearly After Roe: A Five Part Strategy Moving Forward</strong>.”</a> </em>John Stonestreet said it was “the best, most comprehensive look forward” he has seen yet. The Family Policy Alliance played a key role in assisting me with producing this plan and is part of their website and campaign <a href="http://www.AfterRoe.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.AfterRoe.com</a>.</p>
<p>This is the moment many of us have been working for our entire lives. But we must realize that this is not the end of the battle, but it is simply the beginning.</p>
<p>This article is an imperfect battle plan of love, service, and national strategy on how to move forward is a post-Roe world. This is plan on how to create a world where we love children and not kill them. A plan on how to create a society that looks back on the practice of abortion like we look back on slavery, with shame and disgust</p>
<p>You can read the article at the Daily Signal here: <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/05/16/5-pro-life-strategies-for-post-roe-america/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/05/16/5-pro-life-strategies-for-post-roe-america/</a></p>
<p>You can download the full article in a printable PDF form here: <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/AfterRoe_5-Part-Strategy_Sheets_Print-Ready.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.flfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/AfterRoe_5-Part-Strategy_Sheets_Print-Ready.pdf</a></p>
<p>Would you help me by reading this article and getting this resource into the hands of pro-life supporters everywhere around the country?</p>
<p>Thank you for your support. Together, we will end abortion in America and create a culture of life and love for women and their children.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>John Stemberger, President</p></div>
			</div>
			</div>
				
				
				
				
			</div>
				
				
			</div>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/dobbs-case/thinking-clearly-after-roe-a-five-part-strategy-moving-forward/">Thinking Clearly After Roe: A Five Part Strategy Moving Forward</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Four tests for amending the Florida Constitution</title>
		<link>https://www.flfamily.org/editorials/four-tests-for-amending-the-florida-constitution/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:47:53 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Editorials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.flfamily.org/?p=48718</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Florida voters are the ultimate guardians of our Florida Constitution. Whether we end up with document that’s a wily patchwork of random regulations, or one that enshrines the most fundamental rights in our state, rests in their hands.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/editorials/four-tests-for-amending-the-florida-constitution/">Four tests for amending the Florida Constitution</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="article__byline d-flex flex-row">
<div class="article__byline--names" style="text-align: center;"><span class="article__byline--name">By John Stemberger, <a href="https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/Column-Four-tests-for-amending-the-Florida-Constitution_167296400" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">special to the Tampa Bay Times</a></span></div>
</div>
<div class="article__pubdate">
<div style="text-align: center;">Published <span class="timestamp" title="April 13, 2018 10:45:00 EDT">April 13, 2018</span></div>
<div></div>
</div>
<article>
<div id="articleBody" class="article__body">
&nbsp;<br />
The Florida Constitution has become a laughingstock and should be taken more seriously. Our state’s most important and fundamental legal document addresses everything from legitimate, fundamental human rights to the highly questionable regulation of pregnant pigs and fishing nets.</p>
<p>In short, the Florida Constitution is bloated. The average state constitution has approximately 26,000 words; Florida’s Constitution has more than 44,000 words. The U.S. Constitution has only 8,770 words.</p>
<p>It is clear that state constitutions have a broader purpose than the U.S. Constitution. This is true in part because the federal Constitution limits its own scope by the 10th Amendment that states &#8220;powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution are reserved to the states.</p>
<p>However, just because state constitutions are broader in scope than the U.S. Constitution does not mean state constitutions should be unlimited in scope. Florida’s Constitution was not intended to be a collection of policy issues and regulatory rules; it has a much higher purpose.</p>
<p>Some states have &#8220;statute referendums,&#8221; where citizens by a direct statewide vote can place new laws into state statutes. A state statute referendum was one of the many ideas submitted by the public to the Constitutional Revision Commission, but no commissioners adopted it or put it forth.</p>
<p>As a member of the CRC, I argued that one of four objective criteria should be met for an idea to qualify as an appropriate topic for an amendment. If the idea satisfies at least one of these threshold criteria, only then should a policy analysis take place as to whether the idea is a good one. The threshold questions:</p>
<p>1. Does it set forth a fundamental right?</p>
<p>2. Does it establish the structure of government?</p>
<p>3. Does it limit the powers of government?</p>
<p>4. Does it amend a provision already set forth in the Constitution</p>
<p>Some began calling this the &#8220;Stemberger Test.&#8221; It is a test, but it is certainly not something I invented or that is unique to me. Former Florida Supreme Court Justices Major B. Harding and Kenneth Bell also have written on the same topics, arguing for very similar criteria for the CRC to consider. The principles behind these criteria simply stem from the nature of our form of government.</p>
<p>Conservatives almost exclusively refer to our form of government as a &#8220;republic.&#8221; Those left-leaning almost exclusively call our government a &#8220;democracy.&#8221; So, which is it?</p>
<p>The truth is, it’s both.</p>
<p>We are a representative democracy that operates within a constitutional republic form of government. We vote for and elect legislators who represent us by voting on bills which become law, on our behalf.</p>
<p>Our state Constitution is the document that gives Florida a republican form of government. Constitutions, by their very nature, restrict the power of the &#8220;state&#8221; to interfere with the rights of the people, thereby protecting them from government interference.</p>
<p>The primary difference between a republic and a democracy is that in a democracy the law rules the people, but in a republic the law rules the rulers. This is a critical distinction, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that &#8220;rules the rulers.&#8221;</p>
<p>The clearest example of this is illustrated in the opening words of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It famously announces, &#8220;Congress shall make no law …&#8221; In other words, government keep your hands off of the following rights and human liberties that belong to the people.</p>
<p>This notion of one greater law that rules the rulers is a revolutionary idea in the course of human history and one that must be vigorously protected.</p>
<p>Therefore, constitutions were never intended to be vehicles to hold ordinary public policy ideas.</p>
<p>In a sense, not all laws are created equal. Local zoning ordinances are different than state statutes, which are different than constitutional rights. You would not protect fundamental rights in a zoning code any more than you would regulate the size of roofing nails in the constitution.</p>
<p>But that’s precisely what has been done, to some extent, in Florida’s state Constitution. The document that was designed to be the supreme law of the land has in some areas been relegated to mere mob-rule depository for any policy or regulation usually found in ordinary law.</p>
<p>Florida voters are the ultimate guardians of our Florida Constitution. Whether we end up with document that’s a wily patchwork of random regulations, or one that enshrines the most fundamental rights in our state, rests in their hands.</p>
<p><em>John Stemberger is a civil trial lawyer and conservative leader from Orlando and a member of the 2017-18 Florida Constitution Revision Commission.</em></p>
</div>
</article>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/editorials/four-tests-for-amending-the-florida-constitution/">Four tests for amending the Florida Constitution</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Constitutional privacy fix will protect Floridians</title>
		<link>https://www.flfamily.org/editorials/john-stemberger-constitutional-privacy/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2017 23:44:48 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Editorials]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.flfamily.org/?p=48708</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Florida Privacy Restoration Act responds to the voice of the people and provides a necessary fix to the state constitution.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/editorials/john-stemberger-constitutional-privacy/">Constitutional privacy fix will protect Floridians</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<header class="mvp-post-head-wrap left relative">
<div class="mvp-post-head relative">
<p class="mvp-post-title left entry-title" style="text-align: center;">By John Stemberger, originally published by <a href="https://floridapolitics.com/archives/248449-john-stemberger-constitutional-privacy" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Florida Politics</a> on November 1, 2017</p>
</div>
</header>
<div class="mvp-post-main left relative">
<div class="mvp-post-body left relative">
<div class="mvp-post-content left relative">
<div class="mvp-content-wrap relative">
<div class="mvp-content-main left relative">
<p>I read with great interest <strong><a href="http://floridafaf.org/files/2017/03/CRC-Privacy-Proposal-22.pdf" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=http://floridafaf.org/files/2017/03/CRC-Privacy-Proposal-22.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1509582570674000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFPI3P2jWZgWDuZ0yLqsn8VraocXw">the letter</a> </strong>by First Amendment Foundation (FAF) President <strong>Barbara Petersen</strong> to <strong>Lisa</strong> <strong>Carlton</strong>, chair of the Declaration of Rights Committee of the Constitution Revision Commission (CRC), regarding her concerns over the proposal written by former Florida Supreme Court Justice <strong>Kenneth</strong> <strong>Bell</strong>, and which I am sponsoring, entitled the “Florida Privacy Restoration Act.”</p>
<p>I am somewhat bewildered by FAF’s letter. In my opinion, it reads as if the Foundation never read the last sentence of the existing privacy amendment as found in Article 1, Section 23, and/or the ten words I am proposing to be added to the provision: “with respect to privacy of information and the disclosure thereof.”</p>
<p>As you may know, Florida newspapers have a history of consistently opposing Florida’s privacy laws, often with little serious legal analysis and with the same type of alarmist tones and hypothetical scenarios you expressed in your letter.</p>
<p>In 1977, newspapers across Florida opposed the 1977-78 CRC’s proposed privacy amendment because of fears that the ability of the media to collect information would be stifled. The St. Petersburg Times argued that it “could have a chilling effect upon news gathering and would provide a convenient excuse for government secrecy … harmful to the public interest.”</p>
<p>In 1980, Florida newspapers continued to raise “grave concerns” and stoke fear over the privacy amendment proposed by the Legislature. A strong “government in the sunshine” provision was added, which stated “[t]his section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.”</p>
<p>This clear added language should have allayed all concerns, but the Tallahassee Democrat’s editorial board still recommended a “no” vote to the privacy amendment in 1980.  Despite the scare campaign by the news media, the amendment was adopted by the people of Florida by a 59 percent vote. People understood it was intended to protect informational privacy, which is what they wanted and why they voted for it.</p>
<p>After 37 years and 52 Florida Supreme Court cases citing the privacy clause, none of the many issues newspapers were concerned about have come to pass – not a single one.</p>
<p>The Florida Privacy Restoration Act is simple, clean and well thought out. The language will require Florida courts to interpret the privacy clause in the manner intended by its original drafters and the people who adopted it. The intent being to protect the people from the government’s collection and more importantly, disclosure, of personal and private information.</p>
<p>Existing federal privacy rights robustly protect virtually all of the privacy interests ruled on by Florida courts except informational privacy.  This is the very reason the amendment was passed but Courts have ignored both intent of the drafters and the people who adopted it.</p>
<p>The truth is — today we have an even more rapid growth of technology resulting in the increased invasion of personal and private information through various forms of surveillance and the monitoring of personal electronic devices. This information can be collected directly by government or obtained by them from private corporations. This alone warrants the amendment.</p>
<p>The number one concern raised by people speaking during the CRC’s ten public hearings around the state was fixing the privacy clause so that it could no longer be hijacked by Florida’s high court and used for purposes other than what it was intended. Concerned citizens wanted the privacy clause returned to its original purpose – to protect informational privacy.</p>
<p>The Florida Privacy Restoration Act responds to the voice of the people and provides a necessary fix to the state constitution.</p>
<p>___</p>
<p><strong>John Stemberger</strong> is a member of the 2017-18 Florida Constitution Revision Commission. He is an Orlando attorney, president of Florida Family Policy Council, and one of the leading pro-family advocates in Florida.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/editorials/john-stemberger-constitutional-privacy/">Constitutional privacy fix will protect Floridians</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Leadership in an Angry and Divided Nation: A Christian Response to the 2016 Election Results</title>
		<link>https://www.flfamily.org/news/daysafterelection/</link>
					<comments>https://www.flfamily.org/news/daysafterelection/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:11:02 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Editorials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.flfamily.org/?p=6996</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump wins, it seems inevitable that America will be angrier and more divided. This heightened “national anger” and division will present a major challenge in the ongoing struggle to maintain a civil and orderly society. Within the Church, we will have continuing challenges to achieve unity, advance God’s Kingdom, and effectively proclaim the Gospel.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/news/daysafterelection/">Leadership in an Angry and Divided Nation: A Christian Response to the 2016 Election Results</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><big><img decoding="async" class="wp-image-6999 alignleft" src="https://www.flfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/the-stream-300x88.jpg" alt="the-stream" width="252" height="74" /></big><br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p><big><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3989 alignleft" src="https://www.flfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/John-Stemberger-smaller-235x300.jpg" alt="John Stemberger" width="101" height="128" />By <a href="http://ffpc.convio.net/site/R?i=013hNke8uEZlRxf7Uij0Xg">John Stemberger</a>,<br />
Published on November 6, 2016 in <a href="https://stream.org/leadership-angry-divided-nation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Stream<br />
</a><br />
Barring some kind of freak election scenario with hanging chads in a key swing state like Florida in 2000, America will wake up on November 9, 2016, to the sober realization that we have elected a new president. Whether it is Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, the President-Elect will begin leading with the reality that roughly one half of the nation doesn’t just dislike — but viscerally hates — him or her.</big></p>
<p><strong>Most American citizens, for very different reasons are angry, </strong><em><strong>really angry</strong></em><strong>. </strong></p>
<p>Bernie Sanders supporters are angry at Hillary Clinton’s corruption and crony capitalism. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz supporters are angry at conservatives that supported or helped Trump in the primary. Trump supporters and members of the Tea Party are totally furious that the GOP Establishment did not stand up stronger against Obama. The GOP Establishment is reeling because they argue that Trump hijacked the Republican Party, is utterly uncivil, and that his presence has caused other down ballot Republican candidates to lose in races with small victory margins.</p>
<p>Most disconcerting of all, Evangelical Christians are angry at each other. Some are upset that #NeverTrump Christians voted for third party candidates which helped Clinton with little regard for the future of the Supreme Court. Others are upset that Christian leaders were willing to risk compromising their witness to an unbelieving world by openly promoting a man whose personal moral history is deplorable.</p>
<p>Whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump wins, it seems inevitable that America will be angrier and more divided. This heightened “national anger” and division will present a major challenge in the ongoing struggle to maintain a civil and orderly society. Within the Church, we will have continuing challenges to achieve unity, advance God’s Kingdom, and effectively proclaim the Gospel.</p>
<p>In some ways, I am just as concerned with what happens in the days following November 9th, as I am with the outcome of the election itself.</p>
<p>When the election results are announced, millions of Americans will feel a sense of despair, disenfranchisement and indifference. For various reasons, many will be tempted to withdraw and give up on active citizenship and self-government and may even go so far as to do something radical and foolish to perpetuate social unrest. Sadly, these reactions will not be limited to the culture at large but will also be found within the Christian community.</p>
<p>If you are a pastor or Christian leader and you think that this strife does not exist within your church or ministry… think again.</p>
<p><strong>What should our response, as Christians, be to this unfortunate national chaos? </strong></p>
<p>What can we say and do to bring spiritually clear thinking in the midst of confusion? How can Christian leaders navigate healing between angry, divided and emotional souls into the future?</p>
<p>Here are five ways I believe Christian leaders can and should honor God as they lead others in “the days after” November 8<sup>th</sup>:</p>
<p><strong>1) Christian principles hold the key to creating a civilized society and ultimately bringing peace between men, and between man and God. </strong>The ideas of religious liberty and the rights of conscience were birthed during the Reformation. These seeds of faith need to be germinated again today to robustly grow and create civility in our citizens. A Judeo-Christian worldview gave birth to the freedoms of the American experience. What the secular left does not understand is that when they undermine a person’s deeply held religious Christian faith, beliefs and values they are actually undermining the very roots of the freedom they rely upon to oppose us. The concepts of separation of powers, rule of law, a written constitution, federalism, all men being created equal — these are ideas which spring from Christian history and the principles of scripture. Most importantly, Christ has the power to enable men to see the reality of their own human condition. Christianity frees the human heart from its bondage to sin. Steps toward final resolution of our nation’s internal warring against ourselves can only be found when we first individually make peace with God. When we truly understand the high price that was paid for our own forgiveness and then offered as free gift, how can we withhold our forgiveness of others.</p>
<p><strong>2) We must start the peacemaking process in our own personal relationships. </strong>If you bitterly resent that #NeverTrump member of your family or church that voted third party (helping Clinton), then either choose to forgive them in your heart or directly reconcile. If you have grudges against Christians who were helping Trump in the primary, you must clear your heart and mind toward them as well. The same applies towards those who foolishly supported Hillary Clinton outright. Whoever it is you would rather avoid and not talk with, much less serve or fellowship with because of their politics, is precisely the person you need to start restoring your relationship with. C.S. Lewis once said, “<em>We all agree that forgiveness is a beautiful idea until we have to practice it</em>.” Before we can help the culture heal, we need to start with our own hearts. The cause of the gospel and the survival of the republic demand that we make things right between us so we can move forward in unity.</p>
<p><strong>3) We need to develop a long-term view with long-range plans to win back the culture and our government.</strong> Many leaders and funders of the conservative movement trying to change society only think and invest in the short term, or election to election. We find that Christian leaders are typically concerned with either the culture or politics — but seldom both. For instance, restoring a culture of marriage and family may take many decades. We should start with our own families and churches. We can never give up believing in, fighting for, and protecting the non-negotiables, both in the political and cultural realm. These are the very foundations of our civilization. We need to begin to develop the same kind of long range and tenacious perspective on these issues as the pro-life movement did after the <em>Roe v. Wade</em> ruling in 1973. The “idea of America” is slipping away and unless we have a long-term, disciplined strategy and vision to win the hearts and minds of future generations, we will have little chance of winning elections or controlling political decision-making in the future.</p>
<p><strong>4) Remember that God is sovereign and we have no other choice but to trust Him for our future</strong>. Statements like these are often made by Christians, but seldom truly understood for the life changing power they contain. The truth of God’s sovereignty is also commonly misapplied to the wrong side of history. When we are faced with evil and injustice, we have a moral responsibility to make choices and act in accordance with God’s Word. However, when evil and injustice are in the past and behind us, we must rest in God’s sovereign plan realizing that His ways are higher than our ways. God is constantly intervening in history and He can be trusted with the future, even if we do not fully understand His plan.</p>
<p><strong>5) There is still some good in this world and its worth fighting for. </strong>No matter how dark and desperate the world appears, <em>Christians must never lose hope</em>. Relentless hope should be ingrained in our DNA. Our faith and trust cannot be ultimately in the government, or in any leader, but only in God Himself. Scripture shows that God often does his best redemptive work in dark and desperate times. Christ’s brutal torture and death on the cross is “Exhibit A” that God can use even the darkest moments in world history for His Glory and for our ultimate good; even when we don’t understand why. In J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic, <em>The Lord of the Rings</em> Trilogy, Sam urges Frodo to not to give up on his mission — though the journey will be dark and desperate. He pleads, “<em>There is some good in this world Mr. Frodo, and it’s worth fighting for</em>!” When we see a man and a woman commit themselves for life unconditionally in marriage; when we hold and look into the eyes of a baby who has been rescued from abortion; when we place that same newborn into the loving hands of a family; when our families are able to teach, guide and protect children from the many dangers and deceptions of this world; when we are free to exercise and live out our faith without governmental interference; when we see the tears of others who have come to faith — <em>these things</em> are examples of the good in this world that is always worth fighting for. Looking forward, we need to develop a kind of spiritual resilience that shields us from discouragement, cynicism and the temptation to give up when the path is difficult. As long as God gives us breath, we must be willing to run the race and fight the good fight.</p>
<p>Christians understand there is a time for peace and a time for anger. But they also understand that “the anger of man does not bring about the righteousness of God.” Let us think and pray now for the discernment to know the difference as we lead others into this next season of our nation’s history.</p>
<p># # #</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/news/daysafterelection/">Leadership in an Angry and Divided Nation: A Christian Response to the 2016 Election Results</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.flfamily.org/news/daysafterelection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>An Open Letter to Florida’s Only Openly Gay Legislator Rep. David Richardson</title>
		<link>https://www.flfamily.org/press-releases/openletterrepdavidrichardson/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2016 14:37:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Editorials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press Releases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Richardson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equality Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FFPC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida Family Policy Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida gay representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[florida gay rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida Legislature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[florida policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay legislator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Stemberger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislative agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LGBT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LGBT community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LGBT Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lgbt rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miami Beach Representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Letter to Legislator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[openly gay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rep. David Richardson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richardson]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.flfamily.org/?p=6795</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Regarding your repeated charge that fellow legislators make others “prone to committing violent acts” when they make “speeches” in opposition to bills which call for special and new LGBT rights in the Legislature.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/press-releases/openletterrepdavidrichardson/">An Open Letter to Florida’s Only Openly Gay Legislator Rep. David Richardson</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><center><strong>Regarding your repeated charge that fellow legislators make others “prone to committing violent acts” when they make “speeches” in opposition to bills which call for special and new LGBT rights in the Legislature.</strong></center><center>By John Stemberger<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Published at <a href="http://floridapolitics.com/archives/215480-john-stemberger-open-letter-florida-rep-david-richardson" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FloridaPolitics.com</a></center></p>
<p>Dear Representative Richardson:</p>
<p>Since your election to the Florida House of Representatives in 2012 until now, I have always known your reputation as a legislator to be one of nothing but respect for the dignity of the institution, for the legislative process and for your fellow colleagues.  Even those who firmly disagree with you on matters of public policy speak highly of you, of your talents as a legislator and the unique perspective you bring to the process.</p>
<p>However, after the tragic and despicable acts of evil which took place right down the street from my offices in Orlando on June 12, I was shocked to learn of your repeated statements accusing your fellow legislators of creating an environment that gives rise to such horrible violence when they speak out against any LGBT bills as bad public policy in the Legislature.</p>
<p>After the local NPR affiliate <a href="http://ffpc.convio.net/site/R?i=b_T8kHrACMRLD-a1pO3ETg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">interviewed</a> you, WFSU issued this report:</p>
<p>“<em>Florida’s only openly gay legislator says Orlando’s mass shooting is an example of a deranged individual taking anti-gay political rhetoric to the, “next level.” Democratic Representative David Richardson of Miami Beach says attempts by religious conservatives to roll back recent gains in gay civil rights encourages extremists… “[P]eople who are prone to committing violent acts are emboldened by speeches that they hear from policy makers that want to roll back our advances.” </em></p>
<p>When I respectfully confronted you on another NPR affiliate <a href="http://ffpc.convio.net/site/R?i=d5zeN2zrUPpbXJXx89CQUQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">radio debate</a> for linking vocal opposition to new LGBT laws with violent acts such as the ones that occurred in Orlando, you initially denied these statements&#8211; until I read your words back to you on the air.  Then, instead of retracting or apologizing for these irresponsible remarks, you doubled down and repeated the same very offensive and incorrect argument again.  In that interview you said,</p>
<p><em>“I absolutely do think that people are emboldened, by the comments of certain lawmakers whether they are reacting in a violent way&#8230;”</em></p>
<p>While I realize the matter of the Orlando shooting and the topic of creating new LGBT rights are still raw, emotional, and highly personal matters for members of the LGBT community, this in no way justifies these inflammatory remarks which do nothing to foster good will, understanding or collegiality among fellow members of the Legislature, much less the general public.  On the contrary, your comments breed divisiveness, sow discord and are an attempt to manipulate and silence robust debate among the other elected leaders of our Legislature on these important policy decisions.</p>
<p>Additionally, you have also stunningly stated:</p>
<p><em>“It doesn’t help when they go to Tallahassee and spew hatred and rhetoric that is harmful to our community. I really wish we could get to a place where everyone can get along and respect the rights of everybody.”</em></p>
<p>I personally know many of the members of the Legislature who are known to be the most vocal and the most actively opposed to these bad gay-rights bills.</p>
<p>I have been in some of their homes.</p>
<p>I know their families.</p>
<p>None of them, even in private or casual conversation, make comments that “spew hatred” toward the LGBT community.  On the contrary, these are truly some of the finest, most loving and charitable people you could ever know.  Do you have specific examples of Florida legislators “spewing hatred” when debating in opposition to the creation of new LGBT rights?</p>
<p>The primary push by gay-rights activists after the Orlando tragedy, as you know, is the so-called “Competitive Workforce Act” (CWA) which seeks to create a new legal protected class for sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.  These laws are being used all across the country asweapons to punish Christians who want to live out their constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion in public life without government interference.  Even more egregiously, this CWA bill would alsoallow fully biological men to freely use women’s locker rooms and showers in any facility declared a public accommodation like YMCA’s, camps, LA Fitness &amp; health clubs and domestic violence shelters.  This is a gross invasion of privacy, safety and security for women.  The more serious problem created with the CWA has not so much to do with transgendered persons themselves, as it does with <em>actual criminals</em>(voyeurs, sex offenders and pedophiles) who are looking for excuses to go into women’s intimate spaces, which the latest version of this bill would unquestionably allow.</p>
<p>These are just a few of the many legitimate and compelling public policy and constitutional problems which compel legislators to speak out publicly and <strong>strongly oppose the CWA</strong>.  For you to argue that when any legislator speaks out in debate against this dangerous bill they are “<em>spewing hatred</em>,” “<em>encouraging extremism</em>” and “<em>make people prone to violent acts</em>” is simply beyond the pale of decency for a member of the legislative branch of government.</p>
<p>Rep. Richardson, this sir&#8211; is not your finest moment.</p>
<p>Is there a way to disagree on these policies and not be judged as hateful or contributing to creating an environment of terror?  If we cannot disagree in civility without being slimmed with such accusations, then our civil society has a real problem.</p>
<p>Unless you can provide real examples of such “hateful” behavior, rather than talking about it in generalities, you should stop making these assertions. It is not helpful to this important debate, it is manipulative and pollutes the work we are hopefully both committed to, namely building a better Florida, even in the midst of our disagreements.</p>
<p>You have correctly stated that, “<em>it does not help when [people] go to Tallahassee and spew rhetoric that is harmful</em>.”  If you really mean that, please start by reexamining and reconsidering your own harmful words directed to your own colleagues and do not confuse “robust debate” with “hateful rhetoric” just because you disagree.</p>
<p><center># # #</center></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/press-releases/openletterrepdavidrichardson/">An Open Letter to Florida’s Only Openly Gay Legislator Rep. David Richardson</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>God’s Design for Marriage: A Theology of Marriage From Genesis to Revelation</title>
		<link>https://www.flfamily.org/editorials/gods-design-for-marriage/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2016 23:32:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Editorials]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.flfamily.org/?p=48704</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Let’s look into God’s word and look at His design for the most intimate and ultimate of all human relationships -- marriage.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/editorials/gods-design-for-marriage/">God’s Design for Marriage: A Theology of Marriage From Genesis to Revelation</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>God’s Design for Marriage: A Theology of Marriage From Genesis to Revelation</strong><br />
By John Stemberger</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Introduction:</strong></span><br />
Ravi Zacharias has said that “if there is one clue to the meaning of life, it can be found in relationships.”</p>
<p>And one of the most central and important of all human relationships is marriage.</p>
<p>But talking about marriage as a topic is really an un-common thing. Marriage itself is a common thing&#8211; but talking about marriage as an institution, is kind of like talking about the oxygen we breathe. And marriage is a little bit like the air we breathe. Oxygen is everywhere and all around us. Yet we don’t really think about Oxygen because we can’t see it, we<br />
can’t touch it and it’s not tangible. And so we can often take air for granted. But it is only when our air is altered at the essence of what it is at a molecular level or is severely polluted, do we suddenly realize how important this stuff is and we realize we need it immediately to survive!</p>
<p>Marriage is like that also. Marriage is all around us and everywhere. Yet we can’t really see it, or touch it. And we really don’t have conversations about marriage as a human institution. And so we can easily take marriage for granted.</p>
<p>But I would submit to you that it is only when marriage is altered in the essence of what it is, as the union of one man and one woman, do we suddenly realize how important this stuff is and we need it immediately to survive for the next generation!</p>
<p>So much of what we believe is really just made up of ideas and assumptions that we soak up from the world&#8211; which may or may not line up with God’s word and his design for human relationships. And things are changing in our world. And changing really fast. Our values, our standards and our beliefs are changing so quickly as a society that we have to ask ourselves…</p>
<p>How does God feel about all these changes?</p>
<p>Now you would certainly not go out and buy a new Harley Davidson or a new Lexus SC and then just guess about what the owner’s manual has to say about the type of gas and intervals of maintenance the car should have. The beauty of the Bible is that it is like the owner’s manual &#8211;or the operational manual for the human experience. The more we can align our beliefs, our values, our passions and our actions to God’s design for the greatest product he has ever created, the healthier, happier and most optimal fulfillment we will have in life.</p>
<p>The framers had this beautiful saying they placed into the Declaration that says this: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” But we are living in a day and in an age where there is no self-evident truth at all. Even the most basic pre-suppositions of life are up for grabs. What is a man? What is a woman? What is a life? What is a marriage?</p>
<p>And we live in a world where we are seeing cataclysmic social change that is unprecedented in the history of human affairs. And while much social change has been good in our country’s history, the changes we are seeing today are being directed at radically redefining human institutions that serve civilization since the beginning of time.</p>
<p>Things that were unthinkable, just 15, 20 years ago, are now not only thinkable, but they are being promoted as virtuous and have been afforded the full force of legal protection and in some cases have been smuggled into the constitution illegitimately.</p>
<p>As the Bible says, we as a society now call “evil good and good evil.” But do we have the discernment to know the difference between good and bad, virtue and vice and know how to respond?  Again, how does God feel about these changes?</p>
<p>So let’s look into God’s word and look at His design for the most intimate and ultimate of all human relationships &#8212; marriage.</p>
<p>Read the full article here: <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/A-Theology-of-Marriage-From-Genesis-to-Revelation.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.flfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/A-Theology-of-Marriage-From-Genesis-to-Revelation.pdf</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/editorials/gods-design-for-marriage/">God’s Design for Marriage: A Theology of Marriage From Genesis to Revelation</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Seven Reasons Why “Getting Government Out of the Marriage Business” Won’t Work</title>
		<link>https://www.flfamily.org/marriage/marriageprivatization/</link>
					<comments>https://www.flfamily.org/marriage/marriageprivatization/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:09:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Editorials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Building Block of Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Institution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economist Jennifer Roback Morse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Families]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fatherlessness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida Family Policy Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Goverment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Goverment Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group Marriages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Incest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Incestuous Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jennifer Roback Morse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Stemberger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libertarians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Logic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage Covenant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage Debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage Equality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marriage privatization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage Response]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Marriages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plural Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polygamy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rand Paul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reasons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Relationships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religious Institution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert George]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stanley Kurtz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wild west marriages]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.flfamily.org/?p=4964</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Get government out of the marriage business? Few understand the logical implications of their argument. There are at least seven reasons why “marriage privatization,” if really achieved, would profoundly harm citizens and society.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/marriage/marriageprivatization/">Seven Reasons Why “Getting Government Out of the Marriage Business” Won’t Work</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2>Marriage privatization would devastate society.</h2>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>By John Stemberger<br />
Published on July 5, 2015, <a href="https://stream.org/seven-reasons-getting-government-marriage-business-wont-work/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stream.org</a>.</p>
<p>At first glance, it sounds nice to say we should “get government out of the marriage business.” Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, would be merely a private relationship contract, with no reference to the lasting features of natural marriage between a man and woman, and its connection to the bearing and raising of children.</p>
<p>Many libertarians, including <strong><a href="http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/">Rand Paul</a></strong>, and now even some conservatives, claim that this will solve the same-sex marriage controversy. Few understand the logical implications of their argument. There are at least seven reasons why “marriage privatization,” if really achieved, would profoundly harm citizens and society.</p>
<h3><strong>(1) Private “relationship contracts” would immediately legitimize and permit polygamy, group marriages, incest and other aberrant relationships.</strong></h3>
<p>Anthropologist <strong><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/117239/privatizing-marriage-stanley-kurtz">Stanley Kurtz notes</a></strong> that even if marriage is “privatized,” government “still has to decide what sort of private unions merit benefits … under this privatization scheme.” We would end up with the “same quarrels over social recognition that we got before privatization.” Government will have to deal with polygamous, polyamorous, and incestuous relationships also attempting to obtain contracts under the new scheme as well as attempts by heterosexual acquaintances to make “marriages of convenience” to obtain things such as spousal medical insurance. Legitimizing these aberrant relationships would only further dilute the meaning of natural marriage as a norm in society.</p>
<h3><strong>(2) It would increase the sexual exploitation of children through human sex-trafficking</strong>.</h3>
<p>Marriage laws that currently regulate the age at which a person can be married protect children from sex-slavery and even from desperate parents from certain impoverished countries who may seek to exploit or manipulate minor children into “arranged” marriages for financial gain. News in London now reports 15 and 16 year old girls are being duped into “marrying” ISIS operatives and are running away from home. This would be easy in the U.S. if marriage were a private contract.</p>
<h3><strong>(3) It would overburden courts and side-step legal protections for children and abandoned spouses, replacing them with court ordered damages, penalties and state-coerced action.</strong></h3>
<p>If a legislature repealed marriage statutes and did nothing to define or regulate the creation and or dissolution of marriages, then by default, parties would be left only with legal contracts to address child custody, visitation, alimony and property rights. If the parties breached these private contracts, litigation would ensue regarding the intent, interpretation, and enforcement of those agreements — many of which would likely be drafted by non-lawyers with vague and confusing terms. Courts would issue penalties, damages and would have to order private parties to enforce contracts, often with draconian results. Real-life economic and practical hardships would befall untold thousands of single mothers were men to abandon their families – or even take forcible physical custody of small children — where no such contract was in place.</p>
<p>The creation of plural marriage and group marriage contracts would create the legal equivalent of the “Wild-Wild-West.” These “prenuptial-like” marriage contracts would also further undermine the idea of marriage as a lasting, life-long covenant. Instead of keeping government out of the marriage business, this move would do just the opposite. The great irony of marriage privatization is that it would only increase the state’s involvement in the lives of its citizens.</p>
<h3><strong>(4) It ignores what’s best for children.</strong></h3>
<p>Arguments to privatize marriage, whether made by scholars or politicians, tend to ignore what is best for children. <strong>Economist Jennifer Roback Morse</strong>, who has strong libertarian credentials, <strong><a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5073">argues that</a></strong> marriage privatization would come “at the expense of children,” and “is a concept developed by adults that will benefit only adults.”</p>
<p>In the common law, whenever children are involved in divorce, custody disputes, adoption or dependency proceedings, the legal standard has always been is the best interest of children involved. With the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions, “adult desires” have been allowed to trump <strong><a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/abigail-wilkinson/american-college-pediatricians-gay-marriage-ruling-tragic-children">what’s best for children</a></strong>. Dissolving marriage law would have the same effect. When men divorce the mothers of their children without these private agreements, single mothers would be left with no laws to protect or support their children.</p>
<h3><strong>(5) It would create more social maladies, broken families, and human suffering.</strong></h3>
<p>Throughout history, marriage has always been regulated in some way. In small and cohesive societies, this was usually done through strong social mores and religious institutions. In larger, more diverse and modern societies, marriage has also been regulated through law and public policy. This is part of what separates civil societies from more primitive ones. For this reason, completely privatizing marriage could be a sociological disaster.</p>
<p>Today’s inner cities are “<strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010/dp/030745343X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1435934633&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=coming+apart">Exhibit A</a></strong>” to the poverty, crime, fatherlessness and devastation that emerges when marriage and family structures are weak, fragmented or nonexistent. This measured collapse in inner cities would move even faster into every area of communities if marriage is legally abolished and reduced to private contracts.</p>
<h3><strong>(6) It would cost taxpayer’s big-time.</strong></h3>
<p><strong>Maggie Gallagher <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/207483/stakes-maggie-gallagher">has called</a></strong> marriage privatization a “fantasy” since “there is scarcely a dollar that state and federal government spends on social programs that is not driven in large part by family fragmentation: crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, mental and physical health problems.” <strong><a href="http://www.americanvalues.org/search/item.php?id=52">A study</a></strong> by the Institute for American Values concluded that the cost to U.S. taxpayers from family fragmentation as a result of divorce and unwed childbearing was $112 billion annually.</p>
<p>Sadly, the political left in America feeds on divorce, broken families, and unwed childbearing. Strong marriages and families help break the grip of an ever-growing administrative state, freeing her citizens from poverty to reach their fullest economic potential as creators of wealth rather than being chronic recipients of distributed wealth.</p>
<h3><strong>(7) It would grow government.</strong></h3>
<p>Government has a compelling interest in defining, regulating, and promoting marriage because of the self-governance it creates when children are socialized in this environment. At the most basic level, marriages — and the families they create — produce social order in homes, neighborhoods, states and nations. Marriage channels masculine energy in socially productive ways, protects women, and increases almost every category of human flourishing. Research is clear that a married biological mother and father is objectively the optimal context for rearing children. Marriage benefits not just those in the relationships, but the businesses, economies, and communities around them. Marriages, and the families that flow from them, tend to produce more productive citizens who create wealth and contribute to society.</p>
<p>The failure of marriages and families has caused the rapid expansion of the welfare state, dramatic tax increases, and has helped increase the national debt. <strong>Jennifer Roback Morse <a href="http://www.hoover.org/research/marriage-and-limits-contract">argues that</a></strong> “it is simply not possible to have a minimum government and a society with no social or legal norms about family structure, sexual behavior, and childrearing. The state will have to provide support for people with loose or nonexistent ties to their families. The state will have to sanction truly destructive behavior, as always. The destructive behavior will be more common because the culture of impartiality destroys the informal system of enforcing social norms. … A free society needs marriage.”</p>
<p>Marriage is not merely a private, religious institution; it is also a public institution deserving of public recognition and protection, quite apart from any religious or theological argument. Marriage serves not only people of faith but also the common good of society. “Family is built on marriage,” <strong><a href="http://www.catholic.org/news/politics/story.php?id=33669" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">argues Princeton’s Robert George</a></strong>, “and government — the state — has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake.”</p>
<p>Removing the legal recognition of marriage would devastate not just marriage and family, but civil society as a whole.</p>
<p><strong><em>John Stemberger is an Orlando Attorney who is President of the Florida Family Policy Council. </em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>© 2015 The Stream. All Rights Reserved.</em></strong></p>
<p>PDF: <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Seven_Reasons_Why_Getting_Government_Out_of_the_Marriage_Business.pdf">Seven Reasons Why Getting Government Out of the Marriage Business Won&#8217;t Work</a></p>
<p>Link to Original Article Published July 5, 2015 on Stream.org: <a href="https://stream.org/seven-reasons-getting-government-marriage-business-wont-work/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://stream.org/seven-reasons-getting-government-marriage-business-wont-work/</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/marriage/marriageprivatization/">Seven Reasons Why “Getting Government Out of the Marriage Business” Won’t Work</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.flfamily.org/marriage/marriageprivatization/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why I am for medical marijuana but against  Amendment 2, Orlando Lawyer John Morgan&#8217;s  deceptive campaign to legalize pot smoking across Florida</title>
		<link>https://www.flfamily.org/press-releases/why-i-am-for-medical-marijuana-but-against-amendment-2-orlando-lawyer-john-morgans-deceptive-campaign-to-legalize-pot-smoking-across-florida/</link>
					<comments>https://www.flfamily.org/press-releases/why-i-am-for-medical-marijuana-but-against-amendment-2-orlando-lawyer-john-morgans-deceptive-campaign-to-legalize-pot-smoking-across-florida/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:57:40 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Editorials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press Releases]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.flfamily.org/?p=4569</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>This past year has been a real learning curve on the whole topic of medical marijuana.  Thanks to a good friend of mine, who is a respected physician, I learned there really are some valid and legitimate medical uses for marijuana.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/press-releases/why-i-am-for-medical-marijuana-but-against-amendment-2-orlando-lawyer-john-morgans-deceptive-campaign-to-legalize-pot-smoking-across-florida/">Why I am for medical marijuana but against  Amendment 2, Orlando Lawyer John Morgan&#8217;s  deceptive campaign to legalize pot smoking across Florida</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><big>by John Stemberger</big></p>
<p><big>This past year has been a real learning curve on the whole topic of medical marijuana.  Thanks to a good friend of mine, who is a respected physician, I learned there really are some valid and legitimate medical uses for marijuana.  Prior to this, I thought most of the medical marijuana talk was just an excuse to smoke dope by leftist potheads.  But it is clear to me now that there are some very debilitating and painful conditions which only seem to respond to the active ingredient in cannabis.</big></p>
<p><big>In fact, earlier this year the Republican dominated legislature and also recognized this fact and passed a special bill to specifically legalize a special strain of marijuana called &#8220;Charlotte&#8217;s Web.&#8221;  The drug isolates the helpful medical essence of marijuana and allows it to be taken in a non-euphoric, non-smoked form to treat various seizures in children and other serious conditions.  The bill was <a href="http://www.mpp.org/states/florida/FL-CBD-bill-summary.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">signed into law</a> by Governor Rick Scott and became effective June 2014.</big></p>
<p><big>Knowing this, you may also want to know why I am so adamantly against Amendment 2 and am encouraging everyone I know to &#8220;Vote No on 2&#8221;, the so-called medical marijuana amendment on November 4th.  Here are at least ten reasons why this is one of the worst ideas in Florida&#8217;s history, and why it&#8217;s not what is seems on the surface.</big></p>
<p><big>1. The Amendment will allow minors to smoke pot without parental knowledge or consent. There are no restrictions on Amendment 2 for age, and those street corner dispensers will be able to give pot to minors without their parent&#8217;s consent or even notice.  As a father of four children under the age of 13, this alone, frankly enrages me as a parent.</big></p>
<p><big>2. There are no restrictions on where in your neighborhood these &#8220;pot shops&#8221; can be placed.  Based on where they have set up pot shops like &#8220;pill-mills&#8221; in California and Colorado, and based on the language of this Amendment, you can expect &#8220;dispensaries&#8221; to pop up across the street from junior high schools, near churches, restaurants and other small businesses.</big></p>
<p><big>3. The only requirement for a so-called &#8220;caregiver&#8221; marijuana dispenser is that he or she be 21 years old.  Also &#8220;caregivers&#8221; are not required to have background checks, they could be convicted felons, and have no requirements for medical training.  We used to call these people drug dealers and put them in jail.  The opponents of Amendment 2 are appropriately calling it the &#8220;Drug Dealer Protection Act.&#8221;</big></p>
<p><center><iframe loading="lazy" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RNobrt_r3J0" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></center><big>4. Pot will be &#8220;dispensed&#8221; for any &#8220;other conditions&#8221; under Amendment 2.  While the ballot summary (the only part you will see when you vote) says that the drug is supposed to be given for &#8220;debilitating medical conditions,&#8221; the full text of what becomes law in the Florida Constitution (which you will not see on the ballot) says marijuana can be sold for any &#8220;other conditions.&#8221;  So fatigue, insomnia, nausea or back aches will qualify you to smoke dope.  This is the functional equivalent of legalizing pot for recreational use.</big></p>
<p><big><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-4576" src="https://www.flfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/pot-tarts.jpg" alt="pot tarts" width="279" height="169" />5. Amendment 2 expressly allows for &#8220;medibles&#8221; which are marijuana-laced candies, cookies, baked goods, soda pop and other foods attractive to children.  To really appreciate how bad this Amendment would be, look no further than to the states where this dangerous game has played out in California and Colorado.  Just Google search images of the word &#8220;medibles&#8221; and you will find the hundreds of candies, cookies and baked goods laced with marijuana.  And who did you think these &#8220;edible treats&#8221; will be marketed to?  You guessed it&#8211;our children and grandchildren.</big></p>
<p><big>6. Amendment 2 gives complete civil and criminal immunity to all caregivers, growers, distributors and doctors selling pot.  Under the Amendment&#8217;s language, everyone in the process of growing, handling and distributing pot would be given complete civil and criminal legal immunity and allowed to operate free of liability.  So if a caregiver hurts someone, there are no lawsuits or arrests that will come from the harm.  It almost seems unbelievable but it&#8217;s true.  How would you, as a small business owner, like to have complete immunity from law suits?  But we are going to give unbridled constitutional immunity to everyone involved with dispensing pot?</big></p>
<p><big><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-4577" src="https://www.flfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Crist-Morgan-billboard.jpg" alt="Crist Morgan billboard" width="284" height="159" />7. The Amendment is strategically being used to try and help turn out voters on the far left for Charlie Crist. Democrat gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist is also a lawyer with John Morgan&#8217;s large personal injury firm based in Orlando.  So, naturally having a law partner become Governor (again) could do quite a bit to help his law firm.  In much the same way as many extreme conservatives don&#8217;t vote because they are fed up or don&#8217;t like the choices, the same thing happens with voters on the far left.  Those voters who chose Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore are exactly the kind of voters that the &#8220;medical marijuana&#8221; Amendment will drive to the polls, who may not have otherwise come out-and who are more likely to vote for Democrat Charlie Crist.  Morgan knows this and knows that in a tight race, like the one we have for Governor, having pot on the ballot could just make the difference in voter turn-out on the margins swaying a win for Charlie Crist.</big></p>
<p><big>8. John Morgan will most likely financially profit from this Amendment.  Why do you think John Morgan is pouring tons of money and untold amounts of time into this campaign?  To create an &#8220;army of angels&#8221; to do acts of compassion?  Guess again.  This <a href="http://youtu.be/-N5JtEY8EBg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">video of John Morgan &#8220;unhinged&#8221;</a> is really all you need to see to understand who and what is really behind this Amendment.  <strong>WARNING:</strong> <em>This video is highly vulgar, raw, and not suited for children to view.</em></big></p>
<p><center><iframe loading="lazy" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-N5JtEY8EBg" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></center><big>9. We are within clear striking distance of defeating this Amendment.  A lot of people who don&#8217;t agree with this Amendment think it will probably pass because of some early polling showing a high percentage favorable to the idea of medical marijuana and so they are not taking serious actions to defeat it.  When the campaign started, the issue was polling at 88% in favor of passage.  Since then support for Amendment 2 has dropped a whopping 40% as people learn more about the dangers, loopholes and real motives behind those who are driving this Amendment.  One of the latest polls from the Bob Graham Center shows those in favor of it are now at only 48% of the 60% needed to pass a Florida Amendment.  We only need 41% of voters to vote NO to defeat this very bad amendment.  The undecided votes could go either way and the deceptive ads are about to flood the airways and so this is going to be a very close vote.  But we can defeat this if we all work hard to get the word out!</big></p>
<p><big>10. Virtually every major daily newspaper in Florida has come out against Amendment 2 in addition to the Florida Medical Association, and seven former Florida Supreme Court Justices.  Some of the most liberal newspapers in the state like the Tampa Bay Times have taken official positions against this dangerous Amendment and are encouraging a NO VOTE because they know this is really not a medical marijuana amendment but an attempt to allow the full blown legalization of marijuana for recreational use.  The Orlando Sentinel has said &#8220;politics is coloring the debate,&#8221; and to vote No.  The Tampa Tribune says it&#8217;s a &#8220;Trojan Horse.&#8221; The Jacksonville Times Union said it&#8217;s a &#8220;Stalking Horse for recreational use.&#8221;  The Lakeland Ledger and the Bradenton Herald also recommended a &#8220;No Vote on 2.&#8221;</big></p>
<p><big>The bottom line is that everything about Amendment 2 is deceptive.  And, if we are able to tell enough of our friends and family about this in the days we have left before the election, we can defeat this effort and save our state, our communities and our children a lot of heartache and problems that would not be easily reversed for years to come.  Please &#8211; do not let Florida go to pot! </big></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"># # #</p>
<p><big>John Stemberger is an Orlando Attorney, president of Florida Family Action, and one of the leading pro-family advocates in Florida.</big></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/press-releases/why-i-am-for-medical-marijuana-but-against-amendment-2-orlando-lawyer-john-morgans-deceptive-campaign-to-legalize-pot-smoking-across-florida/">Why I am for medical marijuana but against  Amendment 2, Orlando Lawyer John Morgan&#8217;s  deceptive campaign to legalize pot smoking across Florida</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.flfamily.org/press-releases/why-i-am-for-medical-marijuana-but-against-amendment-2-orlando-lawyer-john-morgans-deceptive-campaign-to-legalize-pot-smoking-across-florida/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Leadership Looks Like</title>
		<link>https://www.flfamily.org/marriage/what-leadership-looks-like/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2014 17:00:11 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Editorials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.flfamily.org/?p=4072</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In a day when public officials are cowardly running from their sworn obligations whenever so called "gay-rights" challenges are at hand, Florida's Attorney General Pam Bondi is to be commended for her courageous and clear defense of Article I, Section 27 of the Florida Constitution.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/marriage/what-leadership-looks-like/">What Leadership Looks Like</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2 style="text-align: center;">Attorney General Pam Bondi Courageously<br />
Defends Florida&#8217;s Marriage Protection Act</h2>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>by John Stemberger</strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://d3dkdvqff0zqx.cloudfront.net/groups/flfpc/images/bondi.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="326" align="left" hspace="10" vspace="10" />In a day when public officials are cowardly running from their sworn obligations whenever so called &#8220;gay-rights&#8221; challenges are at hand, Florida&#8217;s Attorney General Pam Bondi is to be commended for her courageous and clear defense of Article I, Section 27 of the Florida Constitution.  The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment was passed by 62% in 2008 when about five million Florida voters, in an act of direct democracy, voted defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.  In her legal brief to the Court, Bondi nails the essence of government&#8217;s rational basis and compelling interests in defining, protecting and defending marriage.</p>
<p>In 2008, we argued the marriage amendment was needed because activist judges were starting to illegitimately strike down marriage laws around the country.  Derek Newton of Florida Red and Blue and Nadine Smith of Equality Florida accused us of exaggerating and stated that &#8220;it was not needed&#8221;.  Even worse, they straight up lied to Floridians saying the amendment had &#8220;<em>nothing</em> to do with gay marriage&#8221; and (unbelievably) tried to scare our most vulnerable citizens by saying the amendment would &#8220;take away benefits from seniors&#8221;.</p>
<p>Fast forward six years  &#8211; to today, and we see the truth about all this:  Not a single senior has lost a single benefit <em>and</em> lawless activist judges across America are indeed daily striking down marriage laws, creating new rights out of thin air that have no precedent in law or history.  In fact, federal judges are now even trying to strike down various state marriage amendments thwarting the sovereign will of the people.  Leftist Obama appointed judges are acting like the Constitution is Play Dough and can be manipulated irrespective of the plain text or the intent of the framers.  Even worse, Libertarians are repeating the clueless bumper sticker slogan &#8220;we need to get government out of the marriage business&#8221;.  These new and unprincipled arguments are either pragmatically trying to side step a controversial issue or are completely ignorant about its widespread policy implications.</p>
<p>In Florida, the ACLU and other gay activists filed four lawsuits &#8212; two in State Court (Miami and the Keys) and two in Federal Court (Jacksonville and Tallahassee).  Each of these lawsuits is asking the courts and judges to strike down Florida&#8217;s Marriage Amendment.  The federal lawsuits improperly and personally name Governor Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi as defendants for political reasons.</p>
<p>However, Pam Bondi did not cower from the intimidation and lawsuit demands of gay rights activists.  Instead, she and her office made some of the strongest arguments possible to protect Florida&#8217;s marriage laws.  In legal briefs to the court, she argued:</p>
<p>&#8220;The promotion of family continuity and stability is a legitimate state interest&#8230;Florida&#8217;s marriage laws, then, have a close, direct and rational relationship to society&#8217;s legitimate interest in increasing the likelihood that children will be born into and raised by the mothers and fathers who produced them in stable and enduring family units.&#8221;</p>
<p>Already the leftist media are deceptively and aggressively trying to misrepresent and criticize Bondi because her brief states that, &#8220;disrupting Florida&#8217;s existing marriage laws would impose significant public harm.&#8221;  Misleading headlines, completely taking this out of context, are reading &#8220;<em>Bondi: Gay Marriage Would Cause Harm</em>.&#8221;  Already she has received threats, intimidation, and is being demonized by the so called &#8220;champions of tolerance&#8221;&#8212; for simply doing her job.  Twitter posts are personally and ruthlessly attacking her.</p>
<p>The homosexual activists at Equality Florida posted a distasteful image of Bondi&#8217;s disembodied head on their website.  With a blood-red background, mouth wide open and her eyes angry, they posted bold, black words across her forehead.  A real class act.</p>
<p>Please make sure you thank Pam Bondi personally for her courage in defending marriage laws by sending her an email or writing her at Pam.Bondi@MyFloridaLegal.com.  If you are on Twitter thank her using @AGPamBondi.</p>
<p>In a day when Attorney Generals around the country are being intimidated and cowardly running from their sworn responsibility to defend the laws of this country and her states, Florida&#8217;s Attorney General Pam Bondi stands as an example of courage and responsible stewardship of her authority as the highest law enforcement officer in the state.</p>
<p>No elected offical is perfect.  But in this case, if you are wondering what leadership looks like, look no further than Attorney General Pam Bondi, who did her job and articulately defended the people of Florida and their Constitution which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.</p>
<p><em>John Stemberger is an Orlando Lawyer and President of the Florida Family Policy Council which led the 2008 campaign to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman in Florida&#8217;s Constitution. </em></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/marriage/what-leadership-looks-like/">What Leadership Looks Like</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>John Stemberger: Scouting is for honor, not sex and politics</title>
		<link>https://www.flfamily.org/news/john-stemberger-scouting-is-for-honor-not-sex-and-politics/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Editorials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.flfamily.org/?p=3845</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>“What kind of a message are we sending to our young people if the very leaders who are teaching Boy Scouts to be brave cannot even find the courage to stand firm and avoid caving in to peer pressure from Hollywood and political activists?”</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/news/john-stemberger-scouting-is-for-honor-not-sex-and-politics/">John Stemberger: Scouting is for honor, not sex and politics</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>This op-ed <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/22/scouting-is-for-honor-not-sex-and-politics/?page=all" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">originally appeared in the <em>Washington Post</em></a> on April 22, 2013</strong></p>
<p>The Boy Scouts are one of the great jewels of American culture. The success of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is a result in no small part of the organization’s commitment to a set of ideas and principles that have guided the program for more than 100 years. Until recently, the BSA was unwavering in its conviction that these values and principles were “timeless.”</p>
<p>But now those values are under attack. The Boy Scouts are the victims of an aggressive, well-funded and relentless campaign to inject sex and politics into Scouting. Homosexual-rights activists have aggressively pushed a handful of top BSA leaders to consider changing its long-standing policy of not allowing open homosexuality in the Boy Scouts. On Friday, the Boy Scouts offered a resolution that caves to that outside pressure and could pass when the national council votes on it in May.</p>
<p>Virtually every news story on this topic erroneously frames this issue as the Boy Scouts “bans gays” or “discriminates against gays.” This is simply not true. Contrary to what the media might report, the Boy Scoutsdo not discriminate against homosexuals. The BSA membership application does not even ask about sexual orientation.</p>
<p>To make matters worse, there is a deliberate campaign of misinformation about who the Boy Scouts of America are and what they stand for. The media has been complicit, throwing around cries of “discrimination” and “equal rights” following the lead of these activists.</p>
<p>The great irony of this is that, while on one hand, the national media claims Scouting bans homosexuals, on the other hand, they have been consistently showcasing homosexuals Scouts and leaders in uniform who have been in the program for many years, all who are claiming with a straight face that somehow the Boy Scouts do not allow them.</p>
<p>The fact is that veterans of Scouting will tell you there are currently Scouts and adult leaders in uniform who have same-sex attractions and who are in good standing with the program. They are discreet, though; they are private, they are discerning, and most of all, they conduct themselves appropriately in front of other young boys. Further, there has never been a witch hunt in the BSA to find or remove its members with a same-sex attraction.</p>
<p>So if homosexuals are already allowed in Scouting, then what is the national controversy about?</p>
<p>The real issue is this: Homosexual-rights activists are not satisfied with membership in good standing and being allowed to fully participate like everyone else. They want to be able to openly promote homosexuality. They want to promote a gay-rights political agenda. They want to act out publicly and be “loud and proud.” They want to inappropriately inject sex and politics into the BSA program, where children as young as six years old are involved. Not on this dad’s watch. This behavior and open homosexual conduct is exactly what the current BSA policy prohibits, a prohibition that we as parents demand that the program reaffirm if it wants our continued support.</p>
<p>There is nothing stopping those who do not like Scouting’s stable and time-tested membership policies from creating their own organization without changing ours.</p>
<p id="zd_newid_26817">Changing the BSA membership policy is completely unnecessary. It solves no old problem and will only create myriad new problems for the organization, including upending parental control over the issues of sex and politics, forcing political agendas on young children, and transforming the Boy Scouts into yet another battleground for the homosexual agenda.</p>
<p>In February, BSA National Council leaders instructed committees to “listen to perspectives and concerns” in the Scouting community before a vote on May 22 and 23, which will determine whether to make a change to the existing policy.</p>
<p>Hearing that BSA leaders say they are in a listening mode, concerned parents, Scout leaders, Scouting donors and Eagle Scouts from across the country have joined the OnMyHonor.Net national coalition to say to the voting delegates of the national council sex and politics have no place in Scouting. When it comes to young boys, parents should have the final say, not agenda-driven activists.</p>
<p>Former U.S. Rep. Richard T. Schulze, Pennsylvania Republican, a recipient of the rare Distinguished Eagle Scout Award, recently commented, “What kind of a message are we sending to our young people if the very leaders who are teaching Boy Scouts to be brave cannot even find the courage to stand firm and avoid caving in to peer pressure from Hollywood and political activists?”</p>
<p>I could not agree more.</p>
<p>We implore the delegates to the National BSA Convention to affirm Scouting’s current membership policy along with the principles of the hard-fought and won 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case of BSA vs. Dale, which protects Scouting from further legal attacks and sets the program back on the firm foundation of principle for the future.</p>
<p>_______</p>
<p><em>John Stemberger is an Eagle Scout and president of On My Honor (<a href="http://www.onmyhonor.net" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">OnMyHonor.net</a>).</em></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.flfamily.org/news/john-stemberger-scouting-is-for-honor-not-sex-and-politics/">John Stemberger: Scouting is for honor, not sex and politics</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.flfamily.org">FFV</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/?utm_source=w3tc&utm_medium=footer_comment&utm_campaign=free_plugin

Page Caching using Disk: Enhanced 

Served from: www.flfamily.org @ 2026-06-25 14:52:28 by W3 Total Cache
-->