AdvanceUSAAmericans Defending Values and National Conservative Efforts
Home PageAbout UsLinksMediaActionSurveyDonateBlogContact Us









 Thursday, July 17, 2008
The California Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit to remove the proposed marriage amendment from the 2008 California ballot.  The Alliance Defense Fund called the lawsuit “a desperate effort to keep the amendment away from the democratic process.”  Californians will now have the opportunity to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in their state.  The San Francisco Chronicle reports.  Excerpt:

 
Californians will get to vote in November on a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, the state Supreme Court decided Wednesday.

 

In a unanimous order, without comment, the court dismissed a lawsuit by gay rights advocates seeking to remove an initiative sponsored by conservative religious groups from the Nov. 4 ballot. The measure, Proposition 8, would overturn the court's 4-3 ruling May 15 that allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry in California.

The LA Times also reports.

posted on Thursday, July 17, 2008 6:48:44 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
The 1913 Massachusetts law which prevents “gay marriages” in Massachusetts from spreading to other states is under attack.  On Tuesday, the state Senate unanimously voted to overturn the law.  If the state House and the governor do not stand up for marriage, Massachusetts will join California as “the Las Vegas of gay marriage.”

posted on Thursday, July 17, 2008 6:46:44 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Some are pushing to make the state of Massachusetts the “Las Vegas of gay marriage.”  The Massachusetts legislature will soon vote on whether to keep the 1913 law which forbids Massachusetts from recognizing the marriages of out-of-state couples that are not recognized in the couple’s home state.  The enforcement of this long-forgotten law by former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney prevented the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling instituting same-sex marriage in Massachusetts from spreading to other states.

Liberal activists will stop at nothing to establish so-called “gay marriage” in every state in the country.  This is why it is so important to pass an amendment to amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman only.  Call your representative and both your senators today and urge them to cosponsor and vote “Yes” on the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment.

posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:20:43 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
Jennifer Roback Morse explains.  Excerpt:

For many of us, gay marriage isn’t a referendum on gay people. It is about the meaning of marriage. Advocates of marriage as a union of a man and a woman do not hate gay people. Rather, the millions of Americans who pull the lever in favor of marriage are saying children need a mother and father.

posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:07:41 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:05:37 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:48:18 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Thursday, July 10, 2008
Getting activist judges to recognize “gay divorce” in states which refuse to recognize “gay marriage” is one of the subtle strategies of “gay marriage” proponents.  CitizenLink reports on this encouraging news from Oklahoma.

posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 8:02:47 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Tune in tomorrow (Thursday, July 10) at 10:00 a.m. to see an important panel discussion on how “gay marriage” is a threat to religious liberty.  You can view this discussion online here via live streaming.

Also, be sure to check out FRC’s updated blog.

posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 8:19:16 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Janice Shaw Crouse reports at Townhall.com.

posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 7:20:33 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Monday, July 07, 2008
posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:37:50 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
The Sacramento Bee reports on Sen. Obama’s position.  As mentioned on AdvanceUSA Blog two weeks ago, the Brody File first reported Sen. McCain’s position.

The Vital Voice and The Bay Area Reporter (both homosexual publications) also report.

posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:35:34 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
Despite a recent setback which seemed to scuttle attempts to protect the traditional definition of marriage, the Arizona Senate recently approved a marriage protection amendment for the 2008 ballot.

posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:00:09 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Friday, June 27, 2008
posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 6:26:14 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 6:25:22 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Monday, June 23, 2008
It’s nice to know, in this time of marriage confusion, that the Alliance Defense Fund is seeking to protect marriage in New York from the governor’s recent policy of forcing New York to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages.”

posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:32:22 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Wednesday, June 18, 2008
posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:09:38 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Tuesday, June 17, 2008
As this NPR article demonstrates, when “gay rights” and religious liberty conflict, religious liberty usually loses.  This is an important fact to emphasize as gay couples are now obtaining marriage licenses in California.

A few examples cited by NPR:

A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.

 

A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.

 

And then there's the case of a wedding photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.

posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:26:40 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:16:39 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
Ken Blackwell comments on the dangerous national implications of the California Supreme Court ruling mandating “gay marriage.”  Excerpt:

Few realize that two aspects of California’s same-sex marriages are unlike Massachusetts’, and could redefine marriage in every state. And most people might not realize it before November’s election.

posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:13:04 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Thursday, June 05, 2008
In a move the Alliance Defense Fund describes as “a vote for nationwide legal chaos” the California Supreme Court has rejected the pleas of pro-family supporters and state attorneys general and will press to quickly institute its recent ruling mandating “gay marriage” despite the expressed will of the people.  The reason this decision means chaos for other states is that many gay couples from other states will certainly come to California to take advantage of the “gay marriage” ruling and then return to their home state and sue for marriage privileges.  Given the fact that liberal activist judges occupy benches in many states, it is almost certain that we will see more instances of court imposed same-sex marriage in the near future.

Clearly our nation needs a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment to prevent unelected judges from instituting “gay marriage” through judicial fiat.  Call your representative today and urge him or her to cosponsor and vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment.

For more information on protecting marriage in California check ProtectMarriage.com.

posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008 5:33:58 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) has reintroduced the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment.  The recent debacle in California demonstrates the need to protect the institution of marriage from activist judges.  The Washington Blade reports (note: this is a gay publication).

For more information check the marriage page.

posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:26:36 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
Pro-marriage forces in California have struck back after the recent state Supreme Court decision which recognized same-sex marriage in California.  The secretary of state verified that supporters had obtained enough citizen signatures to place a marriage protection amendment to the state constitution on the 2008 ballot.  If the amendment passes marriage in California will be defined as the union of one man and one woman thus protecting the sacred institution of marriage from unelected judges.

As CitizenLink reports, the attorney generals of 10 states have asked the California Supreme Court to delay the implementation of its same-sex marriage ruling until the people of California decide on the matter in November so that activist judges do not mandate “gay marriage” on other states under the “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution.

For more information on the campaign to protect marriage in California check out ProtectMarriage.com.

posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:18:32 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
This New York Times article should be a warning to supporters of “gay marriage” that there could be a high political price among minority communities over their disregard for traditional marriage.

posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:42:00 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Friday, May 30, 2008
The New York Times reports.  Excerpt:

 
Opponents of same-sex unions were pondering a range of legal and legislative challenges to Gov. David A. Paterson’s new policy of having state agencies honor same-sex marriages that have been performed outside New York.

posted on Saturday, May 31, 2008 1:48:46 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
Maggie Gallagher explains the “gay marriage” fiasco in California and highlights the campaign to amend the California constitution to protect traditional marriage from activist judges.

posted on Saturday, May 31, 2008 1:40:30 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Thursday, May 29, 2008
New York Governor David Paterson is seeking to change state regulations in order to recognize same-sex marriages from Canada and states like California and Massachusetts.  As the assault on traditional marriage continues the need for a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment becomes all the more clear.  The New York Times reports.  Excerpts:

 
Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

 

Groups that oppose gay marriage said the governor was essentially trying to circumvent the Legislature.

 

“It’s a perfect example of a governor overstepping his authority and sidestepping the democratic process,” said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization opposed to same-sex marriage. “It’s an issue of public policy that should be decided by the voters.”

posted on Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:43:24 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Sen. Sam Brownback and David Blankenhorn write an enlightening piece about the destructive incentives our government engenders toward the family through its tax policy and welfare programs and what Congress should do to eliminate the “marriage penalty.”  Excerpt:

 
We believe that the time is ripe to transcend the usual partisan politics and implement a plan to stop penalizing lower-income couples who do the right thing — for themselves and their children — and get married. That's something all of us, regardless of political persuasion, should be able to agree on.

posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 6:08:03 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 6:03:19 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Daniel Herbster reporting

I had the opportunity to interview Mark Tooley about his work with UMAction at the Institute on Religion and Democracy.  The following is my interview with Mark.

DH: What is UMAction and how would you sum up its mission?  Do you see it as more of a theological or political movement or both?

MT:  UMAction is the Methodist program of the IRD.  Its goal is to foster accountability and reform within United Methodism.  We’re not political in the sense that we endorse candidates or specific legislation in civil society.  We are political in that we are concerned about the church’s public policy witness. We are theological in that we vigorously affirm the official, orthodox teachings of our church.

DH: I understand that you were very active in the recent United Methodist Church’s global conference in Forth Worth, Texas.  Are you encouraged by what took place there?

MT:  Yes, I’m encouraged by the growing numbers and influence of the non-U.S. church, especially in Africa.  They are the hope of the church’s future.   But the church still faces many battles ahead.

DH: What kinds of decisions were reached on pro-life issues?

MT:   There were some small, incremental steps supporting parental consent and affirming the sacredness of unborn human life.  We narrowly failed to remove church agencies from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.  Had the vote been NOT on the last day, when many of the Africans had left, we probably would have won.

DH: What progress was made in affirming the traditional definition of marriage and Biblical teaching on sexual morality?

posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 6:53:52 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
Frank Turek at Townhall.com explains.  Excerpt:

 
Why not legalize same-sex marriage?  Who could it possibly hurt?  Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage. 

 

He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.” 

posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 5:21:29 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Friday, May 23, 2008
posted on Friday, May 23, 2008 7:30:15 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Thursday, May 22, 2008
NBC Augusta reports that Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) intends to reintroduce the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment.  Apparently the recent outrageous decision by the California Supreme Court convinced Rep.  Broun of the necessity of federal action in this case to prevent unelected judges from spreading “gay marriage” from one state to another.

We thank Rep. Broun for his leadership in this issue and encourage our readers to call their representatives and urge him or her to cosponsor and vote for Broun’s marriage amendment.

posted on Thursday, May 22, 2008 8:31:13 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
Fred Thompson talks about the recent ruling in California.  Excerpt:


So, more power to the people of California in their uphill battle for an amendment to their state constitution. But the real, long-term solution in the future for supporters of the rule of law is ensuring the selection and election of good judges, judges who know their role in a constitutional republic, in the first place, and holding them – and the politicians who appoint and confirm them – accountable.

We would also point out that the CA ruling illustrates the need for a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment to permanently protect the traditional definition of marriage from activist judges who would love to spread same-sex marriage from states like California and Massachusetts to the rest of the country.

posted on Thursday, May 22, 2008 8:21:24 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Baltimore Sun reports.  It is a shame that such a common sense ruling should be so surprising.  In the interests of parental rights and traditional marriage, let’s hope that the precedent set by the Maryland Supreme Court will be followed by courts across the country (especially in Virginia).

posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 6:21:50 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Monday, May 19, 2008
As only he can, Dinesh D’Souza aims his intellect and gift for expression at the issue of same-sex marriage arguing that its institution by activist judges is a threat to democracy itself.  He also helpfully explains why defending the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage does not threaten the Constitutional rights of homosexuals.  Excerpt:

 
We already know what California citizens think about gay marriage: they oppose it. A referendum outlawing gay marriage was passed with the support of the state's voters. More than 60 percent of voters cast their ballots against gay marriage.

 

How, then, can a court invalidate the referendum and over-rule the will of the people? Basically through a kind of legal fraud. The court has to pretend that there is a right to gay marriage even though it is nowhere evident in the state constitution. Read the constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it--you won't see a right to gay marriage in there. It is simply not an enumerated right, nor is it a right that can be clearly derived from other enumerated rights.

 

In issuing its ruling the California court appealed to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basic logic is that gays have a right to be treated like everyone else. But just like everyone else, gays do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex! What gay activists want is something else: the right to marry members of the same sex. This is not a right currently enjoyed by anyone. What these gay activists seek is not equal treatment but rather to change the definition of marriage.

posted on Monday, May 19, 2008 8:35:29 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
Carol Platt Liebau explains at townhall.com.

posted on Monday, May 19, 2008 8:31:07 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
The AP explains which states have marriage protection amendments, which have instituted gay marriage or civil unions, and which states could vote on marriage in November.

To see a breakdown of this information continue reading:

posted on Monday, May 19, 2008 8:28:55 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #