Same-sex couples are redefining family law in USA

Donna Colley and Margaux Towne-Colley, a lesbian couple bringing up a son in Omaha, face an ongoing dilemma.

They could stay in Nebraska, where Colley has a satisfying job as a lawyer, the couple own a home and are close to their neighbors. It's also where state law does not allow both women to be legal parents to Grayson, a blond, blue-eyed toddler who was delivered by Towne-Colley after she was artificially inseminated with sperm from an anonymous donor.

That leaves the couple with another option: Leave Nebraska and build a new life in one of about a dozen states that recognize same-sex couples as parents.

Such legal status isn't just symbolic. Because Colley can't be a legal parent to 16-month-old Grayson under Nebraska law, the child would not be entitled to government benefits if Colley were to become disabled or die. The boy would not be guaranteed support payments from Colley if the two women were to split up. And if Towne-Colley were to die, Colley wouldn't automatically receive custody of the boy.

Legal analysts say the choice they face is typical of the forces that are transforming family law across America. Gay and lesbian couples increasingly are going to court seeking to adopt children, acquire rights as parents, take on shared last names and secure a range of benefits similar to those enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

Nearly three years after Vermont approved civil unions for homosexual couples, the evolving acceptance of such couples nationwide is reflected in recent court decisions in which judges have looked not only at biology when determining who is a ''parent,'' but at the roles people play in households. Many judges are saying sexual orientation shouldn't matter in deciding what makes a family. A few conservative groups are fighting the tide, without much success.

Recent cases in Pennsylvania and Delaware symbolize the new age in family law, and judges' increasing flexibility in defining parental roles. Courts in those states ordered lesbians to pay child support for children they had been rearing with their partners before the couples split up.

''People are recognizing that these non-traditional families are here to stay, and courts are finding ways to support the children,'' says Susan Becker, professor at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law at Cleveland State University.

But as Colley and Towne-Colley's situation suggests, the rules aren't the same for everyone.

State laws -- and local attitudes -- vary widely when it comes to adoption, child support, domestic partnerships and other issues that affect same-sex couples. Courts, laws and government policies in conservative states in America's heartland and in the South generally are less tolerant of efforts to give gay and lesbian couples the same rights as heterosexuals:

* Last year, Nebraska's Supreme Court refused to allow a lesbian to formally adopt the boy whom she and her partner (the birth mother) are rearing. Such ''second parent'' adoptions, which allow a second adult to assume responsibility for a child without the biological parent losing any rights, are legal for gay and lesbian couples in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont and the District of Columbia. In a dozen other states, some local courts have backed such arrangements.

* Four states -- Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri -- still ban sex between consenting homosexual adults, although the laws are rarely enforced. The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) on March 26 will consider a challenge to Texas' law.

* Eight states and about three dozen cities and counties -- mostly on the East and West coasts -- provide benefits for the partners of their gay and lesbian public employees, gay-rights advocates say.

No group tracks all cases involving gay and lesbian family issues. But those on both sides agree that homosexuals' increasing aggressiveness on family issues has won them gains in courts and beyond.

''In the past, when gay and lesbian couples tried to adopt, they really couldn't identify themselves as gay,'' says Michele Zavos, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who specializes in gay family law. ''Now, they can, either when going through a second-parent adoption or with an agency.''

The rising number of same-sex couples seeking family rights has been a call to action for some conservative groups. And some judges express disdain for same-sex parents. They say that homosexuality is reason enough to keep someone away from a child.

''Homosexual conduct of a parent . . . creates a strong presumption of unfitness that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children,'' Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote last year, when his court agreed with a lower court's decision to limit custody for a lesbian mother.

Overall, however, even some groups that oppose expanded gay rights acknowledge that the trend in state family courts is running against them.

''It's becoming a tougher battle each day,'' says Peter Sprigg, senior director of cultural studies at the Family Research Council, a Washington, D.C., group that wants the law to recognize only marriages between men and women. ''We're probably losing ground.''

Gay-rights advocates say it's all a reflection of the rising profile of gay men and lesbians in politics, the workplace and everyday life. ''People know now that gay and lesbian relationships are not exceptional,'' says Patricia Logue, a lawyer for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. ''Now, we're seeing what the political winds will bear in each state.''

Same-sex couples and their families have become hot topics for TV shows, movies and media reports in recent years. The increasing openness of same-sex couples, fueled by the successes of the gay-rights movement, has made it seem as though there has been an explosion of such families.

But firm numbers are difficult to come by. The U.S. Census Bureau (news - web sites) did not collect figures on same-sex couples until 2000, so there are no reliable statistics on the growth in such households. The 2000 Census found 1.2 million people living in households with unrelated adults of the same sex, but analysts say that figure is low because it was derived from a part of the Census form that some people ignored.

Similarly, estimates of children of gay or lesbian parents vary widely. Judges have cited various reports that put the number of children living with at least one gay or lesbian parent at 6 million to 12 million.

''The sheer number of support groups, magazines and Web sites for gay and lesbian parents suggests that the number is significant,'' says Denver lawyer Kim Willoughby, who specializes in issues regarding same-sex couples.

Advances in reproductive technology, including artificial insemination, egg donation and in-vitro fertilization, have given gay men and lesbians ways to become parents beyond adoption.

Although it has become easier for same-sex couples to work with private adoption agencies, they sometimes do not disclose their sexual orientation, making reliable statistics about such adoptions difficult. Gay men or lesbians who adopt foreign children typically have one partner adopt as an individual, and the other partner initiate a second-parent adoption later.

After Towne-Colley, 38, got pregnant two years ago, she and Colley, 43, planned to return briefly to Vermont, where they had a civil union ceremony in 2000. (Towne added Colley's name to hers that year.) They wanted Grayson to be born there because the state would allow both women to be listed as parents on his birth certificate. But they were still in Nebraska in October 2001, when Grayson was born nine weeks early.

Working around Nebraska law, the couple drafted wills, a parenting agreement and other papers that spell out their responsibilities for Grayson. ''We are trying to do everything we can to tie ourselves together legally and bind me to our son,'' says Colley, whose salary and benefits provide for the family.

Still, Colley says, ''under the law, I am a stranger to my child.'' For now, she and Towne-Colley are staying in Nebraska and not challenging its parenting laws. They are mindful of last year's state Supreme Court decision against a lesbian couple and say they don't want to risk an adverse ruling.

Amy Miller, a lawyer for the ACLU of Nebraska, represented the lesbian couple whose case went to Nebraska's high court. The court said state law forbids a second adult from adopting a child unless the birth mother (in this case, one of the partners) gives up her rights to the child.

Miller says her unidentified clients wanted to make sure that if the birth mother died, their 3-year-old son, Luke, could receive Social Security (news - web sites) and other benefits tied to her partner. After they lost in court, they moved to Portland, Ore. Thanks to a second-parent adoption there, Miller said, they both are Luke's legal parents.

In Cincinnati, Cheryl, 41, and Jennifer, 36, are rearing a 2-year-old boy who is the product of an egg harvested from Cheryl, fertilized by sperm from an anonymous donor, and implanted in Jennifer.

The couple, who agreed to be interviewed if only their first names were used, say they might seek shared parental rights. But they know that Ohio courts often reject such efforts. They say moving out of state is not an option. ''This is just as much our state as anyone else's,'' Cheryl says.

Ohio has been a battleground for the new generation of family law cases. The state Supreme Court has handed victories to those on both sides of the issue.

During the past year, the court endorsed shared last names for gay and lesbian couples but rejected second-parent adoptions for homosexuals. In Cleveland Heights, voters gave health benefits to gay and lesbian partners of city employees. An effort to reverse the move through a referendum failed.

''I think you're going to see a backlash soon,'' says Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America, a Washington, D.C., group that opposes rights for same-sex couples. ''Their movement is displacing marriage as the gold standard in family law.''

But Duke University law dean Katharine Bartlett says judges have struggled with nontraditional families since divorce rates jumped three decades ago. ''Courts aren't trying to contribute to the demise of traditional families. But they recognize the reality of families today and 'functional' parents.''

That was evident in a Pennsylvania case in December. The state Superior Court affirmed a trial judge's order that a lesbian should pay support for five children she had been bringing up with her ex-partner. That case followed one in Delaware in which a judge ordered a woman to pay support for a son that her former partner had through in-vitro fertilization.

But providing for children isn't always the overriding factor in such cases. Last year in Idaho, a local magistrate denied a gay man, Theron McGriff, custody of his two children from a marriage to a woman. The magistrate said McGriff, 38, couldn't visit them if he continued to live with another man. Idaho's Supreme Court agreed to hear McGriff's appeal.

''Sexual orientation should be irrelevant,'' says Shannon Minter, McGriff's attorney. ''Unless you're living under a rock, you know the way people live has changed.''

Actually our Founders did not agree with you. The facts are against your revisionist 60's radical view of America. The Same Founders that wrote the Constitution also wrote laws banning blasphemy, Pornography, Fornication, and Adultery.

Quotes:

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. John Adams

"The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." John Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society." John Adams

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. John Quincy Adams

"From the day of the Declaration...they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct." John Quincy Adams

"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being....And, consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will...this will of his Maker is called the law of nature. These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil...This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this... Sir William Blackstone

"Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land. Sir William Blackstone

"The preservation of Christianity as a national religion is abstracted from its own intrinsic truth, of the utmost consequence to the civil state, which a single instance will sufficiently demonstrate. Sir William Blackstone

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man. Alexander Hamilton

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry

"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed." Patrick Henry

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom." Patrick Henry

"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." Patrick Henry

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. John Jay

"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God." Gouverneur Morris

"If thou wouldst rule well, thou must rule for God, and to do that, thou must be ruled by him....Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn

"By removing the Bible from schools we would be wasting so much time and money in punishing criminals and so little pains to prevent crime. Take the Bible out of our schools and there would be an explosion in crime." Benjamin Rush

-----------------------------------------------------

Case Law:

Supreme Court of New York 1811, in the Case of the People V Ruggles, 8 Johns 545-547, Chief Justice Chancellor Kent Stated:

The defendant was indicted ... in December, 1810, for that he did, on the 2nd day of September, 1810 ... wickedly, maliciously, and blasphemously, utter, and with a loud voice publish, in the presence and hearing of divers good and Christian people, of and concerning the Christian religion, and of and concerning Jesus Christ, the false, scandalous, malicious, wicked and blasphemous words following: "Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore," in contempt of the Christian religion. .. . The defendant was tried and found guilty, and was sentenced by the court to be imprisoned for three months, and to pay a fine of $500.

The Prosecuting Attorney argued:

While the constitution of the State has saved the rights of conscience, and allowed a free and fair discussion of all points of controversy among religious sects, it has left the principal engrafted on the body of our common law, that Christianity is part of the laws of the State, untouched and unimpaired.

The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court:

Such words uttered with such a disposition were an offense at common law. In Taylor's case the defendant was convicted upon information of speaking similar words, and the Court . . . said that Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths. And in the case of Rex v. Woolston, on a like conviction, the Court said . . . that whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government. . . . The authorities show that blasphemy against God and . . . profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures (which are equally treated as blasphemy), are offenses punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings . . . because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order. Such offenses have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the Church. They are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil society. . . .

We stand equally in need, now as formerly, of all the moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together. The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only ... impious, but . . . is a gross violation of decency and good order. Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful.. ..

The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious' opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile ... the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right. . . . We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].. .. [We are] people whose manners ... and whose morals have been elevated and inspired . . . by means of the Christian religion.

Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment. . . . This [constitutional] declaration (noble and magnanimous as it is, when duly understood) never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law. . . . To construe it as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning. . . . Christianity, in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is not unknown to our law. . . . The Court are accordingly of opinion that the judgment below must be affirmed: [that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches, and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures, are offenses punishable at the common law, whether uttered by words or writings].

The Supreme Court in the case of Lidenmuller V The People, 33 Barbour, 561 Stated:

Christianity...is in fact, and ever has been, the religion of the people. The fact is everwhere prominent in all our civil and political history, and has been, from the first, recognized and acted upon by the people, and well as by constitutional conventions, by legislatures and by courts of justice.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1817, in the Case of The Commonwealth V Wolf stated the courts opinion as follows:

Laws cannot be administered in any civilized government unless the people are taught to revere the sanctity of an oath, and look to a future state of rewards and punishments for the deeds of this life, It is of the utmost moment, therefore, that they should be reminded of their religious duties at stated periods.... A wise policy would naturally lead to the formation of laws calculated to subserve those salutary purposes. The invaluable privilege of the rights of conscience secured to us by the constitution of the commonwealth, was never intended to shelter those persons, who, out of mere caprice, would directly oppose those laws for the pleasure of showing their contempt and abhorrence of the religious opinions of the great mass of the citizens.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1824, in the Case of Updegraph V The Commonwealth 11 Serg. & R. 393-394, 398-399, 402, 507 (1824) recorded the Courts Declaration that:

Abner Updegraph . . . on the 12th day of December [1821] . . .not having the fear of God before his eyes . . . contriving and intending to scandalize, and bring into disrepute, and vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures of truth, in the Presence and hearing of several persons ... did unlawfully, wickedly and premeditatively, despitefully and blasphemously say . . . : "That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies." To the great dishonor of Almighty God, to the great scandal of the profession of the Christian religion.

The jury . . . finds a malicious intention in the speaker to vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures, and this court cannot look beyond the record, nor take any notice of the allegation, that the words were uttered by the defendant, a member of a debating association, which convened weekly for discussion and mutual information... . That there is an association in which so serious a subject is treated with so much levity, indecency and scurrility ... I am sorry to hear, for it would prove a nursery of vice, a school of preparation to qualify young men for the gallows, and young women for the brothel, and there is not a skeptic of decent manners and good morals, who would not consider such debating clubs as a common nuisance and disgrace to the city. .. . It was the out-pouring of an invective, so vulgarly shocking and insulting, that the lowest grade of civil authority ought not to be subject to it, but when spoken in a Christian land, and to a Christian audience, the highest offence conna bones mores; and even if Christianity was not part of the law of the land, it is the popular religion of the country, an insult on which would be indictable.

The assertion is once more made, that Christianity never was received as part of the common law of this Christian land; and it is added, that if it was, it was virtually repealed by the constitution of the United States, and of this state. . . . If the argument be worth anything, all the laws which have Christianity for their object--all would be carried away at one fell swoop-the act against cursing and swearing, and breach of the Lord's day; the act forbidding incestuous marriages, perjury by taking a false oath upon the book, fornication and adultery ...for all these are founded on Christianity--- for all these are restraints upon civil liberty. ...

We will first dispose of what is considered the grand objection--the constitutionality of Christianity--for, in effect, that is the question. Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law . . . not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church ... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.

Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws, for a Christian country and Christian people. This is the Christianity of the common law . . . and thus, it is irrefragably proved, that the laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity. . . . In this the constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity . . . without which no free government can long exist.

To prohibit the open, public and explicit denial of the popular religion of a country is a necessary measure to preserve the tranquillity of a government. Of this, no person in a Christian country can complain. . . . In the Supreme Court of New York it was solemnly determined, that Christianity was part of the law of the land, and that to revile the Holy Scriptures was an indictable offence. The case assumes, says Chief Justice Kent, that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted on Christianity. The People v. Ruggles.

No society can tolerate a willful and despiteful attempt to subvert its religion, no more than it would to break down its laws--a general, malicious and deliberate intent to overthrow Christianity, general Christianity. Without these restraints no free government could long exist. It is liberty run mad to declaim against the punishment of these offences, or to assert that the punishment is hostile to the spirit and genius of our government. They are far from being true friends to liberty who support this doctrine, and the promulgation of such opinions, and general receipt of them among the people, would be the sure forerunners of anarchy, and finally, of despotism. No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.... Its foundations are broad and strong, and deep. .. it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws. . . .

Christianity is part of the common law; the act against blasphemy is neither obsolete nor virtually repealed; nor is Christianity inconsistent with our free governments or the genius of the people.

While our own free constitution secures liberty of conscience and freedom of religious worship to all, it is not necessary to maintain that any man should have the right publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbors and of the country; these two privileges are directly opposed.

The Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina in 1846 in the case of City of Charleston V S.A. Benjamin cites an individual who broke the Ordinance that stated: "No Person or persons whatsoever shall publicly expose to sale, or sell... any goods, wares or merchandise whatsoever upon the Lord's day." The court convicted the man and came to the conclusion: "I agree fully to what is beautifully and appropriately said in Updengraph V The Commonwealth.... Christianity, general Christianity, is an always has been, a part of the common law; "not Christianity with an established church... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

-----------------------------------------------------------

More Quotes:

"The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests."President Andrew Jackson

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." First Chief Justice of Supreme Court John Jay

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine....Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court

"Let the children...be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [removing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools."Benjamin Rush

"It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God."President John Quincy Adams

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.... the general principles of Christianity."President John Quincy Adams

"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed."Patrick Henry

"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.... This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government."Noah Webster

"Whether this [new government] will prove a blessing or a curse will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation [Proverbs 14:34]. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself and encourage it in others."Patrick Henry

"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- God Governs in the Affairs of Men, And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, Is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?"Benjamin Franklin

"Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this."Benjamin Franklin, 1787, Constitutional Convention

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being, who rules over the universe, who presides in the council of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States.." "...Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency" From President George Washington's Inaugural Address, April 30th, 1789, addressed to both Houses of Congress.

President Washingtons Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, 1789

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"President George Washington, September 17th, 1796

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." President George Washington

"...The Smiles of Heaven can never be expected On a Nation that disregards the eternal rules of Order and Right, which Heaven Itself Ordained."President George Washington

It is hoped that by God's assistance, some of the continents in the Ocean will be discovered....for the Glory of God. Christopher Columbus

The Mayflower Compact, November 11th, 1620

"All persons living in this province, who confess and acknowledge the One Almighty and Eternal God to be the Creator, Upholder, and Ruler of the world, and that hold themselves obliged in conscience to live peaceably and justly in civil society, shall in no wise be molested or prejudiced for their religious persuasion or practice, in matters of faith and worship; nor shall they be compelled at any time to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever." April 25, 1662- William Penn signed this to establish religious liberty in the new provence of (Pennsylvania).

Excerpts from the Declaration to take up arms, July 6th, 1775

Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.","Give me liberty or give me death."Patrick Henry of the Constitutional Convention

"A general dissolution of Principles and Manners will more surely overthrow the Liberties of America than the whole Force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader . . . If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security."Samuel Adams, 1779

"The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." Abraham Lincoln.

"The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion."Abraham Lincoln.

"Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty" Abraham Lincoln.

"The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state.President Harry S. Truman.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.