 |
          
  |
|
|
|
Janice
Shaw Crouse reports on the diminishing numbers of African American males
who graduate high school and connects the dots to the absence of fathers. This directly contradicts what Jude Walker
wrote in his opinion overturning California’s democratically approved constitutional
amendment protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Excerpt:
A new report from the Schott Foundation
reveals that only 47 percent of black male students earn a high school diploma
on time. Ironically, this report came out shortly after Judge Vaughn Walker
ruled regarding Proposition 8 in California. If the statements on which Judge
Walker based his ruling are “facts,” how do we explain what is happening
educationally to boys in the black community where a large majority are growing
up without fathers?
Nancy Pearcey, in an article on American
Thinker, identified certain “facts that Judge Walker claims are now established
by the ‘evidence’ presented in his courtroom.” Those “facts” presumably will be
deemed as “truth” far beyond the courtroom. Among those “facts,” the following
three are especially relevant for young black boys’ futures:
• “Gender no longer forms an essential part
of marriage.”
• “The gender of a child’s parent is not a
factor in a child’s adjustment.”
• “Having both a male and a female parent
does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.”
Those three general false principles that
Judge Walker supposedly established in his arguments in favor of so-called
“same-sex marriage” are equally faulty when applied to the more than 40 percent
of today’s children who are born to single mothers. They are doubly relevant
when the majority of those children are black.
Former
Attorney General Ed Meese explains.
Excerpt:
Even some who support same-sex marriage
worry that, in striking down California's voter-approved proposition defining
marriage as between one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker
went too far. They are right -- and not the only ones who should be concerned.
Walker's ruling is indefensible as a matter of law wholly apart from its
result.
By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme
Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to
the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the
requirements of a traditional decision. This opinion is arbitrary and
capricious, and its alarming legal methodology and overtly policy-driven tenor
are too extreme to stand.
The
editors at National Review find rare
praise for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for suspending same-sex
marriages in California until the case is settled.
A
Federal Judge in California, after a lengthy show-trial, has ruled that the
Constitution guarantees a right
to same-sex marriage and that the democratically approved California
Marriage Amendment is
unconstitutional. The worldview
expressed by Judge Walker evinces a clear disregard
for the facts.
Liberal
activists are already cheering the decision as step toward nationally
imposed same-sex marriage. They
shouldn’t count their chickens before they are hatched. This ruling will be appealed to the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals and could ultimately go to the United States Supreme
Court. Also, liberals should remember
that state constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage have ultimately
been passed democratically every time they’ve been on the ballot. Allowing activist judges to do their dirty
work will only illustrate the need for an amendment to the federal constitution
to protect and define the traditional definition or marriage.
The
Washington Examiner reports. The
people of the District of Columbia have been repeatedly denied the right to
express their views on the issue of same-sex marriage by unelected judges. Now their only hope is an appeal to the
Supreme Court. Fortunately, groups like
the Alliance Defense Fund are preparing to charge “once more into the breach.”
Ed
Whelan explains why the federal judge who conducted a recent show trial on
California’s democratically-approved Marriage Protection Amendment was biased
toward same-sex marriage and should have recused himself from even hearing the
case. Instead, the judge held a high
profile trial designed to promote same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.
In
an act of judicial activism, a federal judge has struck
down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
This ruling shows why constitutional amendments (at the state and
national level) are necessary to prevent unelected judges from institution
same-sex marriage by judicial fiat, and it demonstrates the dangers of judicial
activism.
Hadley
Arkes comments
at NRO. Excerpt:
Judge Joseph Tauro, in the federal district
court in Boston, took it upon himself to strike down the 1996 Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA). With that stroke he would remove one of the key barriers
standing in the way of imposing same-sex marriage on the nation as a whole. And
it would be done through the power of judges alone, without the need to agitate
the community in any political controversy, and without citizens or legislators
needing to do such unseemly things as voting.
Robert
George explains. Excerpt:
So what do progressives think? Has the
president embraced bigotry? Or has he lied to the American people about his
position on what marriage is and how it should be defined?
On either side’s account, the dispute over
the nature and meaning of marriage is profoundly important. Those who seek to
redefine marriage to include same-sex or even polyamorous relationships believe
that the historical definition of marriage as a male-female union denies people
who incline toward other forms of sexual partnership equality and fundamental
rights. Those who defend the historical definition — I am one of them — believe
that redefining marriage will further erode public morality and weaken the
already battered institution of marriage.
So if the president is lying, he is lying
about something that really matters. It is no innocent fib (like Robert Gibbs’s
fib that the president did not bow to the Saudi king).
So which is it? Is the president a bigot or
a liar?
Last
Wednesday a federal court in California heard closing
arguments in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state's recent voter-enacted
constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. This is an attempt by radical liberal
activists to subvert the democratic process and force their radical
anti-marriage agenda on the citizens of California.
Maggie
Gallagher comments. Excerpt:
This is the trial that never should have
been, by a judge who has systematically telegraphed his sympathy for one side.
The lawyer for the plaintiffs is Ted Olson,
once a GOP advocate for judicial restraint. Yet this week, he will be pleading
with the judge to nullify the votes of 7 million Californians -- and, by
extension, the votes of millions of Americans in other states who have
exercised their right to vote for marriage as the union of husband and wife.
Michael
Medved explains. Excerpt:
A nasty custody case in Virginia highlights
the way that the relentless push for same sex marriage threatens our core
understanding of the nature of family. The desperate determination to honor gay
rights undermines such fundamental values as the importance of motherhood, and
the states obligation to consider the welfare of the child.
Veritas
Rex explains how same-sex divorce is a backdoor strategy to institute
same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.
The
AP reports how one Texas judge is trying to push “gay marriage” by
mandating “Gay Divorce” by judicial fiat.
The
Politico reports. The
AP also reports on mounting opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
which prevents activist judges from exporting “gay marriage” from states that
recognize it to states that don’t.
The
Politico reports on the effort of liberal members of Congress to repeal the
Defense of Marriage Act. With the recent
indications that the Obama administration would like to see the law overturned,
this development represents a serious threat to traditional marriage in
America.
The
AP reports. And as our friends at FRC explain, very
few homosexual couples are actually taking advantage of the new policy showing
that the goal is not “gay marriage” but forcing the state to legitimize
homosexuality.
If
DOMA is repealed, expect Vermont’s same-sex marriages to be forced on your
state.
The
Boston Globe reports. Repealing the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would allow judges to easily impose same-sex
marriage on states that do not recognize it.
By pushing to repeal DOMA, Massachusetts is forcing its “values” on the
rest of the nation.
CitizenLink reports. Politicians looking to please radical
homosexual activist groups should consider the political price New Hampshire’s
Governor is paying for opposing traditional marriage.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
President Barack Obama opened the White
House to hundreds of gay activists Monday, promising them that by the time he
leaves office they would "have pretty good feelings" about his
administration.
During an event to celebrate the 40th
anniversary of what gay activists consider the launch of their political
movement – several nights of violent riots in and around a New York gay bar –
Obama rattled off several policies he plans to implement to please his
homosexual constituency.
"I want you to know that I expect and
hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises
my administration keeps," he said. "We've been in office six months
now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over … you guys will
have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."
Among those promises the president is
pursuing, he said: Overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passing a
law to mandate health-care and other benefits to homosexual domestic partners,
repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and even "rescinding the
discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status."
OneNewsNow also
reports.
The
Washington Post reports. As
does Fox News. Excerpt:
The extended benefits include an option for
employees' domestic partners to be added to a government insurance program that
pays for long-term conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease. They also would be
allowed to take sick leave to care for a sick partner or non-biological child.
CtizenLink
explains how the action threatens traditional
marriage and the rule of law.
Excerpt:
Family advocates say Obama’s action is a
direct violation of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and a big step toward
redefining marriage.
“The president thumbed his nose at the rule
of law and continues to undermine marriage as society’s most pro-child
institution,” said Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public
policy for Focus on the Family Action.
CitizenLink reports
some good news from the front in the battle for traditional marriage. Excerpt:
The number of Americans who support same-sex
marriage has plunged over the last few months, according to a new poll.
The CBS News/New York Times study found
that 33 percent of respondents favor same-sex marriage. That represents a 9
percent drop since April.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
Washington, D.C., elections officials have
blocked a proposal that would let voters decide on whether the nation's capital
will recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the District. The Board of Elections and Ethics has
suggested only Congress and the courts should have input on the issue.
The two-member board said that allowing a
referendum that lets the people decide is akin to authorizing
"discrimination."
CitizenLink
also reports that pro-marriage leaders (led by the African American Pastor
Harry Jackson, Jr.) intend to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
CitizenLink reports. Despite a supposed “religious exemption” in
the newly passed “gay marriage” law in New Hampshire, religious liberties are
still gravely threatened. The truth is, state
sanctioned same-sex marriage is inherently dangerous to religious liberties. There is no “religious exemption” that could
change that fact.
And
as OneNewsNow
reports, NH legislators who voted for the same-sex marriage law could face
serious political repercussions in future elections.
Harry
R. Jackson, Jr. explains the background story behind the need for
Congressional action to protect the traditional definition of marriage in the
District of Columbia and praises the “courageous” Congressmen who proposed the
DC Defense of Marriage Act.
New Hampshire
In
a surprising but welcome twist, it appears the New Hampshire same-sex marriage
bill might be stopped
in its tracks, at least for now.
Governor Lynch had promised to veto the original same-sex marriage bill
if some protections were not inserted for religious freedom. The NH Senate quickly adopted the changes,
but the NH House rejected the bill by a vote of 188-186. Maggie
Gallagher explains today’s events at NRO as does CitizenLink.
California
The
Supreme Court of California is expected
to soon announce its ruling on whether the recently passed ballot
initiative to ban same-sex marriage will be upheld. Not only is traditional marriage at stake,
but whether judges will be allowed to usurp their Constitutional power and
overrule the clear will of the people regarding the definition of marriage.
Washington, DC
Though
it is not a state (although some would like to treat it like one through
unconstitutional means), the District of Columbia has become an epicenter of
the growing rift over the definition of marriage. The DC City Council recently voted to
institute same-sex marriage in the District and its resolution will become law
if Congress fails to act. While many African
Americans in the District are outraged over the prospect of “gay marriage,”
a bi-partisan group of Congressmen proposed legislation to preserve the
traditional definition of marriage in the District at a press conference
today.
Maine
Voters
in Maine might get the chance
to vote on the traditional definition of marriage if enough signatures can
be gathered. The Maine Marriage Alliance
and others are hoping to collect 70,000 signatures or more so the recent law
enacting same-sex marriage in Maine can be overturned. Click
here for more information on the signature campaign.
The
Boston Herald reports on the grassroots effort to overturn the recently
passed same-sex marriage law by the Maine legislature.
There
is grave concern over how proposed legislation designed to reauthorize funding
for the State Department would promote the homosexual agenda on marriage and hate
crimes and could lead to promoting abortion world-wide. The bill would mandate special benefits for
homosexual members of the Foreign Service and Peace Corps and for their “domestic
partners.” It would also establish other
pro-homosexual policies, and could even lead to the promotion of abortion as a “woman’s
right” as part of American foreign policy.
CitizenLink also
reports.
Congressman
Broun (R-GA) defends his introduction
of the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment in the U.S. House. Considering the all-out assault on marriage
going on in the states and the District of Columbia, a Constitutional amendment
protecting the traditional definition of marriage from unelected judges is
needed now more than ever.
The
AP reports. But, as The
Bulletin reports, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is pressing Congress to
leave the decision of the council alone, thus instituting same-sex marriage in
DC by default.
David
Limbaugh explains. Excerpts:
Homosexual activists aren't easily
deterred. Unable to persuade even the people of California to change the
definition of marriage to legitimize their lifestyle, they're resorting to a
backdoor approach to accomplish the same thing: pushing federal hate crime
legislation while few are paying attention.
…
“…I think the main purpose of this bill is
to demonize and criminalize thought, especially the politically incorrect
belief that homosexual behavior is either abnormal or sinful. It is to make an
emphatic societal statement that this belief constitutes "hate" and
possibly to lay the groundwork for outlawing speech expressing this belief,
including from the pulpit.”
The
Washington Times reports. Excerpt:
Democrats in the Iowa legislature killed
efforts Thursday to bring the gay marriage issue to the ballot, rejecting the
pleas of hundreds of demonstrators who flooded the state Capitol in a bid to
get legislators on the record for one battle in a same-sex marriage war brewing
for the 2010 elections.
 After overriding the veto of the
governor, the
Vermont legislature has successfully instituted same-sex marriage. Vermont now joins states like Connecticut, Massachusetts,
and Iowa which recognize “gay marriages,” but unlike these states, Vermont is
the first state to institute same-sex marriage through legislation.
These
irresponsible actions by courts and legislatures (and the coming action in the
District of Columbia) illustrate the need for a Federal Marriage Protection
Amendment to the US Constitution which would, once and for all, settle the
question of what constitutes marriage in America.
Marriage
is the most fundamental building block of civilization, and must be protected
from redefinition. Furthermore, other
nations which have instituted same-sex marriage are testimony to the decline in
traditional marriage and increase in out-of-wedlock births which are
detrimental to society as a whole. And,
despite what gay marriage advocates might claim, no one’s inalienable or constitutional
rights are violated by plainly declaring what marriage is and is not.
Find
out more about protecting marriage at the AdvanceUSA marriage page.
Today
the Iowa
Supreme Court ruled that the state’s marriage legislation limiting marriage
to members of the opposite sex is
unconstitutional. The unanimous
ruling constitutes, in effect, court imposed same-sex marriage. Iowa is now the third state in the country
currently allowing “gay marriage.”
Ed
Whelan comments on the ruling at his “Bench Memos” blog at NRO.
The Wall Street
Journal reports. Excerpt:
The Vermont House of Representatives
approved a bill legalizing gay marriage Thursday, a divisive measure that now
faces a veto from the state's governor.
The
Hill reports that the US Congress will soon be facing legislation designed
to undermine the traditional definition of marriage and offer special unequal
privileges based solely on sexual behavior.
MyWayNews
reports. Once again, gay activists
are making the case for a federal marriage protection amendment to the
Constitution.
FRC
has a handy resource on their website which allows you to quickly chart the
status of marriage across the country, state by state. Click here to view the
map.
Check
out WV4Marriage.com for more
information on the campaign to protect the traditional definition of marriage
in the great state of West Virginia.
 “Gay marriage” supporters often dismiss as mindless fear-mongering traditional marriage champions’ concerns over where tampering with the traditional definition of marriage might lead. In a court case in Canada, defenders of a polygamist are citing Canada’s same-sex marriage law as support for a right to polygamy.
When you begin to tamper with marriage, there is no rationale for excluding any sexual arrangement from state-sanctioned marriage. It is not discriminatory to declare that marriage is what it is. Congress should quickly move to pass a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment, as many states have already done, to protect traditional marriage from unelected judges and radical politicians.
Check the AdvanceUSA marriage page for more information.
The
Washington Times reports. After
their recent defeats in California, Florida, and Arizona, “gay marriage”
proponents have decided to go after “low hanging fruit” by targeting New
England states. Since Massachusetts and
Connecticut are the only states currently recognizing same-sex marriage, these
radical activists hope to institute same-sex marriage in six more Northeastern states
by the year 2012. Supporters of
traditional marriage will need to be active and vigilant to head off this
threat.
HT:
FRC
Janice
Shaw Crouse explains. Excerpt:
The authors, G.L. Forward, Alison
Sansom-Livolsi, and Jordanna McGovern, stress the fact that a family is more
than merely a group of individuals who live under the same roof. They cite
numerous studies indicating that parents play a crucial role in a child’s
personal and social development. In fact, a child’s relationship with his or
her parents is the single most important factor in predicting that child’s
long-term happiness, adjustment, development, educational attainment, and
success.
The
AP reports. Excerpt:
State officials will now let married
same-sex couples list both their names on their children's birth certificates
in a policy shift deeply important to many gays and lesbians.
The decision, which echoes similar
provisions in states that allow gay marriages or civil unions, is one of many
changes since Gov. David Paterson ordered state agencies in May to respect
out-of-state gay marriages.
The state Health Department said Friday it
had agreed to the change, which came after a lesbian couple who are expecting a
baby filed a lawsuit. The change would apply statewide except in New York City,
which is considering revamping its own birth certificate forms to accommodate
same-sex couples.
The
LA Times and The
Guardian Online report on a film festival official who was forced to resign
his position because of his support, based on religious conviction, for the
pro-marriage Proposition 8 campaign in California.
Also,
Laura Ingram recently interviewed Andrew Breitbart about the reemergence of the “Hollywood
blacklist” over gay marriage.
In
all the confusion over “gay marriage,” Frank
Turek’s article is especially helpful.
Excerpt:
After the passage of Prop 8 in California,
homosexuals are still howling that they don’t have “equal rights.” Hopefully, the California Supreme Court will
respect the equal rights of voters by affirming Prop 8 because the howls of homosexuals
are false. The truth is every person in America already has equal
marriage rights!
We’re all playing by the same rules—we all
have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those
rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the
qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person
has the same right to marry.
Breitbart
reports. Excerpt:
California's highest court agreed Wednesday
to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage
but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.
Radical
“gay rights” activists will stop at nothing to impose “gay marriage” on the
public, even if that means overturning democracy when it doesn’t suit their
purposes. Three lawsuits have been filed
to overturn Prop. 8 (which amends the state constitution to preserve the traditional
definition of marriage) recently approved by California voters. The same Supreme Court which instituted same-sex
marriage earlier this year will now determine the constitutionality of the
voter approved marriage protection amendment.
If the court were to overturn a lawfully approved ballot initiative, it
would be an unprecedented display of raw judicial activism and tyranny.
Daniel
Herbster reporting
Citizens for Community Values of
Indiana is one of the many great organizations in our nation fighting to
protect family values and to oppose pornography and sexually oriented
businesses. I had the opportunity to
interview Patrick Mangan, the Executive Director of CCV of IN, about his work
enabling people to take back their communities.
DH: Patrick, I’ve enjoyed getting to know you and your
organization better over the last few months, so it’s a pleasure to introduce
you to our readers here at AdvanceUSA Blog.
I’ve seen first-hand how your work affects the state of Indiana and
especially my home town of South Bend.
Tell our readers what kinds of issues Citizens for Community Values
works on?
PM: Well our mission is to protect men, women, and
children from the misinformation of sexual activists, and the harms of sexual
addictions, sexual predators, sexually oriented businesses, materials harmful
to minors, broadcast indecency, and the porn/sex industry in all of its forms,
by promoting the principles of the Judeo/Christian ethic which is the
foundation of our nation.
Our vision is to empower concerned citizens and
community leaders to significantly reduce sexual exploitation, promiscuity, and
abuse in Indiana and beyond by:
Kevin
McCullough explains, examining the hatred expressed by the “gay rights”
activists and showing how their position goes against common sense and the
Constitution.
Matt
Barber explains. Excerpt:
With a unified voice amplified several
million-fold through the ballot box megaphone, African-Americans have spoken on
the issues of marriage, family and human sexuality. Whether young or old, male
or female, Democrat or Republican, blacks are justifiably fed up with the
deceptive antics of the self-described and craftily contrived "gay rights
movement."
For decades now, well-organized,
well-funded and highly influential "gay" political pressure groups
have, with impertinence, hijacked the language of the authentic civil rights
movement. In what amounts to a sort of soft racism, self-styled
"queers" have disingenuously and ignobly hitched their lil' lavender
wagons to a movement which, by contrast, is built upon the genuine and noble
precepts of racial equality and humanitarian justice.
Apparently
proponents of homosexual marriage find the democratic process
inconvenient when it goes counter to their demands. Three lawsuits have been filed to nullify the
marriage protection amendment recently added to the California constitution by
voters. Fortunately, as The
Catholic Online reports, our friends at Liberty Counsel will come to the
aid of marriage and democracy.
As
The
Desert Sun and the Campaign
for Children and Families report, homosexual activists are willing to
resort to violence and intimidation to oppose protecting traditional marriage.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
Lisa Miller is continuing her legal battle
for her daughter, Isabella.
Miller left the homosexual lifestyle and
became a Christian when Isabella was 17 months old. Janet Jenkins, who was
Miller's "partner" when Miller gave birth to Isabella, is seeking
full custody of the 6-year-old.
As the
AP reports, the Supreme Court of Connecticut has just imposed same-sex
marriage on its citizens. As these
stunning instances of judicial activism continue, the need for a federal
marriage protection amendment to prevent the spread of “gay marriage” from
state to state becomes even more apparent.
The
White House issued a statement in response to the ruling, calling
for a such an amendment.
When
you go to the ballot box, consider how your consider the positions your
Congressional and Senate candidates stand on the federal marriage protection
amendment.
TheTruthAboutMarriage.org is a
great resource on the importance of protecting the traditional definition of
marriage in our society. On the website
you will find videos and studies which make the case for protecting marriage in
our public policy. These resource will
give you the ammunition you need to articulate and argue for a strong
pro-marriage position.
Even
self-described liberal David Blankenhorn, who wrote in the LA Times on Friday,
argues that we
must preserve the traditional definition of marriage. He maintains that traditional marriage is the
best arrangement for children based on his extensive study. Excerpt:
Because I also believe with all my heart in
the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we
as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human
institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that
right and make it real for our children.
Read
full
article here.
Do you know if your state has a
ballot initiative to protect the traditional definition of marriage? Would you like to support the effort to
protect marriage from radical legislatures and activist judges? Standformarriage.com
provides you with information on the efforts to protect marriage across the
country and allows you to support those efforts.
A
New York court has conspired with the governor of New York in bypassing the
legislative branch by declaring
that “gay” marriages must be recognized despite the fact that the elected representatives
on New Yorkers have declared that marriage is only a union of one man and one
woman.
One
of the strategies of proponents of same-sex marriage is to push for “divorce
rights” for same-sex couples “married” in other states or countries. As this
sob story from the LA Times shows, the campaign for “gay divorce”
continues.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
 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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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).
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.
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:
In a blatant display of judicial activism, four out of seven members of the California Supreme Court have ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriages. In overturning the clear will of the people, California becomes the second state (after Massachusetts) to legalize same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.
This judicial outrage demonstrates the need for a state constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Protectmarriage.com recently submitted thousands of signatures in an effort to place a marriage amendment on California’s 2008 ballot. Check Protectmarriage.com to find out more about protecting marriage in California.
This ruling also shows the need to protect one-man, one-woman marriage on the national level with a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment so that unelected judges in one state cannot impose same-sex marriage on the rest of the country.
For more information on protecting marriage click here.
Daniel Herbster reporting
 Exodus International is the largest network of former homosexuals in the world and assists local ministries around the world in helping people overcome same-sex attraction and the homosexual lifestyle through a relationship with Christ. They also use their unique expertise to speak out on important cultural and societal issues. I’ve had the opportunity to work with members of Exodus on a number of occasions so it’s great to be able to interview my friend Randy Thomas who is Vice President of Exodus. The following is my interview with Randy.
DH: Randy, how long has Exodus been in existence and how did it get started?
RT: In 1976, sixty-two ministry leaders met in California to talk about their efforts to help those dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction and how they, as independent ministries, could network to help one another in this effort. The vision and name for Exodus was born out of obvious parallels that could be drawn from the Children of Israel leaving Egypt and entering the Promise Land. These visionaries had the accurate view that being “gay” should not be the only option for those with same sex attractions. They knew that our “Promise Land” was the knowledge of and relationship with Jesus Christ. They knew that there was so much more to life than what a gay ideology was offering and so they developed the network we now know as Exodus. Thirty-three years later our network has over 200 member agencies across North America who reach thousands of people seeking help. We are also affiliated with other ministries around the world who offer this perspective on homosexuality to a world hungering for positive alternatives.
Sixty-two people cast a vision that has now helped millions of people and educated millions more about biblical sexuality.
DH: One of the tenants of our modern, politically correct culture holds that sexual orientation is inherent and unchangeable but “gender identity” is unfixed and can change. Do you think this is true, and how does Exodus’s unique perspective relate to this issue?
RT: Recently I wrote on my personal blog a post called “The Transgender Double Standard.” In it I shared, ‘It’s always astounded me how willing some in the gay activist community are to celebrate someone surgically altering their body to “become” who they perceive to be internally. Yet when I determine I want to reorient my sexual orientation, which does not require drastic surgery or body altering drugs, according to those same activists, I am the one doing damage to myself and others by simply holding to a particular worldview that brings me contentment and sexual reorientation. The transgendered are applauded for radically altering their bodies while I am scolded for holding the belief that I would be happier living out who I truly am regardless of my past life as a gay identified man. It¹s ok for someone to ignore what they were obviously born as, but for people like me - we are told being “gay” is genetic and should be embraced because we have no other option.’
This is a terrible conundrum for militant gay activism because their own moral relativism is being exposed. We were all created with free will. We all have the ability to define right and wrong for ourselves. The issue with moral relativism is that eventually it will prove out to be hypocritical because it is self based moral judgments instead of God¹s creative intent which is unchanging. Sixteen years ago I decided that maybe God’s intent for my sexuality and identity just might be beyond my own seemingly logical conclusions. I started to question everything in life and attempting to live out my identity and sexuality in accordance with my faith. My identity has completely changed in that I am not a “gay” man anymore. I am a Christian. I will hopefully be known as a man of God. My sexual orientation has shifted a great deal as a byproduct of my pursuing purity and holiness.
Notice I said shifted. I am not above temptation and if temptation happens, I know why and what to do about it. Regardless, homosexuality does not have the power to determine who I am or how I steward my sexuality.
DH: Would you mind telling us about your background and how you came to work at Exodus?
The Tucson Citizen reports that the Arizona Marriage Amendment is back on track after recent difficulties in the state House of Representatives.
Also, the California Marriage Amendment effort gathered an amazing 1.1 million signatures which ensures that a measure to amend the state constitution to protect the traditional definition of marriage will appear on the California ballot in 2008. CitizenLink reports.
As reported earlier at AdvanceUSA Blog, the marriage amendment campaign in Florida is also proceeding with determination.
All
those wishing to institute same-sex marriage in the United States should read Michael
Coren’s article in the National Post.
The disastrous results in Canada he mentions should give our nation
pause before giving into politically correct intimidation tactics that label
any opposition to “gay marriage” as intolerant and evil.
CitizenLink reports. This is a crucially important case not only
for parental rights but for opposing the imposition of gay marriage by
unelected judges. Excerpt:
The Virginia Supreme Court will move a step
closer on Thursday to deciding whether a lesbian woman will win custody of her
ex-partner’s child, a decision that could undermine the state’s marriage
amendment.
Janet Jenkins, who has no biological or
adoptive ties to Lisa Miller’s 6-year-old daughter, Isabella, is seeking
parental rights because she was in a relationship with Miller when the child
was born. Miller got pregnant through artificial insemination from an anonymous
donor, and the couple eventually ended the relationship.
UPDATE: One News Now
offers helpful information about the crucial custody case before the
Virginia Supreme Court.
The
AP has a story today trying to encourage sympathy for members of “gay marriages”
who are seeking to get divorced in other states. This is really
a tactic to spread “gay marriage” from states like Massachusetts to states where
traditional marriage is currently protected.
Homosexual activists are hoping that unelected judges will overturn
marriage amendments or defense of marriage acts as a result of recognizing “gay
divorces.”
 Homosexual activists gathered in our nation’s capital from a few days ago until Tax Day (today) lobbying for what they call “family values.” Their agenda includes supposed anti-discrimination legislation like ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) and instituting laws which provide what substantively amount to marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
Concerned citizens must be careful to clearly state that we do not hate homosexuals or wish to persecute them, but that we strongly object to creating special rights and privileges based on sexual behavior and we believe that organizations and companies should have the right to deem certain behavior unacceptable for their employees.
If these legislative goals proceed they will likely include some sort of “religious exemptions” which only protect churches and other explicitly religious organizations, but which do not cover individual employers such as private companies and certain non-profits. For example, while a Catholic church might be exempted from being forced to hire or accommodate homosexuals or same-sex couples, a Catholic businessman or leader of a faith-based charity would not be protected. The religious freedoms of individuals should be protected, not just the religious freedom of large organizations.
The bottom line is that sexual behavior should not be given preferential treatment under law under the guise of anti-discrimination. Also, the crucial institution of marriage should not be undermined by offering special marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
ACTION: We do not yet know when Congress will consider such legislation, but we encourage you to contact your representative and both your senators to urge them to oppose ENDA and other attempts to give substantive marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
The
Arizona
Republic reports. Despite being held
up in the legislature, Arizona marriage proponents are examining their options
and planning to move ahead with a constitutional amendment to protect the
traditional definition of marriage.
We
are privileged to have John Stemberger, the State Chairman of Florida4Marriage.org,
answer some of our questions about the crucial campaign going on in Florida. Here is Daniel Herbster’s interview with John. For more information check Florida4Marriage.org.
DH: Thanks for taking the time
to share about your work with our readers.
Let me start off with a softball.
Why is protecting the traditional definition of marriage so important?
JS: Goodness,
this something I could discuss for hours.
I guess the most compelling reason and yet simple reason is that kids
need a mom and a dad. Same sex marriages deprive children of the best
arrangement for human socialization.
Same sex marriages also provide the legal rationale for the creation of
polygamous marriages and group marriage arrangements. Our opponents really are trying to redefine
the human experience and radically change basic human institutions that have
served us since the beginning of time.
DH: What are you and the
Florida4Marriage.org committee hoping to accomplish in Florida and why do you
think it would be effective?
“Home-Schoolers 'In Shock' Over Court Ruling”
Homeschoolers in California and advocates of school choice endured a sneak attack recently when a California appeals court came out with a sweeping ruling that declares that parents have no constitutional right to educate their children in the home. The Washington Times reports. Excerpt:
National and California home-schooling advocates are banding together to fight a state court ruling they say could essentially outlaw the practice of allowing parents to teach their children at home.
California Supreme Court Hears Marriage Case
As the LA Times reports, the California Supreme Court has heard the challenge to that state’s Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman only. Will the court usurp the will of the people and redefine marriage? We should know in less than 90 days. Excerpt from LA Times story:
The court is deciding four lawsuits brought on behalf of nearly two dozen same-sex couples. A trial judge here ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, but a Court of Appeal rejected that decision on a 2-1 vote. Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger argued in favor of keeping marriage an opposite-sex union, and Christian-affiliated groups joined them.
The California high court invalidated the San Francisco marriage licenses in August 2004, but will decide within 90 days whether gay men and lesbians should be permitted to marry in the future.
The
MBC Pathway reports on the status of the proposed
constitutional amendment to fully ban human cloning in Missouri. Excerpt:
[Missouri Secretary of State] Carnahan’s
rewrite of language submitted last fall by Cures Without Cloning (CWC) was
struck down Feb. 20 by Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce under
precedents established by previous judges as insufficient or unfair. Legally it
means her work is “inadequate, especially lacking adequate power, capacity or
competence. The word ‘unfair’ means to be marked by injustice, partiality, or
deception.” In other words, according to legal precedent, she stated the
consequences of the initiative “inadequately and with bias, prejudice,
deception and/or favoritism.”
An appeal filed by people sympathetic to
the argumentation of Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures will be heard by
the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, March 26. Once all legal
appeals are exhausted, it is believed that approximately 150,000 valid
signatures would need to be collected by May 5, the deadline for getting it on
the ballot in November. Many citizens are ready to fan out all over the state
to go get the necessary signatures once elected officials and judges are
finished with their work.
“We are confident the court of appeals will
uphold the ballot summary written by the circuit court and are preparing for
that outcome,” wrote Missourians Against Human Cloning (MAHC) Executive
Director Jaci Winship in an email alert that went out to supporters in the last
week of February. “We are hopeful the appeal process will move quickly so that
our volunteer army that has been preparing for months will be able to move
forward.”
HT: Sam Lee
Robert
Knight comments on the case before the California Supreme Court which could
have drastic
implications on marriage across the country. Excerpt:
At issue is California’s marriage law,
approved by voters in 2000 by a wide margin, which defines marriage as the
union of a man and a woman. Because of California’s history of liberal legal
activism, court watchers are taking bets over whether the high bench will
sucker punch the electorate and impose “gay marriage” on the state.
CNS News reports. Excerpt:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at
Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the
Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also
told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make
him "less Christian."
Commentary by Daniel Herbster
 Last night my pastor gave a report on his recent mission trip to the poverty-stricken nation of Surinam in South America. During the presentation, he happened to mention how the practice of slavery hundreds of years ago has drastically affected the institution of marriage in that land, even to this day.
Apparently, when European colonial powers brought African slaves to Surinam, male slaves were dehumanized to such an extent that they were merely used for breeding purposes without ever being able to behave like actual fathers. This has led to a matriarchal culture where single women are left to raise the nation’s children alone while marriage is often considered unnecessary.
This is sobering evidence of how cultural decisions can have drastic effects on the institution of marriage, and how the deterioration of the family can prevent nations from achieving their full potential. We in America should redouble our efforts to protect marriage by encouraging stable, two-parent families and by protecting the traditional definition of marriage.
In preparation for
our “Advance Spotlight” in tomorrow’s “Advance Report” weekly e-newsletter,
Daniel Herbster was able to conduct an interview with Micah Clark who is the
Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana. Below is the text of the interview.
For more
information on AFAIN and the great work they do for Hoosier families, check out
their website (www.afain.net). To subscribe to AdvanceUSA’s email services
and to receive your own issue of the Advance Report, check the “Get Involved”
box in the left margin.
DH: Thanks
for taking the time to share this information with our readers. What is the mission of the American Family
Association of Indiana?
MC: AFAIN
is Indiana’s only statewide decency organization. We exist to educate Hoosiers on the moral,
cultural, and political issues of the day and how those issues impact Hoosier
families. We are a voice for family
values at the local, state, and federal levels.
DH: How
did it get started? How long has it been around?
MC: AFA of
Indiana was founded in Northeast Indiana near Auburn in 1993 as a state
affiliate of the National American Family Association (based in Tupelo, MS). However, AFA IN is a locally funded and
locally governed non-partisan, non-profit 501c 3 organization. AFA of Indiana is a donation-run
organization, which has become one of the leading and most influential
pro-family organizations in the state.
AFA of Indiana was originally...
As
the Towers
Online reports, the outcome of the upcoming ‘gay marriage’ case before the
California Supreme Court could have drastic implication on the national scene
besides it’s obvious effects on the campaign to approve a marriage protection
amendment in California.
For
more information on the California marriage amendment visit www.ProtectMarriage.com.
The
Indy Star reports on this sad
news for marriage defenders in Indiana.
Hoosiers can especially thank State Rep. Patrick Bauer and State Rep. Scott
Pelath for denying them the opportunity to vote on a marriage amendment in
2008.
Calling all Californians and Hoosiers
(“Hoosiers” are folks from Indiana for all you non-Hoosiers out there)
concerned about protecting the traditional definition of marriage from activist
judges and liberal politicians! You have
urgent and important opportunities to defend the sacred institution of marriage
in your states.
Indiana
The
Indiana Marriage Amendment (S.J.R. 7) was passed by the State Senate but is
languishing in the State House Rules Committee.
In Indiana, a constitutional amendment must be approved by two
consecutive legislatures and then approved by the people. If the House continues to delay, Indiana
voters will be deprived of the opportunity to vote on the amendment on their
2008 ballot and the effort to protect marriage in Indiana will be set back
several years. Defenders of marriage in
Indiana are urged to call and email State House Speaker Patrick Bauer and State
House Rules Committee Chairman Scott Pelath.
Contact
information:
Speaker
Pat Bauer
(D-South Bend)
317-232-9628
h6@in.gov
Chairman
Scott Pelath
(D-Michigan City)
317-232-9647
h9@in.gov
HT:
Brian
California
CitizenLink
reports (article: “California Gets
Ready to Vote on Marriage”) that the California Marriage Amendment is off
to a good start with 100,000 signatures gathered to get it on the 2008
ballot. However, a total of about 1
Million signatures will be needed to do so.
If you live in California check out the Protect Marriage website to find out
how to sign the petition and find other ways to help the cause.
Visit:
www.ProtectMarriage.com
Excerpt from Reuters report:
A New York appeals court ruled on Friday that valid same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries must be recognized in New York, the first known ruling of its kind in the country, a rights group said.
Court rulings such as this one powerfully illustrate the need for a federal constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Otherwise, unelected federal judges will spread gay marriage across the country by judicial fiat, all while misapplying the “equal protection” and “full faith and credit” clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
For more information on protecting marriage click here. Check out AdvanceUSA’s 2008 Candidate Comparisons and see how the presidential candidates stand on the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment.
 That headline probably isn’t a huge surprise but the timing is interesting none the less.
Former Vice President Al Gore has released a video clip in which he calls for the recognition of same-sex marriage. Possibly Gore is trying to goad the Democrat presidential candidates to “strengthen” their positions on “gay rights.”
It is almost humorous to watch the Democrat candidates pledge their support for “gay rights” while not being able to bring themselves to say they actually support gay marriage. Their reluctance to openly support same-sex marriage is testament to the strong sentiment in this nation to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
For more information on protecting marriage click here.
In the vast majority of instances when Americans are given a chance to vote to support the traditional definition of marriage, they do. Unfortunately, liberal obstructionists fight tooth and nail to keep voters from being able to decide at the ballot box how their states should define marriage. The battle rages on in several states. Here’s an update on what is going on in four of them (PA, IN, FL, and IA):
Florida
AdvanceUSA recently reported that more signatures were needed so that Floridians will have a chance to vote to protect marriage on their 2008 ballot. Now our friends at Florida4Marriage.org are trying to correct the record because of misleading and dated information disseminated by four newspapers and picked up by other news organizations mistakenly claiming that the marriage amendment is already approved for the ballot. Here’s an excerpt of their critique:
In an [sic] stunning display of journalistic confusion, no less than four daily newspapers tied to the EW Scripps Treasure Coast Newspaper Company printed a one month old (and therefore inaccurate) story about the status of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.
…
These stories totally missed the breaking news that was all over the state this week that Florida4Marriage.org needs an additional 22,000 petitions to qualify for the ballot after an unprecedented audit was ordered by the state.
While it appears to be a legitimate and embarrassing mistake, the effects of this mistake in this time of crisis and emergency make it that much more egregious to the effort.
For the record: Florida4Marriage.org is still collecting petitions and we continue to do so without stopping all the way till the deadline of Tuesday January 29, 2008. All petitions must be in the Florida4Marriage.org office no later than 5:00pm on January 29, 2008. (4853 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando FL 32806). For more information visit: www.Florida4Marriage.org
To find out how you can support marriage in Florida, check Florida4Marriage.org.
Pennsylvania
According to http://www.pa4marriage.org/ State Senator Mike Brubaker (R-Lancaster) will soon introduce a marriage protection amendment bill to “protect the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman and prevent creation of civil unions (or other terms used to give all the legal benefits of marriage under a different name).” Concerned Pennsylvanians should contact their state senators (by phone or in person) and urge them to cosponsor Sen. Brubaker’s bill and vote “Yes” on this marriage protection amendment to the Pennsylvania constitution.
For more information on protecting marriage in Pennsylvania, check http://www.pa4marriage.org/
Indiana
Despite the fact that legislative committees frequently consider dozens of pieces of legislation simultaneously, House Rules Chairman Scott Pelath (D-Michigan City) claims there is not enough time to consider the marriage amendment and the property tax issue. If the marriage amendment is not passed by the legislature this legislative term, Hoosier voters will be deprived of an opportunity to support the protection of marriage in Indiana on their 2008 ballot.
Concerned Hoosiers are encouraged to contact state representative Pelath and encourage him to give marriage the attention it deserves.
Check with the AFA of Indiana for more information.
UPDATE: The Christian Post reports that
an Indiana
state senate committee has approved the Indiana marriage amendment.
Now the state house must approve the bill, or it will take six years before the
amendment could be considered again. House Speaker Patrick Bauer (D-South
Bend) has indicated that he will obstruct the bill. Concerned Hoosiers
should let their voices be heard. To find out who your Indiana state house representative is and
how to contact him/her click here.
Iowa
Excerpt from the Des Moines Register:
Hundreds of people gathered Wednesday [January 16] at the State Capitol, asking lawmakers to launch an effort to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.
As AdvanceUSA reported this summer, many Iowans were understandably outraged when a federal judge mandated same-sex marriage in Iowa from the bench. Here’s hoping pro-traditional marriage Iowans are successful in their efforts.
It appears the liberals in Congress will continue their battle to blur the definition of marriage. The latest attempt comes in the guise of providing to same-sex partners of federal employees the same marriage benefits as married spouses. The Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007 (S. 2521 / H.R. 4838), would make a federal employee and his or her same-sex domestic partner eligible to participate in federal health benefits, the Family and Medical Leave program, long-term care, insurance, and retirement benefits. Read the text of S. 2521 here and the text of H.R. 4838 here. Click here and here to see which senators and representatives have signed on to these dangerous bills as cosponsors and hold them accountable. Call your representative and both your senators today and urge them to oppose the Domestic Partners Benefits Act (S. 2521 or H.R. 4838)!
For more information on protecting marriage, check the AdvanceUSA marriage page. To see how the 2008 presidential candidates stand on the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment check the Candidate Comparisons page.
The AP reports on the efforts of pro-marriage activists in Vermont to oppose that state’s recognition of same-sex marriages. Massachusetts is currently the only state that recognizes “gay marriages” but fortunately a nearly century-old law prohibits its spread to other states. If Vermont were to approve same-sex marriage it could initiate a nation-wide domino effect of judicially imposed gay marriages. This precarious situation illustrates the importance of ratifying a federal constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage.
Check out the AdvanceUSA marriage page or see how the presidential candidates stand on protecting marriage in our 2008 Candidate Comparisons.
 Please tell your friends and family in Florida about this important marriage issue. Apparently the state constitutional amendment is approximately 30,000 signatures short of reaching the 2008 ballot. Encourage Floridians who support traditional marriage to sign the petition and consider supporting the pro-marriage organization Florida4Marriage in other ways.
From our friends at Florida4Marriage:
Officials Report 30,000 Petitions Short in Unprecedented Recount: Immediate Action Needed to Collect More Petitions
(Tallahassee, FL) Monday January, 14, 2008. Leaders of Florida4Marriage.org declared a state of "constitutional emergency" today when they learned from Division of Elections officials that due to an "audit" ordered by the Division, the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment fell short by some 30,000 petitions. The state constitutional amendment seeks to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and would prohibit polygamy, group marriage, and same sex marriages in Florida.
According to state officials, only 589,020 petitions were officially certified after the unprecedented audit, leaving the petition effort just under 22,000 short of the needed 611,009 needed to be certified for the ballot in 2008. Florida4Marriage.org State Chairman John Stemberger said, "Right now, we are not interested in whose fault this is. We just want to finish the job -- and finish it immediately."
Amendment leaders are calling upon national, state and local pro-family leaders to alert Floridians to the crisis and to immediately pull out all stops to collect new petitions over the next two weeks. Stemberger said all petitions must be physically mailed or hand delivered into the state headquarters located at 4853 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando FL 32806, before close of business on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 (Presidential Primary Election Day). Under a new law, petitions can no longer be delivered to local county supervisors of elections by individual citizens. Petitions can only be received from the official sponsoring committee of the amendment.
To find out how you can help defend the sacred institution of marriage in the state of Florida check the Florida4Marriage.org website.
Related news articles: AP story in Bradenton Herald, Florida Today, Miami Herald
For more information on protecting marriage, check the AdvanceUSA marriage page. To see how the 2008 presidential candidates stand on the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment check the Candidate Comparisons page.
CitizenLink
reports on the important work going on in states across the country to ensure the traditional
definition of marriage is protected.
These are the states listed in the article:
Likely state constitutional amendment
votes in 2008:
Florida
California
Arizona
Indiana
Working toward future votes:
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Here’s a
piece of encouraging news from Oregon
for the New Year. A judge has halted the implementation of a domestic
partnership law for same-sex couples (which effectively grants the rights and
privileges of marriage to same sex couples) until the citizen signatures
gathered to overturn the law can be reassessed. Excerpt from LifeSite news article:
A federal judge in Portland
Oregon granted a temporary
injunction requested by pro-family activists, halting the implementation of a
law that would see homosexual couples afforded the same rights and privileges
granted to married heterosexual couples. The law was set to come into effect on
January 1, 2008.
The public interest legal alliance, the Alliance Defense
Fund, filed a lawsuit on Dec. 3, 2007, against the Oregon Secretary of State
and several county clerks, alleging that those offices had wrongfully
invalidated voters' signatures on a citizen referendum. If allowed to go
forward, the referendum would place onto the November 2008 ballot an option for
voters to repeal the state legislature's domestic partnership bill, HB 2007.
AdvanceUSA
has previously
reported on the effort of Oregonians to overturn two laws recently passed
by the legislature that provide the rights of marriage to same-sex
couples. The legislature passed these dangerous bills despite the fact
the people of Oregon
had democratically passed a constitutional amendment to protect the traditional
definition of marriage. We are encouraged that the will of the people to
protect the crucial institution of marriage might be heard after all.
For more
news and information on efforts to protect marriage click here.
The AP reports on the latest assault on traditional marriage in the guise of “marriage equality” though same-sex civil unions. Starting January 1, New Hampshire began conducting and recognizing same-sex civil unions for homosexual partners.
Marriage is the crucial foundation of a civilized society and ought to be an important issue in presidential politics. Let’s hope the voters in New Hampshire take the marriage issue into consideration when they head to the polls on Tuesday, January 8 during their “first-in-the-nation” presidential primary.
If you want to find out where the major presidential candidates stand on marriage check out AdvanceUSA’s 2008 Candidate Comparisons.
A
same-sex couple hoping to spread Massachusetts’
“gay marriage” laws to other states are insisting on getting a “divorce” in Rhode Island where
same-sex marriage is not recognized. The Boston Globe reports that the
couple is appealing their case after the RI Supreme Court ruled against
them (as reported here
at AdvanceUSA Blog recently).
Proponents
of a state
constitutional amendment protecting marriage in Florida achieved a victory
yesterday. Excerpt from news article:
Floridians will vote in November on a constitutional
amendment to protect traditional marriage after the initiative apparently
surpassed on Dec. 12 the 611,009 requirement for qualified petitions to put the
proposal before voters in 2008.
CitizenLink reports.
Excerpt:
Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family
Research Council, said he questions the argument that gay couples desperately
need such legal benefits.
“This puts the lie to all of that," he said,
"because if it really was such a hardship to live as a partnered couple
without the benefits of marriage, then you would think they would all rush out
to sign up as soon as those legal benefits were available to them.”
The
Alliance Defense Fund is helping in the legal fight to make sure legitimate signatures
that were collected in support of traditional marriage are lawfully counted.
Two laws approved by the legislature would provide domestic partnership to
same-sex couples, directly threatening the substance and spirit of Oregon’s voter-approved
marriage protection amendment, so signatures were gathered to allow Oregonian
voters to overturn the laws on the 2008 ballot. If the signatures are
declared valid, Oregonians would again be able to stand up for marriage in the
next election.
Jeff
Mapes reports on Oregon’s
same-sex domestic partnership issue as well.
Alan Sears, President of the Alliance Defense Fund, briefly summarizes the main threats to traditional marriage across the country and what ADF is doing in the legal arena to protect marriage from these assaults. Marriage is not just a religious issue but also an important legal issue that affects the very foundations of civilization.
In more encouraging news, polls in Florida show a vast majority support protecting marriage. And though recent polls in Indiana have shown a decrease in support, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of “one man and one woman” still garners more support than opposition.
The AP reports on this reversal, in substance, of the Oregon state
constitution marriage amendment.
AdvanceUSA attended a recent lecture on the Hill at
which Greg Koukl, Christian thinker and radio host, spoke about the secular
reasons to oppose same-sex (gay) marriage. Koukl made the point that
Christians must not be content to refute same-sex marriage simply theologically
but also must make substantive public policy arguments to show that protecting
traditional marriage is indeed a “compelling public interest” based on data and
plain reason. His material is well worth reading.
Koukl has
generously made his lecture notes available and our friends at Faith & Law
have kindly posted
them online. To find out about articles, audio files, and video by
Greg Koukl click here.
For more
information from AdvanceUSA on protecting traditional marriage click here or here.
John
Stemberger gives an excellent defense of the proposed Florida Marriage Protection
Amendment and in doing so refutes many of the
objections raised against a federal version. He compares current marriage laws and common
housing regulations to show that defining marriage as a union of only one man
and one woman does not constitute inappropriate discrimination.
The
Washington Blade (homosexual news publication) explains the
strategy of the “gay rights” agenda while offering critique to help
proponents obtain the ultimate goal of same-sex marriage. The article suggests a “incremental” approach
in which marriage and civil unions are not discussed until the public is
“ready.”
A
suggested plan of attack includes these stages of building in this order:
- Hate Crimes
- ENDA
- Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell”
- Permanent Partners
Immigration Act
- Civil Unions
- Repeal Defense of Marriage
Act and Overturn State Marriage Amendments
Click here
to read the full explanation.
Oregon already has a marriage amendment,
but liberal activists managed to convince the state legislature to pass two
laws which awarded privileges suspiciously similar to marriage to same-sex
couples. An AP
report continues:
State elections officials reported Monday that the effort
fell short 116 valid signatures of the 55,179 needed to suspend the law and
place it on the November 2008 ballot for a popular vote.
 AdvanceUSA is happy to report that the efforts to protect marriage in Oregon have seen success. Earlier this year the Oregon legislature passed two laws which overturn the 2004 voter-approved state marriage amendment. These laws, among other things, would award marriage benefits to same-sex couples. The group Restore America announced Wednesday that they have collected 63,000 signatures, approximately 7,500 more than needed, to halt the enforcement of the laws and allow them to be overturned by a vote of the people next year.
Below is the Restore America press release announcing the signature collection success:
From the Philadelphia
Inquirer:
Refusing to allow gay couples to hold civil unions in a
boardwalk pavilion has cost a Methodist church group in Monmouth County
its state tax exemption for the property.
The state Department of Environmental Protection on Monday
stripped the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of a property tax exemption
for the boardwalk pavilion…
Tax
exempt status today, ____________ tomorrow.
UPDATE: Maggie Gallagher covers the story
in a piece called “Can
New Jersey punish Methodists for marriage?” at TownHall.
It’s
finally happened. A judge in New
York State
has ruled that out-of-state “gay” marriages must be
recognized for purposes of receiving state benefits. Activist judges
continue to show a ready willingness to force same-sex marriage on the people
of this nation with or without their consent. The case for a federal
marriage amendment grows even stronger.
As
CitizenLink reports, there is a bill before the California
legislature
that would force same-sex marriage upon its citizens even after a
sizeable majority supported a state-wide marriage initiative in 2000.
Unfortunately the legalization of “gay” marriage is not the only issue facing
Californians. Other bills before the legislature would:
“teach public school children age 5 and older to be
accepting of homosexuality, cross-dressing and bisexuality; end local oversight
of school discrimination policies;…and allow HIV-positive men to donate sperm,
with no guarantee that the child conceived in the process would be HIV-free.”
Source: CitizenLink
As if the need for a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage from the rulings of activist judges were not already apparent, a county judge in Iowa has just overturned the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) ruling that gay couples must be allowed to wed. The ruling proves that legislation alone is insufficient to protect against homosexual marriage. Several states have passed marriage protection amendments (many by large majorities), and it increasingly becomes apparent that a federal version will be necessary as well.
 
For more information on protecting traditional marriage check the AdvanceUSA marriage page.
This
excerpt from a
Newsday article says it all:
“A New Jersey church group is suing the state
over whether the organization should be required to allow a lesbian couple to
hold a civil union ceremony at a beachfront pavilion owned by the group.”
Stories
like this clearly demonstrate how the gay agenda can often clash with religious
liberty.
The 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Oklahoma’s law prohibiting
gay adoption is unconstitutional. The court said that Oklahoma violated the
“full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution by not recognizing the
laws of other states. This is the same argument that has and will be used
to force “gay marriage” on states that do not recognize it unless a federal
constitutional amendment defending traditional marriage is ratified.
For more
information on defending traditional marriage click here. For more
information on pro-family issues click here.
UPDATE: In a recent TownHall
column Austin Hill asks “is
the ‘M’ word the same as the ‘C’ word” referring to the fact that homosexual
“civil unions” are in many ways just another term for “gay
marriage.”
At the
recent YouTube Democrat debate the 2008 presidential candidates were asked
whether or not they support the right of same-sex couples to “marry.”
Here is what the candidates (except Sen. Hillary Clinton whose comments on the
federal marriage amendment are included below) had to say…
Below is
video of a Hillary Clinton campaign speech in which she gives her views on the
federal marriage amendment which defines marriage as the union of one man and
one woman only. She also mentions ENDA, a bill in Congress which would
grant special “rights” and privileges to homosexuals regarding employment
matters.
A court in Pennsylvania has awarded custody of two children to three parents. The mother, her lesbian partner, and the sperm-donor father were all awarded custody rights of “Co. J” and “Ca. J” (only abbreviations of the children’s names were used in the court document to protect their identities) and are required to pay child support.
Concerned citizens should remember that “if marriage (family) means everything, marriage (family) means nothing.”
For more news and information on the battle to preserve traditional marriage click here.
Liberals
in Congress are apparently constantly on the lookout for ways to undermine
traditional marriage. Appropriations
bills for the District of Columbia
have normally been structured to prevent federal funds from being used to
support domestic partnership programs, but House Democrats neglected to include
these stipulations in this year's D.C. appropriations. Fortunately an amendment proposed by Rep.
Virgil Goode (R-VA), which prevents the federal government
from supporting Washington's domestic partnership programs (Disclaimer:
this article is from a gay publication), passed in the House last Thursday.
Liberal
activists, still excited about their recent victory in depriving the people of
Massachusetts the opportunity to vote on a marriage amendment, are now going
after a 1913 law. The law specifies that Massachusetts
cannot marry people who would not be allowed to marry in their home
state. This 1913 law is all that prevents activists from spreading
gay-marriage across the country by making Massachusetts
the “Las Vegas
of gay marriage.”
In another troublesome development in the fight to preserve traditional marriage, a Vermont judge has awarded visitation rights to the former lesbian partner of a Virginia mother. The biological mother renounced homosexuality and took her child to Virginia, but since she had been part of a “civil union” in Vermont, the judge awarded visitation rights to the former partner. This is compelling evidence of the unacceptability of “civil unions” and other attempts to tamper with the traditional definition of marriage.
For more information on the movement to defend marriage check the AdvanceUSA marriage page.
At today’s constitutional convention in Massachusetts, the legislature voted 45-151 to prevent the proposed marriage amendment, which would have protected the traditional definition of marriage, from being voted on by citizens in 2008. So judges in Massachusetts can vote on the definition of marriage, but citizens can’t?
Massachusetts has continually been in the forefront of the marriage debate. This Thursday a constitutional convention will be held in Massachusetts to determine if a proposed constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage will be placed on the 2008 ballot. If 50 members of the state legislature vote in support of the amendment, the people of Massachusetts will decide what constitutes marriage in their state. Let’s hope Massachusetts will soon start taking a positive leadership role in the marriage debate.
For more information on protecting marriage check the AdvanceUSA marriage page.
Not surprisingly, Governor Patrick has indicated that he would consider postponing the vote in the Massachusetts constitutional convention on the state’s marriage amendment in order to scrounge up enough votes to kill it. If the bill receives at least 50 votes from Massachusetts’ legislators the people of Massachusetts will be able to vote on the amendment (which would preserve the traditional definition of marriage, one man and one woman) in 2008.
If passed, this would be the first same-sex marriage bill passed by a state legislature without having had a court order them to do so.
Here’s a helpful reminder of the proposed marriage amendment in Massachusetts that would protect traditional marriage in that state from being redefined by the courts. The citizens of Massachusetts should be allowed to vote on this issue!
Radical gay groups are trying to equate opposition to homosexual marriage with opposition to racially mixed marriages. The left has no shame.
UPDATE: To see the groups' advertisement, which uses a picture Jeb Bush and his wife (a racially mixed marriage), click here.
Marriage statistics in Massachusetts reveal that the number of "gay marriages" has been falling sharply. Perhaps even homosexuals themselves aren't too excited about "gay marriage."
Since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opened the door for homosexual marriage in 2004, one of the chief concerns has been out-of-state gay couples going to Massachusetts to be married if their home state does not issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Well it turns out that the concern was valid since New Yorkers who went to Massachusetts before a New York court ruled against gay marriage have had their marriages validated by a Massachusetts judge.
|
|
|
| |