You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Gay marriage’ tag.

      While proponents of gay-marriage will frame any decision by the Supreme Court regarding marriage-equality (the PC term for Gay marriage) as a win, and a movement toward its full legalization, legal experts warn to the contrary. Of the ten cases that the Court can choose to hear during this session regarding this issue, the two that they are most like to take will be Windsor v. US, a Defense of Marriage Act case, and the California Proposition 8 case.

The Defense of Marriage Act

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, recently has been struck down by two federal appeals courts, which means the Supreme Court is all but obligated to take at least one of the cases to settle the dispute between Congress and the courts. The case thought most likely to be picked up by the justices is Windsor v. United States, which challenges DOMA, a law passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex married couples, even those in states that allow gay marriage.

The suit was brought by Edith Windsor, a resident of New York who paid $363,000 in estate taxes after her wife died because the federal government did not recognize their marriage. New York is one of nine states (and the District of Columbia) where gay marriage is legal, so Windsor argues that the federal government is discriminating against her by not recognizing her state-sanctioned marriage. (editor note: Ms. Windsor and her partner were married in Canada in 2007, but her partner died in 2009 in New York AFTER New York began recogonizing same sex marriages from other jurisdictions)

Windsor’s attorneys are not arguing, however, that marriage is a fundamental right that all Americans are entitled to, no matter their sexual orientation. And few experts expect the Supreme Court to make such a sweeping decision.

Proposition 8

Court watchers think the Supreme Court also will take up Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban. Voters passed Prop. 8 in 2008 months after the state’s high court had legalized same sex unions and thousands of gay Californians had already tied the knot. Two federal courts have struck down Prop. 8 as discriminatory, leaving the Supreme Court to render a final judgment

The Prop. 8 case differs from the DOMA case in one key respect:  In Prop. 8, the pro-gay marriage side is arguing that marriage is a fundamental right that should not be denied to people based on their sexual orientation. That means the Supreme Court, in theory, could issue a sweeping decision on Prop. 8 that legalizes gay marriage throughout the country and invalidates state gay marriage bans.

Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, thinks that’s unlikely. He says the justices will most likely wait for public opinion–which has just recently begun to swing in support of gay marriage–and state laws to coalesce around the issue before issuing a broad decision.

The more this percolates, the easier it is to address this in the future,” Stone said.

         In 3 states, in this past election, the VOTERS decided to permit same-sex marriage. In more than 30 States, the VOTERS have voted to the contrary, disapproving of the redifining of marriage. And the Courts have forced same-sex marriage on its citizens, and in some cases, like the Prop 8, did so AFTER the vote of the people. This issue will continue to be debated,and as Pastor Rick Warren has said, it is a welcomed debate if it is done so in the right forum and the right demeanor.

for article:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/primer-major-gay-marriage-cases-pending-supreme-court-210914785–election.html

So the COUNTDOWN continues as the US Supreme Court’s latest session nears its end.

     OBAMACARE was not among the Court decisions released this morning, but with just days left, the decision is forthcoming.

Over at the DOJ, AG Eric Holder haggles with Congress of the release of the documents relating to the botched “Fast and Furious” operation that has left AT LEAST ONE American dead as a result of the failure to monitor the operation properly.

     Then there was Friday’s mid-afternoon political ploy, with Barack Obama circumventing the laws passed by Congress regarding the immigartion status of those who came here as children, albeit illegally. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) summed up the actions of the Democrats regarding comprehensive immigration reform by saying that when Obama had the House and the Senate, he did nothing on immigration, despite campaign promises. That is because Democrats DO NOT want immigration reform, because it makes good political fodder EVERY election. The President’s Friday Immigration ploy is just like his gay marriage “evolution”: PANDERING !!!

So WHAT SAY YOU!!!??

from Brietbart:

YouTube, the Internet’s video town square, decided on Friday that Ms. McAulay’s video should not be seen. They removed it and rejected her appeal on the grounds that it did not meet their “community guidelines.” YouTube decided that the opinion expressed by Ms. McAulay was so hateful, so inflammatory, so out-of-bounds that the opinion is not suitable for their audience to hear. Ms. McAulay, in the opinion of YouTube, must be silenced.

UPDATE:  Early Monday morning, May 28, YouTube reinstated Ms. McAulay’s video.  Apparently, now the content of the video does not violate the Google-owned company’s community guidelines.  Also, as can be seen on the YouTube page, the downloads for the video are well over 25,000 despite misrepresentations by some of the more vociferous commenters on this post’s comment thread.

We congratulate Ms. McAulay for persevering and we hope the attention we brought to this matter helped YouTube to better evaluate their decision.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/05/27/Breitbart-Proudly-Hosts-Video-Banned-By-Youtube

From JAMES: This issue is not about whether or not you agree with Ms. McAulay. It is about her right to publicly voice her opinion, to express herself using her right of free speech.  Thank God that at her young age she is willing to fight for her right to that opinion, and not be siolenced by those who trashed her in the comments and in their emails to YouTube. This falls into the category of Pastor Martin Niemoller’s quote in WWII “First they came for….”

 

Madeleine McAulay, a sixteen-year-old Christian conservative from North Carolina, is speaking out today after receiving a litany of death threats and vile responses for publicly espousing her views on gay marriage.

(Related: Fake Explicit Image of S.E. Cupp Reportedly Appears in Hustler)

After North Carolina voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, McAulay made a YouTube video in which she lamented the left trying to make it a “fresh” political issue, where she noted that it is actually the 31st state to do so.

She continued:

I’m not going to lie.  I was a bit shocked to hear how [Obama] came to his conclusion for his support of gay marriage.

His daughters?

That’s right, the president of the United States now looks to his young daughters to make major decisions– and what I don’t understand is that the president is being praised for listening to his young daughters and yet I, a sixteen-year-old, when I speak my mind I’m ridiculed by the left. 

This makes no sense.

So let me just get this straight.  If I‘m young and I give into the left’s agenda, I’m praised, but I‘m young and I’m conservative, I’m evil?  Hm.

Now I want to be clear.  I don’t hate gay people, so stop trying to say that I do.  I simply believe that traditional marriage is the most productive way, and the Biblical way, to pursue a relationship…

From Brietbart.com:

It’s only Tuesday, but it has already been a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad week for the Obama campaign. Saddled with increasingly bad economic data, the campaign has been doggedly trying to change the subject to anything other than jobs and deficits. We’ve been treated to a mythical GOP “war on women”, a “debate” on birth control, a “road to Damascus” moment on gay marriage, an “expose” of Romney “bullying” in high school, and the burning question of who is a better pet owner. Unfortunately for Obama and his allies in the media, none of it is working.

Yesterday’s CBS/NYT poll makes it very clear that voters care about only one thing: The Economy. The only other issues that registers in the double-digits? Government spending and deficits–not exactly a winning issue for Obama. Not only do voters not care about the social issues Obama and the media are fixated on, there are signs that focus is backfiring. The biggest shift in voter sentiment in the CBS poll was among women, who, in just one month, shifted their support from Obama to Romney. In April, Obama had led Romney by six points among women. Today, women prefer Romney by two points.

More troubling for the White House is that 67% of registered voters believe his “conversion” on gay marriage, which sent coastal hearts aflutter, was based solely on politics, rather than any personal conviction. This is damning for a politicians whose meteoric rise was based largely on his being “above” politics. It is an Exocet missile to his entire political narrative.

For the full article: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/15/Panic-obama-campaign-already-coming-off-the-rails

This is from a recent post at Hillbuzz.org. The  “Boys” at Hillbuzz, as they refer to themselves, are not supporters of the idea of gay marriage, but do not support the manner in which the GOP wants to pursue the issue, in light of the District of Columbia legislation. JAMES points out that the view espoused by Hillbuzz about marriage vs. civil unions is very much what has been said here before:

Justin and I are both gay, but neither of us believe in “gay marriage”…any more than we believe in “gay baptism”, “gay communion”, “gay confirmation”, or “gay confession”.  ”Marriage” is a religious ceremony and it is a religious word.

Unfortunately, the state has stolen this word and repurposed it for a civil contract.

The state should not have the ability to marry anyone.  Period.

The state should have the ability to join two willing, consenting adults in a contract that forms a civil union between those two people.  That is the right job for the state.

Churches can decide to marry whomever they choose, based on their religious traditions, which the state should be separated from in all things.

If Republicans were smart, they’d change gears and throw Democrats off by putting an end to the senseless attacks on gays that relate to this crusade against “gay marriage”.  The GOP has never been able to hire a decent PR and branding firm, for whatever reason, and keeps making the same stupid mistakes because that’s just what they’ve always done and it’s programmed into them for some bizarre reason.

If they wised up, they’d instead launch a crusade against the term “gay marriage” itself, and they’d find a way to call the Left intolerant for trying to jam the church and state together.  That’s a very interesting and winning angle, making the Left the bad guy that wants to force religion into civil matters.

Republicans should clearly affirm as loudly as possible that “marriage” is a religious term and that the state should not be using that language ANYWHERE, for ANYONE.  All actions the state performs are civil in nature, by definition of that word.  The joining of two people in a legal contract is a union.  Therefore, the state’s joining of two people is a civil union.  That is what should happen at a court house, where a “civil union license” is issued…NOT a “marriage license”.

for full article: http://hillbuzz.org/2011/01/25/the-party-of-stupid-is-at-it-again-gop-pushing-for-gay-marriage-ban-in-dc/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2010/08/06/gay-tea-partiers-discuss-marriage-and-bigotry/

       Let’s be clear… this is not about homophobia, or gay rights, choice or nature.

      In the 60′s and 70′s, there was the era of “free love”, and couples living together outside of marriage became a “lifestyle”. Those who by nature and those who choose the gay lifestyle are free in this country to do so. That does not mean, however, that every facet of life is then open to them.

      Today, the federal judge in California ruled that the Prop 8 vote, wherein the citizens of California voted to ensure that marriage remained defined as between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional. In my mind, this was not unexpected. The judge has already issued a stay of his ruling so that no new same-sex marriages will occur, pending his review of his ruling in light of expected appeals.

       Marriage was not defined by our founders, nor a right enshrined in the Constitution. Instead, marriage has been defined forever, in every culture, in every religion, in every ethnicity, as the union of one man and one woman. It is also noteworthy that the states that have approved gay marriage have done so either by a Court ruling or the legislature passing the law. In any state where the issue has been placed on the ballot, it has failed.

Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Ephesians 5:31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH


PORTLAND, Maine — Gay-marriage opponents are claiming victory in a closely watched referendum in Maine on a new state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed. The law in question was passed by the Legislature in May but never took effect because of a petition drive by conservatives. With more than 84 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, the side seeking to repeal the law had 53 percent of the vote. Their campaign organizer, Frank Schubert, claimed victory and declared that Maine voters had helped preserve the institution of marriage. Gay-marriage supporters refused to concede, holding out hope that that the tide might turn as the final returns came in. They had been hoping Maine would become the first state to approve same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGQ6LMSOvL9rjDHrAmyO9mHoVieAD9BOHE5G1

UPDATE: The State of Washington is passing 51-49 their “Everything but Marriage” law, which gives same-sex couples/ domestic partnership all state granted rights and benefits that married couples have. The repeal of the Maine same-sex marriage law makes Maine the 31st state to, by popular vote, oppose same-sex marriage, or define in their Constitutions that marriage is between one man and one woman. The five states that permit same-sex marriages do so by acts of the Legislature or by Court order. Maine shows that the legislators are not necessarily legislating based on the voice of their constituency.

     The City Council of the District of Columbia is poised to permit gay marriages, despite the fact that the majority of the District do not support the move. Knowing that the Council has a mjority for the move, the Council is warning its residents that they had better not address their concerns to the District’s overseers: The United States Congress.

     From Townhall.com:

This past week, DC city council member Jack Evans vehemently warned DC citizens that if they took their concerns about marriage to Capitol Hill there would be grave “consequences.” Knowing that he and his colleagues have garnered the votes they need to pass a same-sex marriage law in DC, he thought that he would flex his political muscles. After repeating his threats in several different ways he summarized the essence of his warning, “Proceed at your own peril.”

The full post: http://townhall.com/columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2009/10/30/democracy_is_shrinking_in_dc

JAMES on Twitter

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 124 other followers