San Francisco, CA - The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has announced the three judges who will hear arguments next Monday in the Prop. 8 marriage case. Following a trial conducted in San Francisco by a homosexual judge, it comes as no surprise to supporters of traditional marriage that one of the three judges selected to hear the appeal, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, is a well-known advocate for LGBT rights.

Due to the personal involvement of Judge Reinhardt’s wife in the Prop. 8 case and his own inability to be impartial based on his prior rulings against protection of traditional marriage, the Pacific Justice Institute is taking the extraordinary step of calling for his recusal from the case. PJI filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit, detailing support for traditional marriage in ancient civilizations that otherwise tolerated homosexual behavior.

“We do not undertake this call for recusal lightly,” said PJI president Brad Dacus. “Ordinarily, the judicial system is entitled to a high degree of respect, even when we disagree with its decisions. Unfortunately, Judge Reinhardt’s extreme prior decisions and his wife’s active opposition to Prop. 8 make it clear to any intellectually honest observer that he cannot hear the case impartially.”

Judge Reinhardt, placed on the Ninth Circuit by President Jimmy Carter thirty years ago, has been an unusually active crusader for homosexual rights on the bench. Just last year, Reinhardt ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional as applied to federal employee benefits. In that decision, Reinhardt quoted approvingly from the California Supreme Court’s 2008 decision striking down the predecessor of Prop. 8 and barely disguised his disagreement with the Court’s later ruling upholding Prop. 8. In other decisions, Judge Reinhardt has held that students must give up free speech rights when their expression would offend gays; that employers can prohibit employee speech that disapproves of homosexual behavior; and that parents have no constitutional rights to protect their elementary-age children from school-initiated discussions of sexuality and, specifically, gay marriage.

Perhaps even more troubling than Judge Reinhardt’s prior decisions, his wife—the longtime head of the ACLU of Southern California—is personally involved in the case he is set to hear next Monday. Not only did she contribute financially to the “No on 8” campaign and publicly extolled Judge Walker’s decision that is scheduled to be heard by her husband, but she also strategized with attorneys for the plaintiffs.

Besides his gay rights decision, Judge Reinhardt has developed a reputation for striking down legislation supported by conservatives and limiting religious expression. For example, Judge Reinhardt voted to strike down the federal ban on partial birth abortion and believes it is unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. Perhaps because of his tendency to take radical positions on social issues, Judge Reinhardt has reportedly been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court more than any other judge in history.

The other two Ninth Circuit judges slated to hear the Prop. 8 appeal are Michael Daly Hawkins, nominated by President Clinton, and N. Randy Smith, nominated by President George W. Bush.

Vallejo, CA - A heated controversy in this Bay Area city over mandatory pro-gay curricula for all students has taken an unexpected twist that is leaving gay activists and the ACLU scrambling to explain why a film shown to elementary students portrays African-American families in a negative light.

At a school board meeting last week, the school board for the Vallejo City Unified School District heard from dozens of parents who were outraged that children as young as kindergarten were being subjected to pro-LGBT films and instruction, with no notice or opportunity to opt out. The parents who packed the board meeting, along with the board, viewed the film “That’s a Family” which was mandatory viewing for kindergarten and elementary grades. African-American parents, as well as a school board member, voiced concerns about the stereotypical and negative portrayal of black people and families. Meanwhile, the film portrays LGBT relationships in only positive terms. One parent held up a crossword puzzle that her child brought home from school. The clue: “Two women who love each other.” Answer: “Lesbian.” The mother stated that her daughter is nine years old and not ready for this type of material. After reviewing the film and hearing from the parents, the board members directed the superintendent to provide them with a copy of all of the materials being used in the classrooms in support of the LGBT based curriculum entitled “Respect for All.”

Pacific Justice Institute Chief Counsel Kevin Snider attended the school board meeting along with many parents and community leaders, including Vallejo pastor Danny Jefferson who addressed the board. PJI represents parents seeking to opt their children out of the curriculum. Attorneys are preparing a legal opinion letter to the school board disputing the ACLU’s position that a school district has no authority to allow parents to opt their children, including kindergartners, out of instruction for which the parents feel their children are too young to receive. “Respect for All” is the result of a settlement agreement entered into between a student, represented by the ACLU, and the District. Snider told the board members that the ACLU has bargained away the rights of third parties who did not have a seat at the table and by doing so the ACLU has disenfranchised these parents. PJI has also learned that the film “Straightlaced,” which extols homosexuality and transsexuality while attacking gender norms, was shown to Vallejo high school students this past Friday with no advance notice to parents.

PJI President Brad Dacus commented, “It is unacceptable and illegal to show films to students that claim to teach diversity and respect but in actuality demean those who have suffered the most of any protected class in this country. We will not stand by and let the ACLU bully parents, students and the school district.” PJI would like to thank Capitol Resource Institute for their participation in this at the board.

Sacramento, CA - A federal judge has ruled that an unusual belief system called Anthroposophy is not a religion, so public schools can continue to utilize its methodology.

The ruling followed a short trial in which Judge Frank Damrell excluded nearly all of the evidence presented by People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools, Inc. (PLANS), which has been battling for 12 years against public funding of Waldorf schools. Waldorf education is an activity of Anthroposophy, which was founded in the early 20th century by an Austrian named Rudolf Steiner, who split off from Theosophy to formulate his own teachings and cult-like following. Steiner’s teachings integrated the Hinduism of Theosophy with Gnostic Christianity and European occultism. He became dissatisfied with Christianity and developed his own beliefs called anthroposophy. Among other things, Steiner believed in reincarnation and taught that some races have greater spiritual maturity than other races. Waldorf schools require all teachers—even for their taxpayer-funded schools—to be trained at Anthroposophy seminaries such as Rudolf Steiner College in the Sacramento area.

Pacific Justice Institute was involved in the initiation of this lawsuit in 1998, has been providing research assistance to lead attorney D. Michael Bush, and plans to participate in an anticipated appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. During the case’s long history, the Ninth Circuit has already ruled twice in favor of PLANS on procedural issues.

Kevin Snider, Chief Counsel of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, “This ruling illustrates the double standard that many people see in public education: widely-held beliefs like Christianity and Judaism are excluded, while unusual beliefs like Anthroposophy are promoted. We believe this dichotomy is legally untenable, and we look forward to appellate review.”

PLANS can be found on the internet at www.waldorfcritics.org.