Wednesday, December 31, 2008
In the latest issue of Newsweek, editor Jon Meacham explains: "To argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt--it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition." Indeed, he continues, "this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism." Curiously, he intends this as a defense of Lisa Miller's cover story, which announces that we should approve homosexual marriage because the Bible tells that Jesus would want us to....
Miller demolishes the distinction between sin and sinner, thus eradicating any real conception of sin and guilt. But without sin and guilt there is no need for forgiveness--and no basis for morality. An amoral world may be a quite suitable environment for gay marriage, but it is hardly the kind of world in which most Americans want to bring up their children.
Second, the owner of the property is a religious organization and gay marriage is violative of that organization's beliefs, so the gay couple asserts a right to force a religion to act contrary to its beliefs. Sickening.
As a result the organization closed its doors to anyone so now even those the organization wants to rent its property for marriages and other events cannot do so.
Wake up America - the LGBT "community" cares nothing for real God-given natural rights. This case is representative of that. They are intent on destroying all natural rights and supplanting those with their own list of invented "rights."
MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. - A lesbian couple that was barred from holding a civil union ceremony at a beachfront pavilion owned by a church group has won a legal victory.
The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights said in a ruling Monday that its investigation found that the refusal of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization that owns a square-mile of beachfront property near Asbury Park, to rent the oceanfront spot to the couple for a civil union ceremony in March 2007 violated the public accommodation provisions of the state's Law Against Discrimination.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Brown's request that the California Supreme Court overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage -- arguing that it undermines fundamental liberties -- has been widely hailed as a victory in the fight for gay rights.
But far less attention has been paid to Brown's long written rejection of some of the principal legal theories put forth by same-sex marriage advocates in their bid to roll back Proposition 8. Indeed, a large chunk of Brown's 111-page legal filing was devoted to shooting down a more technical legal argument used by supporters of same-sex marriage.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Their largest single gifts came in the last year — just months before both companies collapsed and were taken over by the government.
Freddie Mac gave more than $20,000 to the 2008 fundraising gala of the Washington, D.C., chapter of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG-DC). Fannie Mae gave between $10,000 - $19,000 to the same event.
Part 3 - The California Supreme Court’s Delicate Position with Respect to the Challenge to the Anti-Same-Sex Marriage Proposition 8, and the Hurdle fo
Part 2 -Was Proposition 8 a Valid Amendment, or an Invalid Revision, to the California Constitution? And Should the Court - Or Governor Schwarzenegger
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Saying Proposition 8 violates constitutionally protected liberties, Attorney General Jerry Brown on Friday asked the California Supreme Court to strike down the same-sex marriage ban, even as supporters filed a brief that would erase the legal recognition of couples married before Election Day.
In a brief filed with the high court, the state top's lawyer argues for the first time that Proposition 8 should be invalidated, saying it is "inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty safeguarded" by the California Constitution. Brown had not taken a position on the measure until now.
"There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights," Brown said in an interview. "If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty."
Makes sense. If only marriage between one man and one woman is recognized and valid in California it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to have these 18k fiat "marriages" remain valid.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
On the whole, there shouldn’t have been a surer thing than the defeat of Proposition 8 in the California elections last month.
The activists pressing for the approval of same-sex “marriage” had all the heavyweights on their side of the issue: major corporations, big money, the media, the Hollywood elites, the California Teachers’ Association and the university big-wigs, the governor and the attorney general, and a fair portion of the legislature. Even the state’s high court climbed into the ring, ignoring past election results to legalize same-sex ceremonies in a controversial decision last spring.
Going into November, activists promoting the same-sex agenda were giving defenders of marriage a public pounding that even boxing legend Jack Dempsey might have found impressive.
And yet …the activists lost. What’s more, they’re still losing—giving up round after round in the crucial post-election bout for public sympathy. And curiously, they’re losing for the same reason the powerful Dempsey lost his heavyweight title fight in 1927.
The official Statement of the Vote has been released by the Secretary of State. Proposition 8 passed by a margin of 52.3% to 47.7%. We won by a margin of 600,000 votes: 7,001,084 to 6,401,483. To provide some context for this vote:
- Prop. 8 received 2,150,000 MORE votes than did Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was reelected in 2006
- Prop. 8 received nearly 2 million MORE votes than Dianne Feinstein did when she was reelected to the US Senate in 2006
- Prop. 8 received 250,000 MORE votes than did John Kerry when he carried California in 2004
- Prop. 8 received 45,000 MORE votes than did Barbara Boxer in her landslide reelection to the U.S. Senate in 2004
- Prop. 8 passed with approximately the same percentage of the vote that Barack Obama received nationally
You can review the county-by-county results of Proposition 8 by going to the California Secretary of State’s Web page. Click here.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Activists had billed Wednesday as "a day without a gay," when gays and lesbians across the country would call in sick, boycott shopping and show the impact of their absence from everyday life.
Designed to be a protest against the Nov. 4 passage of Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, the day's events drew only scattered support in the Bay Area, the heart of the gay rights movement, and also criticism.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Also, what is the point of this protest? Are they trying to argue that homosexuality is necessary for the well-being of the economy, as though the economy would collapse without gay workers? Their logic (or lack thereof) is truly baffling.
Some same-sex marriage supporters were urging people to "call in gay" Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others questioned whether it's wise to encourage skipping work during the nation's economic distress.
Organizers of "Day Without a Gay" - scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Hispanic immigrants - also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Newsweek magazine, one of the most influential news magazines in America, has decided to come out for same-sex marriage in a big way, and to do so by means of a biblical and theological argument. In its cover story for this week, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller offers a revisionist argument for the acceptance of same-sex marriage. It is fair to say that Newsweek has gone for broke on this question.
Miller begins with a lengthy dismissal of the Bible's relevance to the question of marriage in the first place. "Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does," Miller suggests. If so, she argues that readers will find a confusion of polygamy, strange marital practices, and worse.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Declaring "no mob veto," a full-page ad in the New York Times on Friday denounced the "violence and intimidation" directed at members of the LDS Church who supported California's ban on gay marriage.
"When thugs ... terrorize any place of worship, especially those of a religious minority, responsible voices need to speak clearly: Religious wars are wrong; they are also dangerous," reads the advertisement paid for by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, based in Washington, D.C.
See the ad here.
Read the article here.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice, working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife's purse and then the man's wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter's piggy bank and pinch every penny. "We need it for the Wall Street bailout!" they exclaim.
No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?
No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. "Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!" says the blond one with a toothy smile. "We're here to take away your rights." The Mormon zealots yank the couple's wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.
The hate continues. Now there is a website dedicated to hating Mormons for their involvement in getting Prop 8 passed. No Crowd -- you are so transparent.
"Religious leaders in America have the constitutional right to speak out on issues of public policy," Niederauer wrote in a statement posted on the archdiocese's Web site. "Catholic bishops, specifically, also have a responsibility to teach the faith, and our beliefs about marriage and family are part of this faith."
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
This was the 30th time a state has placed either a constitutional amendment proposal or its equivalent on its ballot, and the 30th time the amendment has passed.
Thirty straight wins is formidable. It's downright Globetrotter-esque. The New England Patriots didn't even go 30-0.
In twenty-nine of those statewide votes, nobody threw a tantrum.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Senator Mark Leno introduced a resolution Tuesday that would put the state Legislature on the record as opposing Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban that was approved by voters on the November ballot.
Senate Resolution 7 was co-authored by Leno (D-San Francisco), Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and the LGBT Legislative Caucus, and was sponsored by Equality California, a group dedicated to ensuring civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals.
The Yes on 8 Campaign responded.
"You'd think that these legislators would be focused on resolving the budget deficit or improving the economy. Instead, they seem more interested in grandstanding for the cameras and thumbing their noses at voters who enacted Proposition 8 by a nearly 600,000 vote margin," said Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8. "Sadly, with an approval rating hovering at an all-time low of 15%, the Legislature continues to disregard their duties to the citizens of California."
BOULDER — Anthony Hernandez started boycotting Cinemark movie theaters in 2006, when a manager asked him and an ex-boyfriend to leave a movie because other patrons didn’t like that the couple was holding hands.
So it was an easy decision to join about 50 other gay rights advocates this afternoon outside Century Boulder Theatre to protest the nearly $10,000 donation that Cinemark-Century owner Alan Stock made in support of the recently passed California proposition that prohibits same-sex marriage.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Read it here.